A Proposal for Moving Forward

by

Special to United Methodist Insight

The aftermath of the February 2019 called General Conference has produced a dizzying array of plans and statements attempting to chart a course forward for the United Methodist Church.  Various groups in the American church have proposed competing plans, such as the Indianapolis Plan, the Next Generation UMC Plan, and the N.E.W. Plan, to allow the church to separate into new denominations based on their views on the marriage and ordination of gay people.  These plans have been met with concern in Africa and the Phillipines, which have issued statements stressing the importance of a united church and a desire to be included in the conversation.  Adding to the confusion is the regional conference plan proposed by the Connectional Table, which would make structural changes to allow the American church to operate much like a central conference, including the ability to make changes to the Discipline appropriate for the context of its ministry.  Similar regional approaches are suggested in a statement from Filipino church and the proposal by a group called Pangkaksia.

It’s quite enough to make one’s head spin. The way forward seems murky at best. How can one approach this grab bag of plans, proposals, and statements and begin to make sense of them?  And how can we engage in the productive conversation necessary to discern the future of the church?  We need to find a shared language to discuss our visions for the future that will allow all to participate, allow all to hear and be heard.  We need to find some common ground that will make real dialogue about our future possible.

I’m suggesting that the UMC mission statement might be a useful starting point for our discussions: “Making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.“  It’s grounded in Christ’s Great Commission, yokes the traditional Wesleyan values of personal and social holiness, and is known by all.  This statement of who we are might provide enough common ground to lead to productive discussions about who we will become.  In other words, when discussing possible visions of the church’s future, perhaps we could consider how they might further God’s world-transformative work through the making disciples of Christ. 

How would this help?  Well, here’s how the current situation might be evaluated using the UMC mission statement as a criterion:

In the last generation, perhaps the most singular success of the UMC in disciple making has been in the growth of the church in Africa and the Philippines.  That was enabled by a United Methodist Church, and viewed from perspective of our mission statement, one can see the wisdom in the calls for continued unity from the African and Filipino church.  Whatever our future, if we are to fulfill God’s disciple-making, world-transforming mission, we need unified support for the global church.  We need to continue to support the UMC’s successes in those parts of the world.

However, equally clear is that the current unity is not stable. The American context of ministry is very different than that in Africa and other parts of the world, particularly around issues of human sexuality.  Large chunks of the American church are talking about leaving if prohibitions against gay marriage and ordination remain in place, and the results during last Annual Conference season indicate that a substantial majority of the American church rejects the Traditional Plan adopted by GC2019.  Gay marriage is legal in the United States and Americans support it by a large margin.  This is the reality of the ministry in the United States.

If the American Church is to have success in the making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, it needs some freedom to minister in the context it finds itself.  As The Philippines Central Conference recently put it: “being responsive to our missional context is obligatory.”  In this regard, the proposals of the Connectional Table and Pangkaksia, which suggest a regional conference to oversee church governance in the United States, have the best potential for success.  This approach would preserve church unity by, in effect, giving the American church the same authority that the central conferences have to make changes and adaptations to the Book of Discipline “as the special conditions and the mission of the church in the area require.”  (Discipline ¶543.7.)   It would allow the Americans to adapt the Discipline for a ministry in the United States without discrimination against LGBTQ persons in marriage and ministry.

Such changes will take time to implement, and the crisis in the American church has reached an acute stage.  If we are to maintain unity along these lines, a moratorium against disciplinary actions around LGBTQ issues in the United States would need to be put into place while new structures are created.  Splintering of the church would otherwise be inevitable.

The truth is, however, that such changes would likely not be fruitful for the making of disciples of Jesus Christ in all parts of the American church.  Many of a more traditional view would likely find these changes would actually be a barrier to its ministry, preventing those to whom they minister from hearing the Good News of Jesus Christ; likewise, some of a progressive bent may find it does not go far enough, also creating impediments for the making of disciples.  Numerous proposals by US-based groups have been developed in response to this reality, seeking to, in the words of the Indianapolis Plan, “release one another to joyful obedience to Christ’s call on our lives.”

It may well be that for some segments of the American church, separation may be the best way forward in the contexts in which they minister. Still, God’s disciple-making, world-transforming mission for the church provides a starting point in evaluating the various proposals that have been made.  For example:

  • What commitments toward global unity should be asked of American churches that wish to form a new denomination?  For example, the Indianapolis Plan provides for funding of the Central Conferences by new denominations over the next two quadrennia, while the Next Generation UMC Plan allows new denominations to enter into ecumenical relationships that would allow support of general boards and agencies. 
  • What rules governing transfers to a new expression of Methodism best enable disciple-making?  The Indianapolis Plan allows local churches to choose by a simple majority vote, while the Next Generation UMC Plan requires a two-thirds majority to leave the denomination.  Would a simple majority vote rule serve to build the church’s witness by a perception of fairness?  Or would it be short-sighted, leading to rancorous battles in the local churches that would be ultimately destructive, arguing in favor of the two-thirds rule?
  • What funds do new expressions take with them?  Both the Indianapolis Plan and the N.E.W. Plan propose distributions of general church assets to new denominations.  The Next Generation UMC Plan, on the other hand, provides for grants to new denominations to be paid out of the general church’s budget for the next quadrennium.  Realizing that we are a church, not a business corporation, how could the funds of the current church be used to best support disciple-making and world-transforming by both the church going forward and any new expressions of Methodism? 

The answers to these questions are not obvious and will require prayer and honest discussion in the months come.  And whether the UMC mission statement or some other shared set of values are used as a framework in these discussions, we need to find a common language in which everyone can join as we think about the future.  We need to remember this is Christ's church, not our church, and therefore we should be looking for common ground that keeps God’s call for all of us at the center of discussions of our future, rather than arguing from particular parochial interests.

As a final note, let us remember that we are not on our own.  As the Discipline explains in the rationale for its mission statement, “God’s grace is active everywhere, at all times, carrying out this purpose as revealed in the Bible.” (Discipline ¶121.)  At the end of the Great Commission, Jesus says “Lo, I am with you always.”  God is working in the UMC even in this time of crisis.  If we are willing to listen to God and each other, we will find the way forward that God intends for us.

Edmund Baird is a member St. Stephen's United Methodist Church in Burke, Va., and has served as a lay member of the Virginia Annual Conference.