Recently a group of clergy (including myself) issued an open letter to General Conference delegates calling for the passage of "Gracious Exit" legislation that would allow congregation to leave with property, and clergy with their pension, under a uniform set of criteria pending changes in the Book of Discipline in 2019. This is designed to protect local congregations regardless of their size (and mortgage debt they might hold) and sway, and assure clergy they can go forward without losing the benefits they've earned with service. Clergy and laity alike are welcomed to endorse this letter online, all of which can be done if you click here.
As I've watched names be added to the list, I've noticed the names of many influential traditionalists being added, as well names from conferences that might lean more in that direction. Progressives and centrists, however, seem to be withholding their support. As I've been asking around it seems the main reason for this is that clergy and laity are under the assumption that if they endorsed this language, they'll be encouraging folks to leave the denomination while personally supporting the cause of our unity. I respect this, but I personally disagree with the argument. Supporting or not supporting a "Gracious Exit" will make no discernible difference in whatever is coming down the pike this February.
There will be a split, or splintering in the wake of our gathering in St. Louis. It is unavoidable. That's why I believe a "Gracious Exit" is necessary. Let me give you five reasons......
1. The United Methodist Bishops Aren't Going To Lead A Push For Unity In St. Louis
This summer hasn't been a good one for our bishops. After receiving the work of the Way Forward Commission, a joint statement of support for the "One Church Plan" was quickly undercut by a press releases by bishops who opposed it. Confusion rained supreme as we wondered if one plan, or three, would be introduced at General Conference. The "Gracious Exit", which was promised by the commission, was stripped out by the bishops, only to be included in one of the three plans. Conflicting reports regarding how overwhelming, or underwhelming, the vote for "One Church" within the College of Bishops came from multiple sources. Leaks regarding which plans the bishops worked on and didn't work on now have created suspicion that the "Traditionalist Plan" didn't come from the Way Forward Commission, but rather from a conservative caucus one of commission members represent. Dates came and went when promised communication updating us on this work didn't appear, and when it finally did wasn't translated into the languages promised, but rather only English.
In short, in a time when United Methodists were hungering for clarity, the bishops couldn't provide it even in the simplest terms.
Now the bishops representing the African conferences have released their own statement, and following the example set this summer, did so without bringing any further clarity to our current situation. Issuing a stand for the traditional view of marriage, but refusing to endorse the plan that would champion that position, or the plan the bishops said they endorsed last summer seems calculated and cautious. It mirrors the muddled communication received from all the bishops last summer, and is forcing us all to speculate what the bishops really want, at a time when all we want from them is leadership.
Rest assured that if you had any hope that somehow in St. Louis all the bishops would band together, rise above their differences, and lead us to unity, you can pretty much set that aside. Two years have proven they are as balkanized as the rest of us.
2. The Statement of the African Bishops Is Most Likely Still An Affirmation of a "Traditionalist" Understanding of Unity, And Thus the "Traditionalist Plan"
I don't think it's any coincidence that when the African bishops stated their position, they referred back to the statement regarding marriage they crafted together back in 2016. Two years, they tell us, has changed nothing. They want unity, but it will be around the reaffirmation and enforcement of a "Traditionalist" understanding of marriage. The 2016 General Conference in Portland was heading toward this definition of "unity": doubling down on traditionalist language, closing loopholes for enforcement, and expelling those who violated the Book of Discipline. Their desire to keep moving in this direction appears to have not changed at all.
If the bishops from Africa haven't changed their stance, what is the likelihood the delegates from the African conferences have? The math in 2016 seems to be lining up to be the same math in 2019. The path we were heading in 2016, unity by law and order, still seems very likely to win the day.
3. If "One Church", Or Nothing, Gets Passed, The WCA Is Going To Walk
The WCA has made it clear that the current state of the denomination is for them, untenable. The only reason there hasn't been a walkout over Bishop Olivetto's election is the looming special session of General Conference in 2019. And at that, there's only been patience practiced because the WCA knows regardless of the outcome, that they won't be living inside this current version of the denomination after next February. They'll either put the newly passed "Traditionalist Plan" into effect, or leave. They haven't wavered from this promise. They've been very consistent.
If a sizable body of people go to the trouble of filing all the paperwork necessary to enable them to become a denomination across the country, hire an attorney to represent their interests, put out information and propaganda to fill their ranks, and say again and again that they won't remain in the denomination if they don't get what they want, why wouldn't we believe them? The WCA has effectively asked for a divorce.
If you've been through a divorce, you know that at some point the only grace-filled thing you can give your spouse is an agreement to part. For the good of all involved - family, friends, and each other - it is better to part amicably than seek new, awful ways to punish one another.
4. Pragmatically Progressives and Some Centrists Need To Start Planning For The Possibility Of A World After The UMC And They'll Need A Good Start
There's a possibility (and it's a good one) that the "Traditionalist Plan" is going to be the new discipline of the United Methodist Church. Some churches and clergy will end up getting tossed out on the other side of this reality. But there are others who simply will have no desire to live out what these changes are going to require of them. They will want to get out.
When a church leaves a denomination there's much to consider. Loss of denominational affiliation requires the filing of new incorporation papers with your respective state, and modifying your deed to eliminate the the "trust clause" language. Leaving the UMC means giving up the tax-exempt status under the blanket exemption from the IRS. Polity and self-governance decisions are going to have to be made. The loss of the itinerant system could thrust churches who have clergy who don't go with them into the rare place of having to find their own clergy. All of these changes, and more, will be required to keep the church operating.
Clergy too who turn in their orders, will need to seek alternative means of credentialing. They will be faced with potential changes in their health insurance and pension plan. Without the rules of their conference or the Book of Discipline, their role will very much have to be re-defined. There's a lot that will need to be done for a former United Methodist congregation to continue to do her work.
While traditionalists could land easily with the Free Methodist or Wesleyan denominations if they so chose, United Methodists who favor inclusion don't really have a clear cut option. Some have talked about trying to work with the UCC to open a "Wesleyan Wing". Others have talked about opening up talks with the ELCA or Episcopalians about creating some sort of landing place. Still others have talked about filing the paperwork to mirror what the WCA has done and create a contingency plan for a "new" denomination or association if the need is there. Still others are looking at the possibility of going out on their own as independent congregations.
In any case, refusing to think about the "unthinkable" is an option, but it probably isn't a good one. A "Gracious Exit" would allow progressives and centrists to move forward with as little upset and interruption as possible doing the work of making disciples of Jesus Christ who change the world.
5. We need a "Gracious Exit" so we can make plans for the future with as much grace and love as possible.
I know this kind of talk is upsetting to people. Nobody likes change, and the degree that could be coming will be significant. But regardless of whoever it is that'll be looking at leaving, if we care about the ministry of each and everyone of our local congregations, mutually we should agree that the journey shouldn't start with costly litigation. It shouldn't favor churches with greater mortgage debt and the financial means to hire their own attorneys. It shouldn't jeopardize the pensions of retirees who count on that income, or be done without giving thought about the impact on our missional outreach all over the world. It shouldn't jeopardize the function of each of our congregations, and it should give clarity to clergy as they navigate their future.
In a bad situation, this is most grace-filled and loving we can be to each other. There's no need to create more suffering than need be as the Spirit leads us into the future. Creating a way for churches and clergy alike to be faithful to what they earnestly believe regardless of whether they remain in the denomination or not is the best chance we have to continue to facilitate good ministry in our local congregations. To continue the work of making disciples of Jesus Christ, who change the world.
So once again, please consider signing on our open letter calling for a "Gracious Exit" to be included in the work of the special session of General Conference in 2019. Your voice could make all the difference.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Why I'm Not Afraid of the "Gracious Exit"
One of the reasons I ended up becoming a United Methodist Minister is that I'm not all that great at math. I can add and subtract well enough. It's just that in the 8th grade when I hit algebra and they started introducing letters into the numbers, everything kind of went downhill. My lack of math prowess was one of many clear indicators that God wasn't calling me into civil engineering as a vocation. Ministry seemed like a much more viable option.
But you don't have to be an actuary to understand United Methodist math. Barring an appeal from the most trusted and respected American United Methodist in all of Africa (thank you George Howard), the era of Book of Discipline "fuzzy enforcement" would have been over. Parts of the A&W Plan, which is essentially the new "Accountability Option", were speeding toward consideration on the floor of General Conference, while the previous forms of the "Local Option" and the more-complicated-than-algebra "Autonomous-Affiliated-Jurisdictional-Or-Whatever-It-Is Option" languished in committee. Only George's motion, which swung enough African delegation votes after Adam Hamilton's motion failed, stopped that train from reaching the station.
Which brings me back to the subject of United Methodist math.
In 2019 virtually the same delegations from all the various conferences from around the world will convene in St. Louis to take up what George Howard's motion delayed for three years. At that gathering the same three options - accountability, local, and the other one - will finally come up for vote. Only this time, the progressive wing of the denomination is more defiant and the conservative wing is more organized and determined.
The math will be the same.
When the WCA first started, and the news that it essentially had incorporated itself in such a way that it could be a new denomination in all fifty states, I'd have bet the conservative wing of the church was leaving. Why deal with two entire jurisdictions who were simply not going to enforce the Book of Discipline, and force you to exit each clergy member one trial at a time? Why tussle with the entrenched institutionalists who sat on the various boards and worked on the staffs of the various General Church agencies? Why try to face down bishops, the majority of whom are ready for some sort of compromise to move forward? I personally thought the WCA was angling to negotiate a "Gracious Exit" requiring an "exit fee" to protect the fiscal health of Wespath, and go start a new thing.
But the closer we get to St Louis next February, I'm not so sure. The conservative caucuses haven't indicated that they're up for anything other that total victory when it comes to matter of the Discipline and the future of the UMC. In fact, given a favorable Judicial Council, and estimates like this one where only a small percentage of the denomination are projected to leave if the Accountability Option were passed, I'm gathering that there's a heated discussion going on inside the WCA about whether or leave, or stay.
As a committed centrist who has been working toward a compromise where all people would be welcome in the United Methodist Church, I've dealt enough with various members of WCA leadership to know that there will be no compromise. This is a matter of principle upon which they will not budge. No scenario that would permit an ordained gay and lesbian clergy or an elected lesbian bishop to be in any way affiliated with them will be entertained.
Down the road, these same leaders I fear will become as hard-core about other issues as they are about LGBTQ exclusion. For those who stand for any "leftist" sounding cause (Health care reform? Gender equality? Compassionate immigration reform? Reasonable gun control?) or continue to call those to accountability for rejecting infant baptism, confirmation, and female clergy leadership, I have a hard time believing that eventually a target isn't going to be on your back too. If the denomination starts heading "right", my centrist colleagues agree that LGBTQ exclusion isn't where things will end.
It won't be enough if you've already affirmed the Book of Discipline and sought to uphold it. New litmus tests like the affirmation of the Nicene Creed (which hasn't been an issue in 1600 years) will be established to enforce a more literal view of scripture designed to align us with other evangelicals and the neo-con agenda in Washington. On-line sermons, I'm certain, will be reviewed, with anything deemed objectionable on the table for possible charges. Given the continued rhetoric, I expect the worst if the math from 2016 holds in 2019, and the road to 2020 leads toward greater restriction.
For these reasons, and others, I support the inclusion of "Gracious Exit" for any congregation or clergy who will not be able in good conscience to abide by the changes coming in our Book of Discipline. While there are currently no "winners or losers", and the future remains unwritten, this would insure the most practical and equitable criteria for any interested church or clergy members to follow.
To go further, I'd invite members of the WCA to an theologically inclusive table to discuss a "Gracious Exit" that would be fair and equitable to all. I'm sure the prospect of a world where a "Local Option" has won the day is as unappealing to you as the previous scenario is to me. Quite honestly, after years of fighting I just want to see our churches go forward as healthy as they can be, positioned to do the ministry of Jesus Christ to the best of their ability. If there truly is no middle way, I'd like us to be gracious as we take steps forward into the future.
While I will continue to pray for a unified United Methodist Church, I'm not going to ignore the math. Either way though - United Methodist or whatever is on the other side of it - I'll work toward a denomination that puts the local church first, and aims to make disciples of Jesus Christ equipped to change the world for the better. That's my prayer for all, whether walking together, or on separate paths, that we keep making the journey toward Kingdom of Heaven, following Jesus.
But you don't have to be an actuary to understand United Methodist math. Barring an appeal from the most trusted and respected American United Methodist in all of Africa (thank you George Howard), the era of Book of Discipline "fuzzy enforcement" would have been over. Parts of the A&W Plan, which is essentially the new "Accountability Option", were speeding toward consideration on the floor of General Conference, while the previous forms of the "Local Option" and the more-complicated-than-algebra "Autonomous-Affiliated-Jurisdictional-Or-Whatever-It-Is Option" languished in committee. Only George's motion, which swung enough African delegation votes after Adam Hamilton's motion failed, stopped that train from reaching the station.
Which brings me back to the subject of United Methodist math.
In 2019 virtually the same delegations from all the various conferences from around the world will convene in St. Louis to take up what George Howard's motion delayed for three years. At that gathering the same three options - accountability, local, and the other one - will finally come up for vote. Only this time, the progressive wing of the denomination is more defiant and the conservative wing is more organized and determined.
The math will be the same.
When the WCA first started, and the news that it essentially had incorporated itself in such a way that it could be a new denomination in all fifty states, I'd have bet the conservative wing of the church was leaving. Why deal with two entire jurisdictions who were simply not going to enforce the Book of Discipline, and force you to exit each clergy member one trial at a time? Why tussle with the entrenched institutionalists who sat on the various boards and worked on the staffs of the various General Church agencies? Why try to face down bishops, the majority of whom are ready for some sort of compromise to move forward? I personally thought the WCA was angling to negotiate a "Gracious Exit" requiring an "exit fee" to protect the fiscal health of Wespath, and go start a new thing.
But the closer we get to St Louis next February, I'm not so sure. The conservative caucuses haven't indicated that they're up for anything other that total victory when it comes to matter of the Discipline and the future of the UMC. In fact, given a favorable Judicial Council, and estimates like this one where only a small percentage of the denomination are projected to leave if the Accountability Option were passed, I'm gathering that there's a heated discussion going on inside the WCA about whether or leave, or stay.
As a committed centrist who has been working toward a compromise where all people would be welcome in the United Methodist Church, I've dealt enough with various members of WCA leadership to know that there will be no compromise. This is a matter of principle upon which they will not budge. No scenario that would permit an ordained gay and lesbian clergy or an elected lesbian bishop to be in any way affiliated with them will be entertained.
Down the road, these same leaders I fear will become as hard-core about other issues as they are about LGBTQ exclusion. For those who stand for any "leftist" sounding cause (Health care reform? Gender equality? Compassionate immigration reform? Reasonable gun control?) or continue to call those to accountability for rejecting infant baptism, confirmation, and female clergy leadership, I have a hard time believing that eventually a target isn't going to be on your back too. If the denomination starts heading "right", my centrist colleagues agree that LGBTQ exclusion isn't where things will end.
It won't be enough if you've already affirmed the Book of Discipline and sought to uphold it. New litmus tests like the affirmation of the Nicene Creed (which hasn't been an issue in 1600 years) will be established to enforce a more literal view of scripture designed to align us with other evangelicals and the neo-con agenda in Washington. On-line sermons, I'm certain, will be reviewed, with anything deemed objectionable on the table for possible charges. Given the continued rhetoric, I expect the worst if the math from 2016 holds in 2019, and the road to 2020 leads toward greater restriction.
For these reasons, and others, I support the inclusion of "Gracious Exit" for any congregation or clergy who will not be able in good conscience to abide by the changes coming in our Book of Discipline. While there are currently no "winners or losers", and the future remains unwritten, this would insure the most practical and equitable criteria for any interested church or clergy members to follow.
To go further, I'd invite members of the WCA to an theologically inclusive table to discuss a "Gracious Exit" that would be fair and equitable to all. I'm sure the prospect of a world where a "Local Option" has won the day is as unappealing to you as the previous scenario is to me. Quite honestly, after years of fighting I just want to see our churches go forward as healthy as they can be, positioned to do the ministry of Jesus Christ to the best of their ability. If there truly is no middle way, I'd like us to be gracious as we take steps forward into the future.
While I will continue to pray for a unified United Methodist Church, I'm not going to ignore the math. Either way though - United Methodist or whatever is on the other side of it - I'll work toward a denomination that puts the local church first, and aims to make disciples of Jesus Christ equipped to change the world for the better. That's my prayer for all, whether walking together, or on separate paths, that we keep making the journey toward Kingdom of Heaven, following Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)