by Chris Ritter
Legislation is now in the hands of the delegates for the most highly-discussed UM General Conference in living memory. The One Church Plan (OCP) will arrive in St. Louis with the blessing of a majority of our bishops. They have stated what goes without saying: It is “not perfect.” A better question might be “Is it adequate?” Is it an actual, serious, sober, and unifying solution that moves our denomination past its current morass to refocus us on mission and ministry?
Some bishops are now beginning to openly admit that the OCP does not live up to its marketing language and promises of unity. The plan says that it protects the consciences of those who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. In spite of these pat-on-the-head assurances, we have slim evidence that anyone holding to Jesus’ definition of marriage (Matt. 19, Mark 10) finds the OCP to create a workable reality. We do have a diversity of voices saying, “If this is where the UMC ship is headed, we will not be able to go along.”
Friends from Africa have recently stated that passage of the One Church Plan would likely cause our African Central Conferences to send letters of disaffiliation to the United Methodist Church in America. They would presumably continue as the “UMCA,” the United Methodist Church of Africa, with their own General Conference. If true, this equates to an immediate membership drop of over 40% carved from the only areas of the UMC that are steadily growing. Think of Sears Holding Company divesting itself of Target and keeping only Sears and K-Mart.
If Africa disaffiliates, the UMC would shift Westward in many of our ethical and theological conceptions. Methodism’s innate balance and global focus would be irrevocably degraded. The makeup of General Conference would align ideologically with all the other U.S.-only Mainline denominations who have been through the same sexuality struggles. We have ample empirical data from all those who have tried this local approach (ELCA, TEC, PCUSA, UCC, DoC) that it leads to division and accelerated decline. Looking for vitality in this scenario would like putting a pan of water in the freezer and expecting it to come to a boil.
With the possibility of full membership losses in Africa and partial membership losses in the United States, one might ask why General Conference would consider a plan that effectively forces the exit of a majority of United Methodists. The One Church Plan is only adequate if the goal is a complete overturning of the Gospel definition of marriage. It is wholly inadequate if the goal is unity or vitality.
It is clear that some delegates do not yet understand what the misnamed One Church Plan actually does. Here is a summary:
- The definition of marriage in the United Methodist Church would be changed from a union of a man and a woman to a union of “two adults.”
- The OCP removes denomination-wide prohibition against self-avowed, practicing homosexuals serving as clergy.
- United Methodist congregations may hold an all-church vote allowing same-sex weddings to be celebrated at their altar. This potentially divisive meeting could be triggered by the pastor, the church council, or any member able to collect the signatures of 10% of the congregation (¶ 248).
- LGBTQ Bishops in same-sex relationships would serve the UMC as General Superintendents and be funded by General Church apportionments with no legal recourse for those who object.
- The OCP empowers any United Methodist clergy to conduct same-sex marriage should they choose to do so, regardless of the position of their local church or annual conference.
- The lay members of an annual conference are not allowed be part of the decision as to whether openly gay clergy should be ordained into the conference.
- Traditionalist United Methodists bishops are forced to appoint active clergy who are in same-sex relationships.
- United Methodist bishops who cannot, of good conscience, ordain practicing LGBTQ clergy are required to allow another bishop to come in and ordain them.
- The OCP removes United Methodist support for laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
- A statement of disagreement would be added to our Book of Discipline saying that “we agree we are not of one mind” on issues of human sexuality.
- It removes the statement that the UMC does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers homosexual practice as incompatible with Christian teaching.
- The means to remove a pastor for being in a same-sex relationship is eliminated on a church-wide basis. This means that openly gay clergy will be guaranteed an appointment and formerly closeted gay clergy may be as open as they like anywhere they are serving.
- Clergy who leave the denomination will have their vested pension converted to a different type of instrument.
- There is no exit path in the One Church Plan. It only states that any church that manages to negotiate an exit must pay a prescribed portion of the conference’s unfunded pension liability.
With such sweeping changes, one will legitimately ask how the One Church Plan could be framed as a unifying compromise. The plan spells out in multiple places that no clergy shall be forced to conduct same-sex weddings. It also indicates that the clergy session of an annual conference can decide who they want to see ordained or not. But pastors are already empowered to choose for whom they will and will not conduct weddings. And annual conferences will not be able to stop unqualified people from being ordained any more than the UMC is now. The Queer Clergy Caucus in the UMC boasts over 300 members. The code has already been cracked on how to make it through the ordination process even when one does not meet the stated requirements.
The One Church Plan tosses the radioactive hot potato of human sexuality issues from our quadrennial General Conference to the annual conference and local church levels. It invites the very contention that degrades unity in conferences and local churches. Decisions that should be rooted in ethics and theology will be determined on personality, power, finances, and influence.
A note to Centrists: Pretending like the One Church Plan is an adequate solution keeps us from the necessary work of continued creativity. The Judicial Council just handed us a very lengthy and interesting decision that highlights the possibility of non-uniform standards and annual conferences accepting full or semi-autonomous status. Surely there is enough fodder in this decision to take us beyond our current range of options. Speaking only for myself, I would need a solution that (1) provides separate conferences, (2) creates separate episcopacies, and (3) provides for customized funding in the general agencies. (Both the Connectional Conference and Traditional Plans accomplish this.)
We won’t do our best work while we pretend that the bishops’ recommendation is somehow adequate. If I had to choose between the Queer Clergy Caucus’ “Simple Plan” and the One Church Plan, I would support the Simple Plan for the sake of clarity and honesty. At least that plan does not indulge in marketing that doesn’t correspond with reality.
Photo Credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/41fbmd/what_cant_duct_tape_fix/
People Need Jesus 
Thanks Chris. I’ve never understood why we need a special General Conference to settle something that has already been settled by the General Conference every four years for forty years.
I agree. Legislation by General Conference, the only thing capable of speaking for the whole church, has not put the issue to rest in over 40 years. Now we are just supposed to sit back and accept that the answer is to ask General Conference to restructure the church so that those who are not willing to abide by the current structure can have a place? What is wrong with this picture? Furthermore, sexuality is only the presenting issue of a much deeper theological divide. Did anybody notice that after GC2016, annual conferences that declared non-compliance with the standards on sexuality also declared non-compliance with the decisions re the RCRC and Israel? Furthermore, the most recent church wide decision making body for the Episcopal Church left remaining traditionals at odds with progressives over two things: tightening of the progressives stance on marriage and the introduction of a proposition that would have the church taking an anti-Israel stance. Fixing the sexuality problem is not going to fix the deeper problem. It would be a huge shame to lose UMCOR, etc. but it feels like anything other than separation is only avoiding the inevitable. There is no connection because there is absolutely nothing to connect us beyond a name and our belief that we should be connected and we have some good things like UMCOR. Meanwhile, the numerical decline marches on.
Very well stated. Thank you for the clear enumeration of what the One Church Plan would do! I called it an illusion some time ago if anybody has delusions about it bringing about unity. Among the people I’ve talked with it is running about 15 to 1 of people who will leave the UMC if the OCP passes. It is a disaster and a delusion.
Rev. Ritter, that is the most concise and best explained reality of the OCP that I’ve yet to hear or read. Very well written! To me it basically boils down to this; Which pages of Scripture do we keep and which pages do we tear out if some are offended by them? That, in a nut shell, is what the OCP proposes. It posits, and would make doctrine, that Scripture and God’s laws are less important than feelings, unity for the sake of unity (read as money), and man’s laws.
The OCP cannot last long. Compromise on Social Justice is never OK. Can you imagine in the 50’s allowing some buses to make Rosa Parks sit in the back? NO…. The progressive process is to pass this just for now. FULL inclusion by all churches and all pastors just has to wait another few years. “ALL means ALL.”. Since when did the progressive movement give up on that? Only now the OCP is being promoted in hopes that the Traditional plan will not prevail. The OCP is the way to get to the perceived promised land of full inclusion. But it seems clear to me that the compromise plan CANNOT remain acceptable to the Progressive world view
for the long term.
I would agree that the progressive “ideal” would be full inclusion for everyone- but part of progressive thought is also not to force anyone into a belief that they can not abide. Through all these years of debate I do not believe there has ever been a progressive resolution ( supported by their majority) that insisted every pastor must bless same sex unions or that any church must be led by an LGBTQ person or ally- and the OCP is consistent with that view.
In contrast the status quo and the TP do just the opposite – forcing every pastor to refrain from supportingq same sex couple’s, even if their own discernment and sense of call from God leads them to fell they do need to minister to everyone equally. Likewise the status quo denies many the ability to follow their call- even when they have demonstrated great fruit and God given gifts for ministry- and it denies congregations the ability to benefit from such fruits, to celebrate their own members that demonstrated great ability and to lovingly support their own liftime members who may find themselves in loving and fruitful relationships. While not that “Utopian Ideal” of All Means All and “Open Doors, Open Minds and Open Hearts” the OCP has the potential to allow thousands if not millions more people to celebrate and remain part of their lifelong congregations and the Methodist Church they have grown in and loved- and I know many progressives who see that as something to celebrate.