Indianapolis Plan Offers a Practical Option

Views from Our Readers

August 14, 2019

5:31 PM

Letter writing

Photo by aaron-burden-64849-unsplash.jpg

The Traditional Plan supports and legitimizes the continued discrimination by The United Methodist Church of persons identifying as LGBTQIA+. Whereas equal-opportunity employment and the right to choose any marriage partner are settled law in the United States, the UMC is holding onto archaic and polarizing, bigoted and sanctimonious notions of what should be right and fair. Indeed, if this practice were to be tested in the courts the UMC would be found to be in violation of federal law and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Despite recent passage of a One Church Resolution by the North Texas Conference with 80% of clergy and laity approving, the One Church Plan is an unholy alliance and does not deserve to prevail any more than the Traditional Plan does. Under this Plan the faction of the UMC that is biased against persons who identify as LGBTQIA+ would be allowed to continue its practice of employment discrimination and unequal access to the marriage sacrament, and the segment of the UMC that wants to be fair and equal would, nevertheless, be expected to overlook the ugly practice of those churches and pastors who don't choose to be fair and equal.

I rode the school buses in 1975 to monitor the court order to desegregate the Dallas Public schools, basically to promote safe transportation for the children. All the schools were involved; no schools were exempt. Let me reiterate: No schools were allowed to discriminate while others were required to provide equal access to education. Apply that to the United Methodist Church: There can be no rationale for a proposal in which part of the church is allowed to adopt fair employment practices and enlightened wedding policies but forced to turn a blind eye to the other part of the church, which would be allowed to continue its blatant discrimination.

Although a majority of churches and pastors may agree with the "Progressive" view of full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals, there will still be "Traditionalists" and "Centrists" who will also want to call themselves some form of United Methodist. Fortunately, the Indianapolis Plan calls for amicable separation, with "legal continuation," into as many as three expressions or denominations. This would seem to be a practical, if not perfect, "way forward."

M. William "Bill" Dunklau

Dallas, TX

Comments (9)

Comment Feed

It is not about discrimination

It is about our perceptions of who God is, who we are in relation and what God's intent for us is--none of which is dictated by civil law. Bottom line is you have absolutely no understanding of the traditionalist viewpoint which is grounded in an historic understanding of the Christian faith. For starters it has absolutely nothing in common with modern fundamentalism which is probably what you are actually taking exception to and I do too.

betsy more than 5 years ago

Bill

There's nothing in the Indy Plan which stops the fifty year decline and dying of a sick organization

Richard F Hicks more than 5 years ago

I disagree

While I agree with your final sentence praising the Indianapolis Plan as a viable solution to our impasse, I must disagree with everything else you’ve postulated. The US courts are barred by the First Amendment from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Church is not a governmental entity or secular institution like a public school. Further, you start from a total bias against Traditional Christian Orthodoxy. I also question your assertion that “a majority” of churches within the global UMC support allowing self-avowed practicing homosexuals to be ordained and gay weddings within their sanctuaries.

John more than 5 years ago

The fundamental flaw

Bill, I completely agree with your support for the Indianapolis Plan. We've got an unsustainable division within the body for us to attempt to stay together. Hardcore traditionalists and hardcore progressives cannot foresee remaining with each other, and both groups see those in the center as too compromising as well. But your attempt to measure ecclesiastic policy by US law is immaterial, irrespective of the conclusion. Christ's church is not accountable to any temporal, civil body--anywhere, or at any time. It is accountable solely to God, and only God's standards are appropriate to measure it by. Obviously, the UMC is being torn apart because we cannot agree on what those standards are--but civil law is entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand.

John more than 5 years ago

Separation of Church and State

Agree totally. Most Progressives vehemently protest encroachment of religion into government, but now use government edicts to change church policy. One more example of hypocrisy.

Dave more than 5 years ago

Indianapolis Plan

Interesting stuff. But, mostly wonkishly irrelevant to the pew-sitters.

While you lay and clergy ecclesiastical aficionados debate the finer points of the inevitable divorce settlement, a whole bunch of laypeople watch with mounting disgust the debate that is essentially focused on, and driven by, the clergy.

Every congregation in 25 years that I pastored had gay & lesbian members and no one gave a rat’s…anatomy. They were accepted for who there were – church members in equal standing.

Then, along comes the LGBTQAI+XYZ clergy who decide they have the divine right to disregard the BoD and do whatever feels right. They’re supported, often, by spineless PC bishops who, often, sanction their disregard for UMC polity. How can they do that? Well, they wave their shepherd’s staff like a wand, and so it is.

So here we are, debating the minutiae of a Rube Goldberg Plan that won’t work.

Just split the sheets and get on with it. It's getting/gotten boring. .

Rev. Dr. Lee D Cary (ret.) more than 5 years ago

Not quite

"Every congregation in 25 years that I pastored had gay & lesbian members and no one gave a rat’s…anatomy. They were accepted for who there were – church members in equal standing."

Correct. Because they couldn't be married, per US law.

The law changed. Now those same folks are NOT "church members in equal standing." You should go and ask them if they feel that they are.

JR more than 5 years ago

It's a matter of priority

From the secular, civil side its a matter of the State not interfering with church matters. (By the way, what's prohibited is the State promoting or prohibiting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, meaning a state-sponsored church, not Christianity vs Islam vs Hinduism, etc.) From the kingdom side, it's a matter of following Christ above ALL else. Civil concerns are always secondary at best.

John more than 5 years ago

Establishment incorrect

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.

[Nothing to do with an actual building.]

JR more than 5 years ago