UM Forward's NEW Plan

First in a Series of Analyses by 'Plane Grace'

by

This is Plane Grace’s first in a series of analyses of some of the petitions filed in advance of GC 2020. The series will primarily focus on plans for separation, or as separation is sometimes called, multiplication. For my “ground rules” regarding the analyses you can read this post.

I begin the series with the petition submitted by UM Forward proposing the NEW Plan. The NEW plan name is based on an acronym for New Expressions Worldwide. It is, as promised new, but its also measured and thoughtful. The plan may be found here. Frequently asked questions may be found here.  If you read the FAQs it is fair to note that the FAQ website states: “Please note that this is a work in progress. These questions and answers are being perfected through collective wisdom and community feedback.” This is certainly a reasonable approach and understandable given my experience with the Plain Grace Plan; a proposed plan receives plenty of wisdom and feedback, so one should appreciate UM Forward’s measured approach to FAQs.

The petition itself begins by recognizing the need for separation. As I wrote in this post, there seems to be a growing trend towards separation. Therefore, one should not overlook the fact that UM Forward’s plan is in basic agreement with the goal of separation that also is the cornerstone of the Bard Jones Plan, The Indianapolis Plan and is a part of the UMCNext Plan. If you aggregate the people supporting separation my rough impression is that the number well exceeds 50%. My rough sense may be wrong. But if I’m right, the real issue is whether the various factions can agree to a plan of separation, not whether separation should occur.

UM Forward has offered, in a clear and concise manner, the four underlying areas that it believes causes the disagreement that currently exists within the UMC: “Christology (understanding of the person and ministry of the resurrected Christ Jesus of Nazareth), biblical interpretation (understanding of the role of holy Scripture), ecclesiology (understanding of how church is organized), and social ethics (understanding of the church’s role in society)”. While others might add some additional areas, UM Forward seems to have hit the nail on the head in identifying key areas of disagreement. To me, it seems that UM Forward is agreeing that “homosexuality” is the presenting issue for a deeper conflict within the denomination. I think UM Forward has that right. I find this to be a well thought out, concise and measured rationale for proposing the plan. [To the extent this post uses the term “homosexuality” while discussing the plan, it is doing so since the plan uses that term.]

The NEW Plan envisions the United Methodist Church dissolving before 2024 (point 3) and separating into four new denominations. The petition expressly uses the term “denomination” instead of “expression”. It appears that the petition recognizes that to many readers using denomination adds clarity to the debate; as I have noted elsewhere, denomination and expression may be thought of as synonyms in our current discussions. I’m unaware of anyone who has drawn a principled distinction between the terms. I’ll confess that as I’ve written about the Plain Grace Plan often I’ve been tempted to use “denomination” rather than “expression” because it makes what is being proposed clearer. As an aside, I think the use of “expression” sometimes is more appropriate. For example, if UM Forward had not used “expression” in its acronym then this would be the NDW plan [New Denominations Worldwide]. I think most people would agree with me that the NDW Plan has a lot less cachet than the NEW Plan.

The four new denominations envisioned by the NEW Plan are: “Traditionalist Methodist Church, Moderate Methodist Church, Progressive Methodist Church, and Liberation Methodist Church” and the plan recognizes that the “names are temporary placeholders until the new denominations organize and self-determine”. At the FAQ website, listed above, UM Forward provides their distinction between Progressives and Liberationists: “While there are many overlapping values between the two, Liberationists differ significantly in our foundational practice of faith and vision for the church. While Progressives may be defined by a desire to include all people in the church’s current form, Liberationists are interested in radically reimagining the ways we relate to one another and the world. We desire to be a church where the marginalized are centered, power is redistributed, and we are free to enflesh radical actions of prophetic love in solidarity with movements for justice taking place globally.” This definition helps clarify the NEW Plan.

Having the United Methodist Church divide into four mandated denominations is one area that I question. If self-determination is a value then why limit the new denominations to four? I understand that four is a reasonable option and it might be a number that I would choose if I was the decision maker. My underlying disagreement is with the idea that the United Methodist Church should either limit or require a number for new denominations. This is a part of what I term “ruling from the grave”. As a shameless plug for the Plain Grace Plan, I’ll note that it agrees with the value of self determination but it proposes allowing any number of groups to attempt to organize a new expression (denomination) of Methodism.

The NEW Plan also notes that the new denominations “may” be in full communion. Using the permissive language “may” makes full communion optional. Would this option be something the new denominations decide or would it be imposed as part of the Plan of Separation? What are the terms of the full communion? The NEW Plan is silent on these points.

The NEW plan proposes calling a Special General Conference before 2024 to deal with all the “practical, legal and financial considerations”. The Special General Conference would be asked to consider a Plan of Separation presented by a “Transitional Council’. I believe there are several problems with the Transitional Council approach used in the NEW Plan.

First, who appoints or elects the Transitional Council? Although the council is charged with the huge responsibility of developing a plan of separation, there is no indication how the council will be created.  The makeup of the council would undoubtedly be a hotly contested issue. Does this selection process happen as a part of GC 2020 or does it occur afterward? If it occurs after GC 2020, then the time taken to select the council reduces the time available to craft a Plan of Separation. The UMCNext petition suggests something similar to the Transitional Council but it proposes a 32 member group selected by the Council of Bishops. Would UM Forward be comfortable with the Council of Bishops selecting the Transitional Council? If not, how should the Transitional Council be selected. This “detail” is omitted from the plan and it is no minor point.

Second, the NEW Plan assumes that the Transitional Council will be able to solve all the “practical, legal and financial considerations” involved in dissolving the United Methodist Church in less than four years. That’s a pretty big task. It’s even larger than one may realize since the Transitional Council will have to seek input and information from people and institutions across the denomination. Given that need, who will provide staff support for the Transitional Council and how much will it cost? The NEW plan is silent on these points.

Third, the NEW Plan assumes that the Transitional Council will be able to agree on a Plan of Separation to present to the Special General Conference called before 2024. Reaching agreement on a task as large as the one delegated to the Transitional Council would be extremely difficult even in optimal circumstances with substantial resource support. However, the NEW Plan complicates the task, and creates hurdles to reaching agreement, by requiring the proposed Plan of Separation to address “restorative justice, and reparations”. Without debating the need for such matters to be addressed, one must at least agree that these issues probably contribute to the current divide in the United Methodist Church. In fact the plan itself recognizes this issue as one of the causes driving separation [“social ethics (understanding of the church’s role in society)”]. Is it realistic to believe that a Transitional Council will be able to agree on these issues while the divide is one that runs deep in the church? And even if the Transitional Council does reach an agreement, is it reasonable to assume that a Special General Conference will accept the proposed plan? Many have said that part of the rancor of GC 2019 was caused by the unanticipated defeat of the One Church Plan. Will the Transitional Council be better at predicting the will of the pre-2024 Special General Conference than the Commission on the Way Forward and Council of Bishops were in predicting the will of GC 2019? The NEW Plan seems to assume that that will be the case. I’m not convinced that is correct.

In addition to the issues surrounding the Transitional Council and Plan of Separation, the NEW Plan has another, probably unintentional issue. Assuming the issue is unintentional it could easily be corrected with a technical amendment. Point 5 of the NEW Plan calls for an immediate moratorium on charges, complaints, and church trials related to ¶161, ¶304.3, ¶ 310.2, ¶341.6, ¶613.19, ¶806.9, and ¶2702.1(b). Most of these references point to specific sub-paragraphs of the Book of Discipline that address homosexuality.

However the call for a moratorium on all charges, complaints and trials under ¶161 seems to be unintentionally over broad. Sub-paragraph 161 G) addresses the issue of human sexuality and I presume that this was the intended reference for the NEW Plan. If not, then the plan creates a moratorium on a host of issues addressed by the social principles including sexual abuse, sexual assault, pornography and bullying. In a legal reading of the document, having the other references in the moratorium addressed to specific sub-paragraphs creates an implication that the NEW Plan intended to create a moratorium on all conduct mentioned in ¶161. If this broad moratorium is actually intended, it will be a very large pill for GC 2020 to swallow. I assume that UM Forward could propose a technical clarifying amendment to change the reference to ¶161 to ¶161 G).

CONCLUSION

The NEW Plan should be commended for those areas where it contains great clarity and for its even-handed approach to solving the current issues. In reading the plan, one gets a sense of a desire for an amicable parting that includes a blessing to others. Overall, I found the plan surprisingly good. I guess I was expecting it to be adversarial and it generally isn’t. The main areas of advocacy are identified above: (1) the New Plan’s proposed moratorium of charges, complaints and trials and (2) its inclusion of “restorative justice, and reparations” as part of the Plan of Separation.

However, in my opinion, by proposing a Transitional Council, the NEW Plan is aspirational; the plan doesn’t provide a clear path for implementation. Adopting the plan would carry many of the same disputed issues into a new arena: the Transitional Council. The dispute, particularly as to the need for “restorative justice, and reparations” would inevitable re-surface at the Special General Conference.

Nonetheless, as I read the NEW Plan and its FAQs I found myself constantly considering whether the Plain Grace Plan meets their objectives. I believe it does. In a future post I’ll explain why.

Frank Holbrook is a General Conference 2020 delegate from the Memphis Annual Conference. This post is republished with permission from his blog, Plane Grace.