by Chris Ritter
We are just a year away from the start of General Conference 2019 in St. Louis. The format of this specially-called conference may not be known until May or even later. But you can now find legislative plans offered in the spirit of each of the three models proposed by the Commission on a Way Forward. It is important to note that none of these plans originate from The Commission or the Council of Bishops. But they are well researched and developed in conversation with persons close to the process. You can find additional resources, blogs, and viewpoints in my compendium of Way Forward materials found here.
Way Forward Model One
An Accountability Plan
This accountability proposal limits itself to things that can be accomplished within our current constitution. It makes boards of ordained ministry accountable for keeping their conference in line with UMC ministry standards. If they fail to do so, the annual conference will be prevented from participating financially in the general church or using the denominational name or insignia. Episcopal accountability and just resolution reforms are also included.
Way Forward Model Two
Concerned Alaskans’ Local Option
Concerned Alaskans, a group headed by long-time lay leader Lonnie Brooks, offers legislation that would enact the Local Option. A key feature is localization of our episcopacy: “…the election and consecration of Karen Oliveto to the office of Bishop has made the Local Option untenable without [constitutional] change.” The constitutional amendments require super-majority passage and 2/3 ratification votes around the world.
Our bishops have yet to present any legislation. They report they are working on a plan under the heading of Model Two called the One Church Model. It is described as follows:
The One Church Model gives churches the room they need to maximize the presence of United Methodist witness in as many places in the world as possible. The One Church Model provides a generous unity that gives conferences, churches, and pastors the flexibility to uniquely reach their missional context in relation to human sexuality without changing the connectional nature of The United Methodist Church.
The spirit of this sounds very similar to a plan offered by the Connectional Table to General Conference 2016. It failed to gain traction among the delegates.
Way Forward Model Three
Hybrid Way Forward Legislation Version 2.2
While this proposal could be viewed as a synthesis of the three Way Forward Models, it probably fits best under Option Three, the multi-branch plan. It does not require constitutional amendments and creates affiliated autonomous conferences within the U.S. like we currently have overseas. These new bodies remain tied to the UMC through a pre-approved concordat agreement. They participate in our general boards and agencies and can stretch out their own borders to receive local churches who may want to join them.
It is unclear if proposals will be allowed beyond those brought by the Council of Bishops, but these plans provide food for thought as we await greater clarity. Which one do you think is most workable?
People Need Jesus 
Ah, not many comments on this one. I think that many just don’t want to even talk about this anymore.
I only see the accountability option going through. The bishops and Way Forward commission can say all that they want but it will be the General Conference members who ultimately decide. And judging from past conferences, model two and three are dead in the water. I think that there are going to be some strict accountability measures taken and that those who don’t want to be a part of it will be given the opportunity to leaves. I don’t think that there will be a witch hunt as there was in the SBC. I don’t think that is in our DNA. But stricter accountability is about to come. And truthfully, it’s needed across the board.
Right now, in our annual conferences, ministries are being told that they are going to have to raise their own funds. In my own conference, they voted this past year to make individual churches pay for pensions and health care. The connectional system is already breaking down. Changes are coming whether people like it or not. That said, I think that the UMC is doing some really work on the grass roots level. There is a new emphasis on equipping the laity that is really awesome. Is it too little, too late? I don’t know. It’s close. But I pray that there is renewal and reform that happens from the grass roots of the UMC. It sure is not going to come from the top layers. That’s why I don’t pay that much attention to what goes on there anymore.
Thanks for the comment, Josh. Accountability is what every General Conference has done since the 1970’s. It is probably a good bet there will be strong efforts at this again in 2019. I think the Option Three I put forth provides enough separation to prevent violations of conscience. This will be an interesting year coming up. Thanks for looking this over.
The trouble with option 3 is that many of will violate our own conscious by being connected to a group that we believe teaches that sexual immorality is permissible.
There is a lot of talk that says, “Well you go do ministry your way and we will do ministry ours.” But, I mean, would you say that to folks who teach that adultery is not sinful, that watching pornography is not sinful, that bestiality is not sinful? No. The loving thing would be to tell that person, “No, you must not teach that! You will be judged severely for teaching such things!” Jesus said that it would be better for a rock to be tied to our necks and thrown into the sea than to lead astray or injure one of the “little ones.” Surely, telling a person who engages in homosexual behavior that God is just fine is hurting them! My fear is that we are a like a frog that has been sitting in a pot too long and the temperature has been slowly heightened through accommodation, pragmatism, political correctness, and other factors that should be motivating servants of God . . . and that’s how we’ve got to this point.
The problem that I see in option 3 is that it is rooted in pragmatism rather than theology. Has anyone even given a theological reason for going the route of option 3? Probably not. And this is one of the problems that I have with leadership in the UMC, both conservative and liberal. It’s just become a common practice to make decisions based on pragmatism rather than sound doctrine.
These are thoughtful comments that I will not attempt to dispute. I would only add that the Option Three I wrote is really quite separate. With all of these plans, the devil will be in the details. Any of the models could become unacceptable depending on how they are written.
Well, I know you’ve done a lot of work Chris to try and help us think through this. I hope you don’t think I’m being critical towards your work. I’m not.
I just think that it’s time for all of us to take a step back and look at the way that we are thinking about things and doing things. Wesley came from the Anglican tradition that would put forth theological treatises on subjects. We don’t do that in the Methodist church and not doing that has severely damaged our ability to talk about theological matters, doctrine, etc.
If it takes a terrible break up to get us back to thinking and doing things like other Christians around the world . . . then that might be best for us. I for one am not going to let fear motivate whatever decisions or actions that I have to take in regards to the UMC. I love churches with the cross and the flame on them and I always find myself finding the same heart with those fellow UM’s. But something needs to happen. And I think we all know that.
An article in um-insight on leaked conversations of the COB meeting claims they are only interested in option 2. I am afraid Chris’s hope for #3 is dead and unless someone else puts in a different resolution it will be #2 or chaos, which it probably will be anyways. I’m guessing the plan is enact #2, drive out the traditionalists, and then take the denomination to full gay acceptance. If anyone thinks that politics is not involved, or big money from liberal sources, then they are being naive.
Even if the bishops recommend a plan, it must be accepted and ratified by the General Conference. If the bishops really do put forth such as a plan after all such efforts to take out the statement on homosexuality and to go to a “local option” have been soundly defeated or not even able to go to the floor, then . . . man. All of that money spent on the Way Forward and all this foot dragging . . . it was all for nothing. I will not give another cent to the “big” UMC. And I will also join whatever orthodox, evangelical group that exits.