A Matrix of Proposals

In my music theory class, the professor announced one day that we would be creating a matrix. One student muttered, “Oh, I don’t think my mother would let me do that.” I, on the other hand, have always found matrices to be an excellent way to compare information. Now that the deadline has passed for submitting legislation to the 2020 United Methodist General Conference (GC2020), several options for how the UMC might move forward are before us. I have created a Matrix of Proposals.¹ to see how those options line up.

Here are some initial thoughts on these proposals, with more to come as discussions unfold between now and when GC2020 considers them.

My heart is with the Bard-Jones Plan as a way to remain “United” Methodists, but the failure of two plans with that goal at GC2019 makes its success unlikely. The deep division in the wake of the Traditional Plan suggests that the denomination no longer shares enough theological and exegetical common ground to allow any plan of union to succeed.

The Next Generation UMC Plan would be the least disruptive way forward, keeping the present UMC intact and allowing provisions for dissenting congregations to leave. Because the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) was organized to leave if GC2019 had not gone their way, they have a structure in place and could easily form a new denomination. Personal correspondence with WCA leaders indicates that they have no intention of leaving under the current disaffiliation plan, which was recently upheld by the UMC Judicial Council. Perhaps they will find the exit provisions of the Next Generation Plan more acceptable and choose to support this proposal.

That leaves two plans that call for the dissolution of the UMC in order to create anywhere from two to four new denominations. Such division will be messy and contentious, and will throw the denomination into a new phase of turmoil. The discussions that have taken place largely at the general church and caucus level for the past 47 years will be passed on to local congregations as they choose where to end up. There are some congregations for whom the choice is clear, but the vast majority of local churches are as divided as the denomination itself. Many church members have no idea what is about to hit them, and will need time for prayerful conversation about the best way for them to continue in ministry in their location without losing a large portion of their membership. Given that, the timelines of all plans seem overly ambitious.

None of the proposals were developed with significant input from Central Conferences, which seems a major oversight, given their growing numbers and decisive role in passing legislation on this issue.

Also coming before GC2020 is a proposal from the UMC Connectional Table to form a Regional Conference in the US. This move does not address sexuality directly but seeks to unburden the General Conference of business that relates only to the US, in order to save time and resources.² Everyone knows that the increasing support for LGBTQ persons in the US would undoubtedly mean rejection of the Traditional Plan in this country. US conservatives are likely to discourage Central Conference delegates from supporting the proposal, even though theirs are the bodies that would benefit from a less US-centric General Conference.

All any of us can do at this point is speculate about the prospects for these proposals’ success. The 862 delegates to GC2020 alone determine the future of the church, although many forces will seek to influence them over the next six months. We will not know until that session ends on May 15 whether one of these plans succeeds, something else emerges from the GC2020 legislative process, or we find ourselves back where we are.

1. For help with acronyms, see this helpful list.
2. Similar legislation was passed by GC2008 but was not ratified by enough annual conferences to make the necessary constitutional amendments.