by Chris Ritter
The United Methodist News Service yesterday published a plan that has been circulating for several months in inboxes throughout the UMC. Bishop Scott Jones and Bishop David Bard offer “a new form a unity” that can be enacted by a simple majority at General Conference 2020. Bard-Jones envisions “two or three self-governing” denominations being birthed from United Methodism.
In spite of some shared history at SMU, Bishops Jones and Bard are something of an odd couple. Jones leans traditional; Bard leans progressive. Bard is a recently minted bishop and Jones has served in the episcopacy since 2004. Jones is taller than average and Bard is… not. What they share is realism and a strong motivation toward a comprehensive settlement of the divisions that bedevil the UMC. Both have been willing to think outside the box of the current institution and this is something of a rarity for UM bishops.
The Plan
The proposal envisions GC2020 enacting legislation that will enable the UMC to divide into two or three new denominations. The new expressions would each have their own approach to human sexuality: Progressive (Simple Plan), Open (One Church Plan) and Traditional (MTP). Following GC2020, each annual conference would join one of the new bodies and participate in one of three organizing General Conferences, each to be held in 2022. Individual congregations not in harmony with the decision of their annual conference could vote to be placed in an annual conference of another group.
The new denominations would be in full communion* with each other and participate in the World Methodist Council. Wespath, UM Publishing house, and Archives & History would be spun off as independent organizations serving all three churches. The Open Methodist Church (name a mere placeholder) would presumably attract a majority of the American UMC and inherit GBGM, Discipleship Ministries, GBHEM, GBCS, GCRR, UMCom, COSROW, and UMM. The other new denominations could contract with these agencies for services if they like. The World Service Fund, Episcopal Fund, Interdenominational Cooperation Fund, and Ministerial Education Fund would be dissolved and their work accounted for in the new bodies.
All successor denominations could use the UM logo and the name “United Methodist,” as regulated by a shared GCFA, the governance of which would be based on a proportion of membership. No group is required to use the UM name and logo and customization would be prudent to avoid confusion.
United Methodist bishops would each choose a new expression to join.
The Process
What are Bard and Jones trying to accomplish? They want to end our impasse by providing a means of separation. And they want this means of separation to happen within the significant restraints of our current constitution. Amendments require supermajority passage and ratification votes around the world, adding time and uncertainty to an already tenuous situation. A straight-up vote to dissolve the UMC would take at least one constitutional amendment. A straight-up vote to divide the UMC would likewise affect the constitution.
A mechanism is needed to provide space between warring parties… and something that can be accomplished by a simple majority at GC2020 in Minneapolis next May. Bard and Jones suggest we scuttle the UMC ship by stripping it of its essential parts as the passengers board three new vessels.
The legislative mechanism for the Bard-Jones Plan would be a new version of Petition 90041, a part of the Modified Traditional Plan that was never approved at GC2019. This legislation has the advantage of being previously approved by the Judicial Council as constitutional. At GC2019 it was referred to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters where it failed to find support. (Time ran out before it could be brought before the plenary body as a minority report.) Some progressives and centrists later regretted opposing 90041 because it would have allowed a way for annual conferences to leave the UMC with their assets following the passage of the Traditional Plan. It was the part of the MTP aimed at providing space, peace and a fair allocation of assets. Passing the Traditional Plan without this key piece has caused the heightened acrimony and continued “stuckness” experienced since February.
The Bard-Jones Plan also recommends that paragraphs related to complaints against persons for officiating same-sex weddings or for the consideration of LGBTA persons of candidacy, licensing, commissioning, and ordination be suspended during the transition period as conferences move into the new denoninations.
The Problem
For Bard-Jones to work, every annual conference and bishop needs to leave the UMC for one of the new denominations. While the Judicial Council has determined that General Conference can approve a process for annual conferences to leave the UMC, forcing AC’s to leave the denomination is another matter entirely. Choosing a branch will be difficult in some locations. Some annual conferences will lose significant membership no matter which branch they choose. Bard-Jones is not explicit about what would happen if an annual conference chooses not to choose.
Giving the governance of GCFA to the three new denominations may be part of the plan’s answer to this question. If an annual conference failed to choose a branch, they would be left in limbo instead of becoming part of one of the new expressions They would inherit the keys to a car without an engine, steering wheel, or tires. The general agencies and assets would have already been given away.
GCFA is the technical employer of United Methodist bishops, so this group will be well positioned to encourage movement. Constitutional issues need to be carefully studied. If there are problems a remedy may be found in assigning the “Open” UMC as the inheritor of any remnants of the old institution. This would place upon them the burden of inheriting the UMC constitution.
The Prospects?
This plan needs 50%+1 support at GC2020. Initial reactions have been mixed, but these seem knee-jerk rather than based on detailed analysis of the plan. Some have tried to locate Bard-Jones within the grid of the Way Forward Plans. But it is really a different animal. Unlike the Traditional Plan, it grants the majority of the general agencies to the “Open” denomination.. so the U.S. majority position of the UMCNext Group is respected. The need for structural space by Traditionalists is honored in a way unseen in the Simple Plan and One Church Plan. And it goes much further than the Connectional Conference Plan by providing for separate denominations. Bard-Jones also incorporates some of the best ideas from the past five years to (hopefully) avoid constitutional amendments.
The UMNS article announcing the plan used the word “umbrella” which triggered those thirsty for separation to view this as a new version of the CCP. This is not an umbrella plan. We need to realize that every plan contains within it some amount of marketing language. (This was true of all the Way Forward Plans, as well.) To make the plan appealing to those who want to maximize institutional unity, we see phrases like “new unity,” “full communion,” and shared governance.” You have to look beyond the veneer to ask, “What is this?”
Bard-Jones is an amicable divorce with a shared custody arrangement.
That is, it represents a proposal for separation with some thoughtful ideas about fair custody of denominational assets following the structural division. It leaves us with three autonomous denominations, three books of discipline, and three general conferences. Barring the emergence of regional churches, the result will likely be a U.S.-led denomination, a global Methodist denomination, and a possible Progressive Methodist connection. The hope is that three fresh expressions can do a better job of reaching people for Jesus Christ than our single, stuck expression.
It is important to hear from episcopal leaders willing to name our current reality and suggest a death with dignity for our current institutional expression. The Bard-Jones Plan seems an honest effort to provide a place for all United Methodists to find a connectionalism that fits. It leaves significant questions open about the future of the church in Africa, Asia, and Europe. As this plan is translated into detailed legislative language, it will be important to seek the wisdom of the Judicial Council on some of its more unique aspects. Further refinement will undoubtedly come now that the proposal is public. But we can at least thank Bishops Bard and Jones for moving the conversation forward at a crucial time.
*Full communion means that we recognize each other’s ministries. It does not mean that each body is bound to accept the decisions made by the other or required to receive clergy by transfer without scrutiny.
Photo Credit: Mike DuBose, UM News.
People Need Jesus 
Thanks, Christopher Ritter. Good, helpful analysis. Most of the comments I’ve seen where this UM News article has been posted have been knee-jerk and reactionary. This plan is the best I’ve seen offering a realistic way to split. There may be a better plan, but I have not seen it. One question: is it necessary and advisable and equitable for the “Open” group to get all of the assets of the referenced boards and agencies? Is there an equitable way to divide their assets among the two or three denominations that emerge from GC 2020?
One idea I have heard is to pool unrestricted assets not essential to the immediate operation of the entices and divide these among the successor bodies proportionately.
What happens to the five areas known as jurisdictions: Northeastern, Southeastern, North Central, South Central and Western?
Those are left behind when all conferences leave the UMC.
Episcopal Fund? Who pays the bishops salaries? Particularly the overseas bishops.
The plan says no more Episcopal Fund. The new churches will support their bishops as they do choose.
Somehow I doubt the “opens” and “progressives” will be willing to end their tantrums for something this common sense. They’re getting to much mileage and attention out of their resistance and virtue-signaling public statements. I also wouldn’t be surprised that the Open and Progressive branches end up be heavy on clergy and light on laity with their supposed majorities by mostly in their heads.
Thank you for your uncalled-for and unhelpful ad hominem attack on those with whom you disagree. Fortunately, Bishop Jones has not voiced such an uncharitable opinion as yours.
On the surface, this proposal sounds reasonable.
Yes it does. Right up until it hits the local church and there will be people in the pew who have no other option than to abandon Methodism all together and go elsewhere.
There is no perfect, clean cut demise to any institution that is as large and long term as the Methodist/United Methodist Church . But it would be helpful if ivory tower leadership would stop acting like this is going to be an easy, cut and dried process and acknowledge the reality that this is going to get extremely messy and hurtful at the local level.
I am facing the reality that in the end, regardless of my lifetime of loyalty to the church, I will probably be nothing more than collateral damage lost in the shuffle. Right now, I am feeling very burned by institutional Christianity. Recently I read a report of a survey that when it comes to religion, the supposed nones who are not in church are not necessarily anti-Jesus, they are anti-church.
Too much Churchanity and not enough Christianity
Your “shuffle” terminology is apt. The Big Shuffle is our next dance. With (truly) millions of dollars at stake, will Traditionalists defend their historical investment in brand and symbol and orthodoxy?
Yep- the big hurdle in bard jones is that the annual conferences get to choose by majority, but i imagine that any local church who doesn’t agree with their ac will have to have a 2/3 vote to leave the ac. Most local churches will avoid having this vote.
Progressives and centrists should be clamoring for bard jones as their plan- it would definitely take most of the US umc with them, but there is probably no other way to do this dividing.
The true progressives seem to want freedom and something that honors their beliefs. Traditionalists like myself want to be able to serve the Lord free of the threat of being in a denomination that allows what we hold as sinful. These two groups can agree on yhis plan as nobody has to be in a denomination they disagree with. The only real losers are those who insist on their side winning. This is the only solution that allows the battles to end. For those who don’t like a provision for their group remember this is just a transition plan and each group can write their own rules in 2022. I agree with Chris Ritter this is the best we can hope for. I appreciate Bishops Bard and Jones for stepping up and finding a simple and workable solution to our impasse.
If a conference opts for the “open” conference, does this mean that any church within that conference could be assigned an openly gay pastor?
I guess that depends on what provisions they adopt. Presumably they would be something short of full inclusion.
Chris, thank you for your article. I am a LLP. I am always curious how all the plans will affect LLPs. Any thoughts on how the relationship between LLPs and the conferences will change?
Chris, thank you for your article. I am a LLP. I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the relationship between LLPs and the conferences and how those might change.
Sorry. Sort of double posted there.
I think good pastors will always be in demand. Keep serving Jesus and try not to worry too much about this stuff.
I have been a United Methodist member for over 53 years and I’m having a very hard time accepting any of this., which I don’t. We fuss over assets and what bishops and clergy are going to do. How can we make everybody happy. Well everybody is not going to be happy. Yes everyone is a person of worth to God, but God gave us instructions how to live, work and worship Him. God’s rules are over any person, denomination or country, God said that there is one man, one woman and we should not lay with each other woman – woman or man – man PERIOD. I’m just wondering what God would say to us. Yes we all have SINNED and fall short of the glory of God, but to me when God has specifically given us His Word to follow why can not we follow it. The United Methodist Church needs to stand by God’s Word, by our Constitution of The United Methodist Church and by our Book of Discipline period. Our problem is, we have let the world (devil) in and he is trying to redefine what the church should stand for. May God have mercy upon The United Methodist Church if we let him redefine us. We should stand strong on our beliefs that God has set before us. Let us not be fooled, let us not listen to Satan’s lies. Sin is sin no matter how you look at it.
I encourage you to read Jonathan Heidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” Or, if you haven’t got time to do that, at least listen to his TED Talk in which he summarizes his findings that are more fully developed and explained in the book. https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind If you fail to see the value in what he says, you may continue to demonize those who think differently than you do about such things as what the Bible says and how we humans were created by God to live in all our diversity. That could actually bring greater harm into the world than those things you claim to be wrong with other interpretations of our common sacred texts.
Thank you for this link and the introduction to material I look forward to diving into more. Next stop: http://www.yourmorals.org This new plan seems to address all 3 moral realities offered here: 1. Our passionate commitment to the truth, 2. Our evolutionary design to join loyalty groups , and 3. Our natural instinct to do is into groups against other groups. It feels like a resurrection possibility (that requires the death of the UMC as we know it). As an Open/liberal, I long for that. But I recognize that it is not that easy for Conservative/loyalists. What could ease their pain/resistance?
Chris, I appreciated your commentary on the Bard-Jones Proposal. The more I ponder it I believe they have found a simple way, even brilliant, around the most restrictive sections of the Constitution: Roles of geography at Jurisdictional level and how that affects an annual conference and by placing the UMC& its Constitution within the GCFA as kind of a religious holding company for trademarks. My annual conference is traditional but institutionally loyal (we pay all General Church apportionments 100% for decades). My fear has been that division would divide us between those two values (not progressive vs traditional). I see this proposal as the least disruptive to the conference and the churches. (Clergy are another matter!) Anything else will be worse. You can begin to see the Spirit’s work through all this human confusion.
I would modify your first point in the following way: “Our passionate commitment to what we believe to be the truth.” If I might take the liberty of paraphrasing Philippians 2.5-8: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard [being committed to the Truth of] God as something to be exploited [by claiming superiority over others], but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave [even of those who opposed him], being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.” Because we are not so practiced in comprehending, let alone fulfilling, the Truth of God as Jesus was, we need to follow his lead in becoming humble servants of others on his behalf, always willing to say, “This is the truth as I understand it now and to which I am fully committed, at least until God reveals a fuller Truth to me that I as yet neither comprehend nor serve.” If all on every side of the various issues we allow to separate us into warring tribes were to adopt such an attitude – i.e., recognizing our limitedness and fallibility as well as our need to stand with others FOR some Truth – we might even converse/argue more productively and be less prone to taking offense at one another and distancing ourselves from those with whom we disagree. (Of course, if this is anything close to the Truth of God, then I continue to identify with Paul’s term, “the chief of sinners,” since I myself have not adopted this insight nor followed this practice that I’m advocating.)
This was meant to be a response to Rev. Emily Flemming’s post above, not to Gary L. Moores, beneath which it ended up being positioned.
This plan is still trying to get Traditional Christianity to accept the worldly ways of sin but only stick it in a different room in the same house under the same budget so no one will go hungry! You cannot bend the Word of God to fit your personal belief. Real Christians will see through this as a way of compromise and will not accept. Thinking “outside the box” is thinking outside the Bible and thinking of the worldly ways to save/divide each church’s nest egg.
This is a plan for dividing up the UMC. It is not different rooms, but different houses.
The Jones/Bard Plan is viable option to divide the church in order to set all sides free to be who they choose to be. There isn’t a better plan out there to do so and the continued fighting is in contradiction to the Word of God as well. After the division, in 2020, each group can change as it sees fit and establish a church with Wesleyan theology that is consistent with the orthodox, historic, Wesleyan way or a church that has surrendered to the culture and seeks to go along to get along. I hope this plan will be turned into legislation that will stand the test of intense scrutiny because it seems the best hope we have of ending the fighting.
The United Methodist Church along with other Churches are confused about “Same Sex Marriage” and the” Ordination of Gay Persons.” Let’s not spend too much time on these issues. We need to listen to the voice of God and try to make Disciples of Jesus Christ for the Transformation of the World. We need to be unified, because division causes confusion. I applaud the efforts of Bishop David Bard and Bishop Scott Jones in their response to “Unity”. They may be an odd couple, but they are children of God. Let’s move on in Christ.
Be blessed!
Rev. Dr. Ted Whitely, Sr.
(Retired United Methodist Clergy)