GC2020 – The WCA Support for the Indianapolis Plan – Reading the Fine Print

by

During the years I practiced law I heard many truisms.  One I remember concerned insurance policies.  It goes like this: “The large print giveth, the fine print taketh away.”  Insurance policies give the policy holder rights, those rights are always in large print.  The policy also includes exclusions and limitations which constrain the rights that were granted; those are usually in fine print.  Hence the statement, “you need to read the fine print”.

Press releases, new articles and blog posts are somewhat like that. The headline is the large print which makes a big point, usually the explanatory text is the fine print that clarifies and limits the big point made in the headline.  That’s why we sometimes read analyses of news stories that will point out that important facts are “buried” in the story.

The recent WCA Press Release made a significant announcement that was headlined in ten words:  “Wesleyan Covenant Association Council Endorses Indianapolis Plan for Amicable Separation”.  The press release can be found here.    Reading the ten word headline one might conclude that a line has been drawn in the sand and at GC2020 the WCA will be giving the Indianapolis Plan its full unconditional support.  That’s the large print.  However, the press release contained fine print that explained the headline.

The real heart of the press release is its description of a resolution adopted by the thirty five member governing council of the WCA.  The press release quotes the resolution as follows:  “We regretfully support the separation of The United Methodist Church, and in doing so, we support the principles outlined in the Indianapolis Plan for Amicable Separation. If a mutually agreeable plan of separation does not occur, we support the full implementation of the Traditional Plan.”

First, the WCA is supporting the separation of the United Methodist Church.  The WCA position is not an outlier; in fact, the idea that separation is needed may be the majority view in the United States portion of the United Methodist Church. Since the time that the Bard Jones plan was presented, there has been more public recognition that separation in the U.S. church needs to occur.  In my opinion, there was a period of time when the United Methodist Church in the U.S. was singing its own version of the classic Gladys Knight and the Pips’ song “Neither one of us”.  That song lamented: “I guess neither one of us wants to be the first to say good bye”.  Considering the positions taken by the WCA, UMCNext, UM Forward and others, we seem to be past that point.  The fact that the WCA has “regretfully” come to that conclusion recognizes the poignancy of the time we face.  I sense that the WCA is not the only entity or person coming to that conclusion with regret.

Second, the WCA has supported the principles outlined in the Indianapolis Plan.  There are a number of outlined principles and those will be discussed in a future post.  One needs to bear in mind that the principles in the plan are the result of compromise.  Thus, endorsing the principles outlined in the plan indicates that the WCA, at some level, is willing to reach a compromise that is already embodied in the plan’s principles.

Third, and probably most importantly, the endorsement of the Indianapolis plan of separation appears to be conditional.  In my mind, the important limiting principle is stated as follows: “If a mutually agreeable plan of separation does not occur . . .”  This could be read one of two ways.  One way to read it is that the Indianapolis Plan is the only “mutually agreeable plan of separation” that is acceptable.  Alternatively, one could read the statement to mean that some future “mutually agreeable plan of separation” may be negotiated.  I think the second reading is what is intended.  However, I offer this caution; I’m not a WCA member and I’m certainly not privy to the organization’s deliberations.  When I offer an opinion I’m doing my best to discern unstated intentions.  Why do I think the second reading is better?

The pre-petition period for reaching a plan passed by on September 19, 2019.  The church is now in a period when serious thought and grace filled discussions can occur prior to GC 2020 being convened.  That’s the main reason I think a “mutually agreed plan of separation” might mean one that may still be negotiated.

In my estimation, as a practical matter working out a plan of separation during this time period will involve two major U.S. players: UMCNext and the WCA.  In an ideal world other groups should have a voice and their interests should be considered, but the reality is that if UMCNext and the WCA reach an agreement, they probably have sufficient combined delegate support to pass a compromise plan of separation. Their responsibility in any bilateral negotiations that may occur is to also consider other interests and reach the right balance of a plan that can be passed and one that will work after passage while minimizing collateral damage.  Their responsibility is a heavy burden if bilateral negotiations between the two groups occur.   In negotiating a plan they also have to be mindful of the reaction of their supporters.  Of course, if the plan of separation involves resolution of some or all of the underlying issues causing separation, reaching a compromise plan is even more difficult.  In looking at the problem this way, I’m not suggesting that any compromise plan is merely politics.  I believe that each group has prayerfully  arrived at their position through a process of discernment.  In my opinion, the Plain Grace Plan offers the best option for the process of separation but it does not address the underlying issues such as definitions addressing human sexuality and marriage and concerns regarding enforcement of the discipline.  Resolution of these underlying issues probably will be part of the process of a negotiated plan of separation, even if the resolution is only temporary while the separation process is completed.

Fourth, assuming  a mutually agreed plan of separation is WCA’s “Option A”, the final important point about the resolution is that it clearly identifies WCA’s “Option B”.  If a compromise plan of separation cant be reached, the WCA will fully support implementation of the Traditional Plan.  Some could say that this “sets the stage” for an ugly GC 2020, but the reality is that this is merely recognition of the currently existing situation.  If a compromise isn’t reached, it is highly probable that there will be an floor fight at GC 2020 over human sexuality issues. Recognizing reality doesn’t cause events. As I’ve talked to people across the theological spectrum I think everyone recognizes this reality.  I don’t blame anyone as the cause of the events just because they’ve reached the opinion that the events may occur

As I mentioned above, I’m not a member of the WCA . Nor have I attended the Church of the Resurrection Leadership Institute or other events sponsored by other groups of people affiliated by virtue of their membership in the United Methodist Church.  I’m merely an onlooker trying to prepare myself for the GC2020 process that will occur from May 5-20, 2020.  I don’t expect anyone to agree with things I write or the opinions I express here, but I think it helps the entire process to let people peek behind the curtain and see how at least one delegate is approaching the task.  My views are neither final nor are they the official position of any organization with whom I’m affiliated.  They may or may not offer suggestions as to how I might vote on an issue if its presented at GC 2020.  Hopefully, my posts can be a vehicle to promote thoughtful dialogue and discernment.

As always, thanks for investing your time by reading this post and considering the points in it.

COME HOLY SPIRIT.

United Methodist layman Frank Holbrook of Martin, Tenn., is the author of the "Plain Grace" plan submitted to General Conference 2020. This post is republished with permission from his blog, "Plane Grace."