by Chris Ritter
Here is a quick video outlining my current thinking on the Way Forward, including an explanation of the Affiliated Autonomous Model. The model does NOT require any constitutional amendments and can approved by a simple majority at General Conference.
Notes:
- Please don’t take the maps too literally.
- The little “fires” on the map are places semi-randomly as a symbol for conflict. They do not represent specific instances of conflict.
- At the end of the video I reference a group of bishops that has been working on this model. That seems to have generated a lot of speculation. My understanding is that the Council of Bishops tasked several different groups of bishops with fleshing out various options that might come before them through The Commission. One group fleshed out the affiliated autonomous status and sent it to the full council. This is not some clandestine conspiracy but part of the comprehensive work the Council has been doing to produce a Way Forward.
- If you want to see how this looks fleshed out in generous legislative language, you can click here.
- If you want to see a version focused more on accountability, click here.
People Need Jesus 
The hardest working man in the UMC…at it again! I love this. It seems like- at least- a potential versatile relief valve as it can go in many different directions. It puts enough “space in our togetherness,” which the One Church Model fails to do.
I agree, Jamie. This gives me some hope for the future of the United Methodist Church. I hope our called General Conference will be given the opportunity to consider this.
I’ve missed your thoughts for the last month – great to see you back! Very interesting proposal; are you aware if anything like it is being considered by the Council of Bishops?
Thanks, Herb! This model has made its way to the Council of Bishops and The Commission in several forms. My hope is that a version of this will be on the table at General Conference 2019. Sorry I have been slow to post. I am blessed to lead a growing, dynamic congregation. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Thank you for this, Chris. I realize that this is still in the conceptual stage, but I, for one, would like to know how the episcopacy would be funded. Would we all pay into the same “pot” from which their salaries would be paid, or would “progressives” pay for their own, and “conservatives” pay for their own?
Thanks for reading and commenting. My draft of the legislation has been on my blog for some time. Each group would find their own bishops.
Thanks for this excellent explanation of what I see as the most promising so far. Thank you, Lord, for planting this insight into Chris’s thoughts!
Thanks, Edwin!
Very insightful. Hopefully your voice and wisdom will be heard.
HI, Chris! What are the theological standards for becoming and affiliated autonomous conference? I know you can cram only so much information into a 10 minute video, but I’m sure there’s some kind of standard for this to form up. And the trust clause wouldn’t weigh on this at all?
Thanks for the question, Jarrod. In Par. 572, bodies seeking autonomy from the UMC would have an approved confession of faith and constitution approved by the Standing Committee on Central Conference matters. Guidelines for domestic affiliated autonomous bodies could be specified in the Standard Concordat. The trust clause would be transferred, not eliminated.
I grew up in the Methodist church in West Texas. I raised by children in the Methodist church. Unfortunately when the first annual conference recognized openly gay Bishops to first address the conference and then be permitted to keep leadership roles in that conference, I had to say goodbye. It is my steadfast opinion that is certain conference want to operate outside the Book of Discipline, they need to find a home elsewhere.
Then let us take our buildings with us – the WCA side seems pretty good getting them for free. It’s no shocker that you will continue to have LGBTQ+ people grow up in your “traditional” churches that will either leave the church (hopefully after some pain, not forever) or end up creating more “progressive churches” that will leave. I believe the “traditional side” of the denomination is the one that will parish sooner than the “progressive side.” Oh how sad it is that we aren’t able to love each other more deeply. Oh well, time will tell…
EDIT: It’s no shocker that you will continue to have LGBTQ+ people grow up in your “traditional” churches that will either leave the church after some pain (hopefully not forever) or end up creating more “progressive churches” that will leave.
Chris,
Thank you for the video and for the tireless effort toward keeping the UMC together. I have a couple of questions:
1. Would the Affiliated Autonomous conferences delegates at the General Conference have voting power?
2. Let’s say the orthodox churches form their own Affiliated Autonomous conferences and jurisdictions. Could apportionments flow from those orthodox conferences to the UMC and support progressive conferences? Could they be used to support progressive causes through the UMC agencies?
Thanks, Dave. I think the response to both questions would depend on how the concordat is written. The goal would be enough separation to avoid violations of conscience while retaining a form of connection.
How would pastoral appointments be set geographically–within each affiliated autonomous entity (thus extending the geographical limits)?
Might these affiliated autonomous Conferences adopt the Book of Disciple sans statements around human sexuality?
Thanks for the questions. Conference boundaries would simply be widened and appointments made within those bounds. This will happen due to decline anyway. My response to the second question would be yes. I think that is very likely.
This still doesn’t work. We should not be unequally yoked. We should not align ourselves with those in blatant disobedience to God’s will.
I have to agree with this statement. I get that there is a lot of searching for a doable way forward but there has not been much of any (none?) theological rationale for Christian fellowship to exist in such a way.
If such a plan was accepted and the ability given to allow those who do not agree to leave with their assets, I still think that most aligned with the WCA would choose to go out that door.
Chris, I know that you are a part of the WCA, what do you think folks in the WCA would do?
There are folks in WCA who are “leaning in” to the UMC and some who are “leaning out.” I am leaning in. But I expect that there would be a group of conservative congregations who would take the opportunity to start their own affiliated autonomous body if that was offered. This is my guess only, and not anything official from WCA or any other group.
Thanks Chris, I have seen some who are wanting out and they seem to be headed towards a more congregational model. I do not want to go that way because I believe they will become generic “evangelical” churches who heavily value conservative politics and defensive towards the surrounding culture.
Personally, I want to be a part of a missional movement that has the Gospel at its center. Also, oversight in the church, connectionalism, and the sacraments are important as well (and, of course, Wesleyan theology and practice).
I think that the best thing to do is to allow those who will not comply to become an autonomous conference. I don’t think any of us want a Southern Baptist style inquisition and toss out. However, I think that such a solution is also going to have be accompanied with some stricter discipline, no matter what way we go.
Amen. God’s word is living and active. it’s not that hard to make this work; abide by God’s word. Stop negotiating truth. there is no other way.
Completely absurd. I see no scriptural basis for any of this. To ignore the bod or not for different groups is completely contradictory to The whole concept of UNITED Methodist.
What I can say is if the bod is changed most conservative churches will leave the UMC, I know that’s what our church will likely do.
The Bible clearly states what marriage is and clearly denounces homosexuality. To change the bod is to disregard the Bible and to defy God.
Don, this plan would place folks that disagree with the Book of Discipline under their own Discipline. The only changes to the UMC BOD would be the mechanism to allow this. Blessings upon you.
This is the first model I have seen that actually looks like a viable way forward. Thank you for your work on this. How will the public know which kind of UMC they are walking into? It sounds like the affiliated autonomous churches will continue to use the UMC name and logo.
Thanks, Sean. My assumption is that the new bodies would have a different name and logo, perhaps a different version of the cross and flame. I appreciate you taking time to check this out.
Now that the COB has announced all three plans will be presented at GC2019, does anyone know what the “Traditionalist Plan” might look like?
My prediction is that it will be based somewhat on the affiliated autonomous model, but we will have to wait for the details.
It is interesting but seems to be trying to save a “name” only. There needs to be an option for the local church body to get back thier property and leave the “United Methodist Church” all together. That would allow each to ether decide to continue to associate with the main Methodist Church as you suggested or another group if the desire or even be totally independent etc. I did not see this option with your YouTube options.
Thanks, Joseph. Churches could leave the UMC if they found 49 others that wanted to go with them into an AA body. The trust clause would be transferred. The new AA body would have the option of releasing the trust clause once it is transferred to them. See my post on Exit Ramps where I discuss this in more detail.
This forces churches into keeping the same current structure and trust clause. I agree with Joseph, give those churches that want to leave the ability and let the congregations decide what is best for them. I am sure that most of them will choose a congregational model. Having bishops has proven to be better for the bureaucracy than for the laity. There is not point to the AA’s other than trying to continue a system that has become a relic to Catholicism.
Chris,
Young pastor here — don’t know much. I appreciate your video and knowledge of UMC polity. My question relates to the value/purpose of unity when theology and practice isn’t in alignment. In your opinion, what is there to be gained by remaining “together”, when it seems that the togetherness is rather superficial? When the only thing we have in common is pension, agencies, and our history, it feels kind of like a married couple who long ago abandoned their marital covenant to one another, but they remain together for tax purposes, for their kids, and because “divorce is bad”. No matter how much they say they might be honoring their vows by staying together, this kind of unity is superficial (given that it’s empty of the kind of unity that God intended for it), and thus, their marriage is superficial. It’s “divorce of the heart”, if you will, covered up by legal union. They are no longer in the relationship for each other because they aren’t capable of figuring out how to move forward in real unity (which isn’t even a criticism, but plain reality). And this kind of superficiality, to me, feels like a greater detriment to the kingdom than the simple, albeit hard, truth. While God certainly doesn’t prefer division, due to our inability to overcome our differences in light of real and honest convictions, I think he’d less prefer we play “pretend” for the rest of our existence.
One last note: I obviously understand that our basic adherence to the creed and faith Jesus Christ is our primary commonality, and that we remain united as brothers and sisters no matter how we move forward, “together” or “separate”. But I also recognize that the UMC exists to unite us in far greater detail than this, and that the grounds for its existence, or unity, becomes suspect when those more detailed commonalities, particularly theology and practice, erode.
So anyway, there are my thoughts on “the way forward”… and yet I understand that maybe there’s a lot more to this than what I perceive. So would you share your thoughts with me? Thanks!
Thanks, Jake. Your words contribute to the larger conversation we are all having now about what kind of unity we are to have and how institutional unity supports or detracts from this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Well, rather than just to contribute my own thoughts, I was hoping to get yours in response, since you are someone who has far more knowledge about the issues than I do. I understand if you’re not comfortable sharing in this forum (or if you simply don’t have the time to explain, LOL), but if you are, I would really like to understand the basis for which you personally believe (or don’t believe) that institutional unity is desirable over separation. To this point, I feel like many just assume that unity is best, but I have not heard any clear, justified reasoning from those who desire institutional unity as to why they feel as such. Thanks again!
I get you Jake. I love the UMC and have vowed to seek its good. I believe in redemption. It is naive to think we would not carry the same dysfunction into a new denomination or relationship. We will always have to contend for the faith on this side of heaven. I guess that summarizes my current thinking. The UMC has blessed me in many ways.
Thanks, brother!
Jake: outstanding comment and insight. You are spot on. And..this fracturing in the church is why my spouse resigned from leadership position in UMC a decade ago and we’ve not looked back. The UMC..the church we were raised in, married in…is suffering, fracturing for the sake of “compromise”…. “If you can’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”. Be careful, all. God bless.
I agree with Jake Hotchkiss above.
Institutional unity is not what matters. Unity of faith does. I live in a central conference overseas and am very tired of trying to keep up the appearances of serving in a United church when it is not. I would much prefer a clean break and a fresh start.
The UMC is not that important that we should keep it alive forever.