-Rev. Dr. Christopher M. Ritter
The Jurisdictional Plan for preserving the United Methodist Church has received a good deal of attention and for that I am humbled. (See “Preserving the United Methodist Church through Strategic Disunity”) It calls for the re-envisioning of our U.S. jurisdictions to give us the space we need from each other to pursue our divergent approaches to scripture and ministry. Well over a thousand of you checked out the plan over the weekend and I am told that it has made its way into the roster of possible solutions being assembled by our bishops. Comments from both the left and right sides of our denomination indicate it might be preferable to either complete schism or the Hamilton/Slaughter proposal that makes each church and annual conference ongoing battlegrounds for issues of human sexuality.
The proposed solution begins with the premise that American Methodism has historically used jurisdictions to manage the issues that divide us. This was true in the racially-segregated Central Jurisdiction created in 1939 and the geographic jurisdictional conferences that were retained in our 1968 merger to protect regional interests in the assignment of bishops. The Jurisdictional Plan calls for the elimination of our (relatively useless) five geographically-defined jurisdictions, replacing them with two non-geographic U.S. jurisdictions organized around our divergent approaches to scripture and ministry.
Once approved at General Conference and ratified, each U.S. annual conference would take a crucial vote to affiliate with the jurisdiction that best meets their missional aims. Conference property would go with the majority. Those in each conference who feel they cannot live with the decision of their conference would have a time window in which to join the other jurisdiction without penalty. Jurisdictional committees would redraw conference boundaries as needed and displaced clergy would be found a new home. Our U.S. bishops would each choose to be part of one of the two new jurisdictions. The end result would be two systems of United Methodist conferences that stretch across the United States, providing double coverage everywhere. The most divisive issues would be relegated to the new jurisdictions and we would continue to relate to one another as a global church under the rubric of our United Methodist General Conference.
What follows is a list of questions and responses based on some of the comments I have received:
What is retained under the Jurisdictional Plan?
The United Methodist Church! Our global connection would continue as would beloved institutions like UMCOR. Pensions and property are duly accounted for. Everyone gets to continue to call themselves “United Methodists”. The General Conference functions spelled out in Article IV of our constitution would remain unchanged. Annual Conferences, especially in areas where there is greater consensus, would be relatively unaffected. Those churches and clergy without strong feelings on either side of our most divisive issue can go along with the majority of their conference and “decide not to decide.”
What would we gain by following this plan?
Restraints placed upon Progressives that wish to conduct same-sex weddings and ordain gay clergy would be removed only within the more progressive jurisdiction. Conservatives/Evangelicals would gain greater freedom to design mission and ministry in keeping with their vision of scripture. The likelihood of serving under a like-minded bishop is enhanced. Churches and pastors who find themselves in the minority of their annual conference would have the opportunity to affiliate with a different conference. Above all, the goal would be to move past the divisive infighting and focus externally on mission and ministry.
How is this better than total schism?
We are simply trading geographic segregation for ideological segregation. We would retain our distinction of being the only mainline denomination to not totally split over this issue. We would not be tied up in endless legal battles like the Episcopalians/Anglicans over property.
How would this be better than the “A Way Forward for a United Methodist Church” Plan championed by Adam Hamilton?
The Hamilton plan puts the local church and annual conference in constant battle over issues related to human sexuality. Congregations would be subject to pressure from pastors who wish to change their stance and be helpless in preventing their pastor from going a different direction than their chosen course. Churches could also be targeted by vocal people with an agenda. A bishop could stack the Board of Ordained Ministry and apply pressure to reject or accept homosexual candidates according to their wishes. In the flux back and forth, lives and ministries would be injured. The “Way Forward” isn’t one at all. (See my post “Four Reasons Why ‘A Way Forward for A United Methodist Church’… Isn’t”) The Jurisdictional Plan, while not painless, creates a safe and stable environment for two different philosophies of ministry to play themselves out.
What would look different under this plan?
Two United Methodist congregations in the same city might well be part of two different jurisdictions, two different annual conferences, and accountable to two separate bishops. Conference lines would shift to create two networks of overlapping annual conferences that doubly cover the entire nation. Some churches and pastors might find themselves in a geographically large annual conference, especially those churches that are different than the other United Methodist Churches around them. For instance, the conservative churches and pastors on the West Coast might find themselves in an annual conference as large as the current Western Jurisdiction.
How could this Jurisdictional Solution be implemented?
There are two ways this plan can be utilized. First, it could be kept in our back pockets as each side arrives “locked and loaded” to General Conference 2016. One side will win and one side will lose. We could pull this plan out of our back pockets in an attempt to keep the losing side from exiting or defying the actions of General Conference. The better way to use this plan is to come to General Conference 2016 with it in our front pockets. To accomplish this, key bishops (or even the Council of Bishops itself) could endorse the plan as our preferred way forward. Endorsements could also be sought from key voices on the right and left, as well as from past General Conference delegates (including those from the central conferences.) A legislative package could be assembled that would flesh out the necessary changes. Endorsements by annual conferences and candidates for General Conference could be sought in 2015. If we went into General Conference 2016 with majority consensus around this solution, it would give our quadrennial gathering the spirit of a Constitutional Convention to equip our church for the next generation of ministry rather than the atmosphere of a bloody coliseum where two enter and only one side emerges alive.
What about our Social Principles?
It is time to re-envision the U.S.-centered Social Principles for the needs of our global church. I suggest that we keep only the preamble of our Social Principles in The Book of Discipline to serve as the denomination’s vision for the church’s role in society. The specifics should be fleshed out by the jurisdictional and central conferences.
What about general church apportionments, boards, and agencies?
The goal in implementing this plan should be avoid future conflicts between the jurisdictions around ideology. One bishop commenting on my plan mentioned that the more conservative jurisdiction might one day object to paying the salary of a LGBTQ bishop elected in the more progressive jurisdiction. For this reason, it might be logical to move the Episcopal Fund to the jurisdictional and central conference levels. The University Senate, likewise, is a structure that might best function at the jurisdictional level as ordination standards would rest with the jurisdictions. I see no reason to radically rework agencies like the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits. Being someone not overly familiar with the intricate workings of the general boards and agencies, I will rely on greater minds to come along with a proposal for appropriately accounting for their important work.
How could one tell the difference between a progressive United Methodist congregation and a congregation from the more conservative jurisdiction?
I am not sure, but I trust congregations would find a way to make that distinction in those areas where that might be helpful.
Is this similar to what was attempted in 2008?
In 2008 a plan was passed at General Conference for segregating out the Central Conferences from decisions about ministry in the United States. It was viewed in some annual conferences (which failed to ratify the necessary changes) as an attempt to neutralize the conservative and growing influence of the African vote on social issues. The Jurisdictional Plan is very honest in its intention and can be assessed at face value. Some of the legislative work done in 2008, however, can be brought to bear on this new plan.
What would remain of the global connection that is United Methodism?
We need to look at this season as an opportunity to design our church to fit our new global context. We will be a majority African denomination soon if current trends continue. Giving more decision-making power to the jurisdictional level of our church will make the general church a bit more like something akin to the Anglican Communion. The continuing mission would be to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world and, hopefully, the Jurisdictional Solution will free us all to focus on that mission more sharply.
Let me know what you think. Is this something that could work? Is there a better plan out there? If so, what and why?
People Need Jesus 
I would like to see someone address the question from a Scriptural authority viewpoint rather than a human sexuality viewpoint. “The Bible says…” is non-authoritative because we have showered grace on many issues about which the Bible is expressly clear…divorce, women speaking in church and slavery are a few examples.
So, when is an issue culturally confined to the first century and when is it binding forever? What is the theology that informs that decision-making?
Are we willing to violate a clear command from Jesus over an issue about which he never speaks? How can “Love One Another” be less compelling than a societal or sexual issue? Isn’t it more aggregious to disobey an actual command from Jesus than to divide a denomination over an issue barely in Scripture?
From a human sexuality standpoint, I cannot grasp why we are not putting our considerable weight and influence behind eliminating or, at least, minimizing the power of pornography.
Julia, the intent of this plan is to partition off that very debate. You stated the argument of one side very eloquently, but at the end of the day we disagree as a church so deeply that we cannot live peacefully under the same set of rules. This is a way to avoid complete schism and give each church and pastor greater freedom in ministry. Thanks for commenting.
Chris, I think your proposal has merit, in fact, great merit. One very pragmatic issues comes to mind, the relative size of the two jurisdictions. It may be that one of the 2 new jurisdictions has 4 or 5 times the number of annual conferences (and local churches) than the other jurisdiction. I wonder if there should also be a size formula included so that, hypothetically speaking, if the progressive jurisdiction warrants only one conference, and the “conservative/evangelical” jurisdiction warrants two or three conferences, this factor could be included in the proposal.
I value your feedback immensely Randy. You have led our General Conference delegation and have clarity that I don’t have on what might be implementible. I am under the assumption the nealy the entire Western Jurisdiction and many conferences on the East Coast would go with the more progressive jurisdiction given their past votes and stances. I assumes General Conference delegations would continue to be formulated significantly around size of membership. I would love to work with you widening the circle of people working on this
Chris, you offer some creative thinking here and I appreciate that. If this were enacted, it would offer one means of addressing discord. Two items come to mind, however, as I read your recommendation.
“Issue-based jurisdictions.” While I know this is part of our denominational history I can’t help but wonder about what happens when the next two or three divisive issues arise…on top of the current issue. The trajectory would suggest that we could end up with even more jurisdictions based on one’s desire to align with fundamental issues. Methodist history, fortunately, allowed time to work through the issue of legalized slavery and to coalesce once again, but what if additional fracturing had occurred over prohibition and other societal tensions?
“Increased focus/pressure on the local church.” While your model makes reference to a possible disconnect between pastor and parish, it doesn’t necessarily speak to the wide range of beliefs that exist “within” the local church. I can see many local churches breaking apart on the idea that those in the faith community would be identified as *all* belonging to a particular way of thinking which is surely not the case with churches I’ve served and observed. Why would we think that there is unity in the local church when we don’t have it at the conference or denominational level? Those who do not believe as the majority of their congregation would feel pressured to seek a faith home elsewhere. If a UM option is not closeby, these individuals may elect to find another faith tradition that is in keeping with their beliefs, on the idea that there are other limiting factors (e.g., employment, proximity to family) that might limit their mobility. Yet, as with my first point, people may love everything about the UMC but differ on a solitary point.
I suppose my point is that we are larger than a single issue–as individuals, as local churches, and as a denomination. Whether it’s an all-out split or the splintering that occurs locally/personally, fracturing will occur–it’s just a matter of whether it’s a legislated fracture or not.
These are just random thoughts and don’t point to any particular solution. They do, however, call to mind John Wesley’s words that remind us (paraphrased), “Though we may not think alike, may we not love alike?” My prayer is for a loving decision by all and for all.
Thanks, Chris, for the opportunity for conversation.
I would add that it is at the local church where the focus of mission and ministry occurs. If there is not unity within the congregation (which I’d believe is more prevalent than one thinks), then mission and ministry–our goal–will still be hampered (or at least delayed during the time that like-minded people within the congregation organize themselves over and against each other.)
Also, the issue of financial resources “within” the church would become a greater focus. Voting will occur with checkbooks as well as feet.
None of this is a reason not to pursue change for the health of the greater Church but simply a recognition that the onus of the split would simply be re-allocated to another segment of the church.
I would only comment that this plan calls for a one-time vote at annual conference. The default for local churches would be to go the direction of their conference. Those who cannot do so will have a year or so to join the other jurisdiction. This is not painless, but I see is as far preferable to The “A Way Forward” Plan that makes local churches and conferences ongoing battlegrounds over our most divisive issue.
Thanks for taking the time to register your thoughts, N Wilson. It seems to be that a majority of our divisions stem from the same root: How we understand the authority of scripture at work in the life of the church. There are many, many issues and causes in the church. The presenting one is the one that has the potential for dividing our church. There are many things we have successfully compromised on in order to stay together and this will continue to be the case.
While this plan looks workable and sounds like a good compromise there is a huge population left out of the entire discussion. This plan assumes a very localized church in America and takes into no consideration the Global church at least from what I gather this far. While there is mention of the global situation it comes across as a last ditch effort before the western church is overtaken by the African church. We better strike while we can before we may no longer have control. Maybe I’m reading to much into it. But that is the way it comes off.
Seriously, In what ways does it invite our brothers and sisters around the world into the discussion? If I were from another country I would feel left out, as if my perspective, culture, voice, and even place within the church is of only secondary concern to the American, western situation (as has been the case for years). After all central jurisdictions already help control who has control.
Under this plan, how would you control for the unsustainable growth of Church bureaucracy or the unreasonable expansion of Annual Conference territories?
As you note, two different Churches in the same city could be in the different Annual Conferences and under different Bishops. This seems immediately to double the number of Bishops, DSs, Annual Conference, district offices, staff etc. The solution to this might be to make districts and ACs larger, but we have really reached a limit there already in an effort to control overhead costs of the Church (look at the Great Planes conference). We already have joint Charge conferences amongst churches, etc.
Great question, Kevin. Everything is sort of theoretical at this point and I hope greater minds will gather to flesh out the plan in more detail. I would think the annual conferences would cover a larger geographic area, especially in those places where few “Conservative” or “Progressive” congregations exist. A Conservative church on the West Coast that opted out of their conference’s (presumably progressive) jurisdiction might find themselves in a large, multi-state annual conference of more like-minded churches/pastors. The churches that stay with the majority vote of their annual conference would be relatively unaffected. The remapping of the annual conferences would be done after the conferences vote and the local churches indicate their intention to follow the majority or join the other jurisdiction. You might end up with one progressive jurisdiction that covers the Southeast. The annual conferences would not overlap perfectly. One conference might overlap with five other conferences of the other jurisdiction. For this reason, annual conferences could not opt in and out of a jurisdiction. The vote of which jurisdiction with which to affiliate would be enduring, until another major reorganization of the denomination happens. If each annual conference votes to go with one of the two new jurisdictions, one would think that we would end up with about the same number of conferences as before. The boundaries would simply expand to take in those congregations near the conference who opted to displace themselves from the majority vote in their own conference. To your point, I don’t feel like the basic function of what an annual conference does would change under my plan. The increase in bureaucracy, if any, would happen at the jurisdictional level. But I do not envision a great deal of staff at the jurisdictional level. Rather, the quadrennial jurisdiction conference would have real work to do beyond electing bishops. Some of the cost control issues you mention, I expect, will be with us no matter what plan is followed. It is part of the season of decline that we find ourselves currently in. Nice things are being done to utilize technology to cut down on drive time for district and conference meetings. I expect this would continue no matter what plan is adopted, or if full schism occurs. Great question. Forgive me for rambling.
I can concede that um pastors will be most able to identify with one stance or the other but I have trouble thinking any congregation I ever served would be able to vote in a clear majority. If a division took place in a congregation and a new one formed in the same area which would keep property and endowments. These can become pretty divisive snd painful.
Thanks, Russell. I feel that one of the strengths of this approach is that a congregation can “decide not to decide” by going along with the majority vote of their annual conference. We have a lot of people in the middle for whom this is not an issue that they see affecting them very much. Those with strong feelings have a way out, but those that don’t can go the direction of their conference by default. It also avoids a congregation being subject to continued pressure by those with a strong agenda. I feel the Hamilton plan subjects congregations to the agendas of others on an ongoing basis. Thanks for taking a look. Check out http://www.jurisdictionalsolution.org
I hear your pastoral heart in this concern. I expect that many churches would take the default position of staying with their annual conference. It would really need to be a hot issue for them to leave.
As a progressive in a conservative Jurisdiction/Annual Conference, I was pleased when Adam Hamilton came out with his proposal in response to the IRD/Good News folks. It pleased me greatly to see someone working toward unity in the face of adversity. Then I read this. This is what the church needs and I am convinced that this is, at least so far, the best proposal out there.
Now, why I am commenting is to let you know how much I appreciate this, this is a very historically Methodist solution to a modern day problem and doesn’t lurch us toward congregationalism. Where others have critiqued, you have critiqued, but then offered another solution to be discussed.
My only question is when will you begin to seek endorsements? The Hamilton/Slaughter proposal came with its own website and a way for people to sign on to it, I would recommend doing the same for this. Hamilton just posted the total in his response to Rob Refroe’s critique of the proposal, and from that I can see a real yearning for a step toward unity amongst Methodists.
I’m only a candidate for ordained ministry, a young adult who has deep Methodist roots and who wants to serve God. I love this denomination and it has made me the person of faith I am today, but I do not have a loud voice in this discussion. I am not a Rev. or a Dr. and my signature on anything won’t make someones eye-brows rise, but I have hope and I have the power of prayer. I need someone like you who has a desire for unity to make this proposal something more than just a blog post. I can share this on twitter and recommend it as reading to my friends, and I will, but I need you make this part of the discussion, a proposal that rivals the Good News Split and the Hamilton/Slaughter proposal.
The Good News article written by Rob Renfroe has public signatures on it and Hamilton/Slaughter does too, I say start with them! Hear what Timothy Tennent and James Harnish have to say, not the bigger voices, but those who know where they stand, but are willing to work together for a United church. My thoughts and my prayers are with you as you work towards a way to keep the United Methodist Church united with dignity and integrity.
Thank you so much for your words. This proposal seems to especially resonate with clergy who find themselves in the discouraging place of being an ideological minority. You can endorse the plan at http://www.jurisdictionalsolution.org and I hope you do! You can also “like” it on Facebook. Thanks again.
I wonder if the differing theological perspectives might continue to negatively impact creating a clear vision for some of our shared ministries. Would the more conservative jurisdictions and the more liberal ones be able to agree on what is acceptable medical procedures to offer at our medical clinic in Mongolia, for example? Or is it possible some in either Jurisdiction would want to opt out of funding specific institutions for higher education which we currently all support through apportionments?
These are very valid questions. My only response at this point is that the plan creates minimal changes for the general church. Jurisdictions do not pay apportionments, so, just as now, individual annual conferences might object to how their money is spent. In the final analysis we would have the same makeup of our denomination under the new plan as now. Human beings will always find something to disagree about.
I have been kind of busy, so I am just getting back to my thought at this moment. It is true that Jurisdictions do not pay apportionments, but to better explain my reason for seeing this as a concern: I am wondering if having this officially sanctioned divide will end up pitting the Annual Conferences or congregations within each Jurisdiction against one another in a more pointed way, simply by giving them the opportunity to identify with one another in an official capacity. Unofficially of course such connections have been made on both sides of the issue, but the Jurisdictional Plan codifies it. I love the idea of maintaining unity, but I believe differing views surrounding “the big issue” of homosexuality is a symptom rather than the real illness. I wonder if implementing this plan would only make it clear just how many other issues there truly are. Is it possible the jurisdictional plan could end up being the first step toward a separation that is inevitable?
I do thank you for your creative thinking and your love for the UMC, and for putting your plan forward.
This plan does offer some possibilities to minimize the pain of other plans. However, it does continue to leave the reality of pain in local congregations which are not totally in one camp or the other. My congregation has learned to love and accept each other under the current statement in the Discipline. However, I feel we would lose some folks in the split. Good questions abound, and I am sure the banks holding mortgages for debts will be interested as to how we can restructure debt service if we do not have the current funding levels. However, the greatest issue as I see it is this… will this stop the fighting? Or will the minority side (speaking strictly from past votes) continue to see this as a matter of social justice within the total church? Will the traditional side be willing to be in communion with those who hold the different view? Will the infighting continue from the outside? Thank you for the great conversation.
Astute questions. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. Local votes are to be avoided. I expect that the vast majority of congregations would go the direction of their annual conference as leaving would create uncertainty for them. Allowing some to change conferences, however, would make for greater peace overall. Thanks again for the comment.