Indianapolis Plan Values Amicable Separation (Part II)
As noted last week, the conversation group working on the Indianapolis Plan has come to agreement and submitted the final version of a plan for an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church. You can read the first part of my analysis of the plan here.
This plan (of which I am one of the authors) envisions the UM Church giving birth to new denominations of United Methodism: a Traditionalist UM Church, a Centrist UM Church, and possibly other denominations, including a Progressive UM Church.
This blog continues to talk about the unique values and advantages of the Indianapolis Plan.
All denominations formed under the Indianapolis Plan could use (but are not required to use) the “United Methodist” name with a modifier to distinguish one denomination from another (e.g., Liberationist United Methodist Church, United Methodist Church of the Philippines). The use of the name is not important for many United Methodists in the U.S. However, it is an extremely important issue for some in the central conferences outside the U.S. In Africa, the United Methodist name is a well-established and trusted brand that opens doors and protects the church from capricious governmental actions that might threaten the property or ministries of the church there. They also told us how difficult, cumbersome, and expensive the process is to change a corporate name. We heard from many that they could not support a plan that would require them to change the name of the denomination they are part of. The same is true of the cross and flame logo, which is widely used in Africa and the Philippines to demarcate the United Methodist Church brand. Denominations could continue to use (but are not required to use) the logo with modifications to distinguish one denomination from another.
The Indianapolis Plan provides a new, less costly way to handle pension liabilities. Rather than require an up-front payment of pension liabilities (as in the current local church exit provision), this plan allows Wespath to reallocate those liabilities to the new denominations based on which annual conferences, local churches, and clergy choose to align with each denomination. We engaged in extensive conversation with legal experts at Wespath about how to handle pensions. They were eager to cooperate (without implying any endorsement of our plan) and provided significant legal language for the Indianapolis Plan legislation that they believe addresses the concerns over pensions. Since the money for unfunded pension liabilities may never be needed, it makes more sense to transfer the liability, rather than requiring churches and annual conferences to pay the liability up front. Local churches that withdraw to become independent would still be required to pay for unfunded pension liabilities before withdrawing.
The Indianapolis Plan envisions a General Conference-approved equitable plan for allocating general church assets among the resulting new denominations. While the UMC Next Plan proposes the gift of some financial resources to a new Traditionalist UM Church, the Indianapolis Plan envisions an equitable division of general church assets among all denominations formed in this process. Such a division of assets would not require any boards or agencies to be dissolved or any property to be sold. Rather, liquid assets and investment properties could be divided proportionally based on membership. Where there are donor restrictions on assets, those restrictions would be maintained. While the Indianapolis conversation group did not have time to agree upon a formula for allocating assets, different groups have submitted proposals for how such an allocation might be done. The General Conference and its legislative committee will determine how the process would work. The group agreed that disputes would be settled by appeal to an arbitration board, making any resort to civil courts or lawsuits unnecessary.
The Indianapolis Plan offers a short timeline, allowing expeditious movement into the new denominations for those who are ready, while leaving the door open for alignment decisions for the next eight years. The plan envisions annual conferences making alignment decisions before the end of 2020, with local churches that disagree making their decisions by mid-year 2021. General Conferences forming the new denominations would take place in fall 2021. The new denominations would be fully functional under their new governing documents on January 1, 2022. This timeline allows the new denominations to form and get on with ministry, rather than being mired in the decision-making process. At the same time, annual conferences or local churches (more likely) could change their alignment through the end of 2028. This allows those who are not ready to make a decision right away to live into the possibilities and make a decision later. However, no annual conference or local church could take a vote to reconsider its alignment unless three or four years had passed since its previous vote on the matter.
The Plan creates an interim implementation for those ready to move immediately into a new denomination. Annual conferences and local churches that make a quick alignment decision could begin to live under their new denomination beginning August 1, 2020, on an interim basis. In addition, jurisdictions would be encouraged not to elect new bishops in 2020 but wait until 2021 or 2022 to do so, based on the annual conferences that remain in the Centrist UM Church. This would avoid having a surplus of bishops who do not have an annual conference in which to serve. Central conferences would likely not see any change in their annual conference alignments and could elect bishops as planned in 2020.
The interim implementation will allow immediate change to how churches and annual conferences function, in order to curtail further conflict. Traditionalists would immediately be free of the pressure to change their position on marriage and sexuality and could begin moving in a robustly proactive ministry direction. At the same time, centrists and progressives would immediately be free of complaints, trials, and disciplinary processes over same-sex weddings or the ordination or appointment of self-avowed practicing homosexuals.
Some have pictured amicable separation as a divorce. Our group has instead pictured this process as The United Methodist Church giving birth to new children. The UM Church as it has been will exist no more. But it will exist through the new denominations that inherit the characteristics of the parent denomination. Each of the “children” will be different from each other. But they will all be part of the United Methodist family and heritage.
The underlying motive for taking this path is to broaden and multiply the mission of the church. As different denominations, we will be able to reach more people with the good news of Jesus Christ, make more disciples, and see more ways in which the presence of God’s Spirit transforms the world. We will be able to focus our energies and resources on mission and ministry, rather than fighting, power, and control. Each new expression of the church will be able to reach people that the other denominations cannot reach.
As the plan states, “We envision an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church which would provide a pathway to new denominations of the Methodist movement so we can all make new disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. These new denominations, though separate, will continue the rich heritage of the Methodist movement while being free to share their respective witnesses for Christ unhindered by those with whom they have been in conflict. We will release one another to joyful obedience to Christ’s call on our lives.” May it be so.
12 thoughts on “Indianapolis Plan Values Amicable Separation (Part II)”
I think this is sick and a total abandonment of all traditionalists. It commits the church to sin and apostasy.
Thank you for your comment, Sherry. I must respectfully disagree. It does not commit the church to sin and apostasy. Instead, it gives a way for those who cannot agree to the LGBTQ agenda to separate and pursue biblically faithful ministry, not giving in to sin or apostasy. Traditionalists will be able to form a new denomination that has biblical integrity and be free of the conflict that is hindering our ministry.
I can see where people who want to retain the name ‘United Methodist’ without any modifier would not like the plan, but as Shakespeare wondered, what’s in a name? The goal is to have a traditional, evangelical church that is free of the strife that has plagued it for the last 40 years. This is the path that allows the disagreeing parties to separate. Human psychology being what it is, no one likes to ‘lose’, which is why forcing either side to exit, and therefore creating a division between ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ is why a losing side will continue to fight well beyond there being any reasonable chance of changing the outcome. There is no perfect everyone-gets-what-they-want path without any messiness – given where the church finds itself today, that isn’t possible. This path allows the groups to get on with their work in the way that suits their conscience the best. Shouldn’t we be eager to get back to focusing on spreading the good news of the gospel and not having to deal with another round of this kind of thing? Praise the Lord and make it so!
Wonderful news. It’s hard to see how any group would find this plan unacceptable. Nicely done!
It seems that the folks in Africa were not really enthused, as they don’t like the idea of breaking up the Church. So when they were asked to vote for this in the upcoming GC, they apparently were quite critical.
Thank you for your thoughts, JR. While it is true that the African bishops issued a statement calling for the church to stay together, they also called for the church to maintain its traditional position. In my view, this is impossible, given the commitments by progressives and centrists not to abide by the traditional position. The African delegates in St. Louis did not vote according to the wishes of their bishops, and they may not do so in Minneapolis, either. The feedback we have been getting from African delegates is that they believe the Indianapolis Plan is the fairest way forward to end the conflict of the church. Some of them may not like one or more of the provisions of the Plan (and neither do the proponents of the Plan like every provision — it was a compromise), but I believe they will prefer it to the UMC Next Plan, which is basically an attempt to implement the One Church Plan that was defeated in St. Louis.
Having read the tenets of the UMCNext plan, they carry on like they will have the votes for the One Church Plan this time, and when they win, the other side wouldn’t devote themselves to ‘resistance’ the way they have devoted them to resist a vote that didn’t go their way. What ‘The Way Forward’ proved is that the two (or more) factions simply cannot cohabitate. The progressives and centrists, with their resistance, have proven that expecting them to abide by their vows after they lose a vote is a chasing after the wind. The only alternative is something akin to the Indianapolis Plan where there is a mutual separation. The UMCNext plan would result in the same thing as the Traditional Plan being fully implemented, just changing who were the ‘leavers’ as opposed to the ‘remainers’, or, worse yet, just exchanging roles of ‘establishment’ and ‘resistance’. The goal is to end the argument and the UMCNext plan does not do that – it only kicks the can down the road, again. The Indianapolis Plan ends the disagreement and everyone should prefer that.
Not sure that the African UMC delegation would agree.
I realize that there might be some ‘viewpoint discrepancies’ in that article, but here are a couple of high points:
“Good News dispatched one of its most senior leaders to Africa…”
“Part of the reason for the difference in the audience was likely the absence of some of their well-funded, usually vocal friends who were not elected as delegates to GC2020. This provided space for other delegates, some of whom are new and have never been to General Conference. These new delegates took an opportunity to express their view that the days of neocolonialism – that is, of Africans being controlled by outside forces – are over.”
“The messages of WCA and Good News to United Methodists in the USA are totally different from what they have been sharing with the church in Africa all along.”
“The individual who presented the so-called Indianapolis Plan on how to divide The United Methodist Church into three denominations was told he was bringing an American plan and that all he wanted from Africa were votes. The Indianapolis Plan was drafted and negotiated without consulting with Africans. Even the U.S. groups’ most trusted African allies and organizers had no input into the process. The presenter could not answer why he was coming to Africa with a finished plan to ask for votes.”
If the African UMC delegates align with the Filipino delegates under a banner of regional autonomy, I think we might find that the US ends up under an OCP direction. The side question on that would be what exit provisions are agreed upon.
Thanks for your thoughts, JR. The article you reference is a very unreliable account of the meeting. It suffers from viewpoint bias that has colored the reporting. Leaders who were present at the meeting do not believe the article fairly represents what took place or the views that were expressed. For example, the Indianapolis Plan was not presented as a finished product, but explicitly to gain feedback from African leaders. In the process of its development, trusted African leaders were consulted. At this point, we are hearing positive reactions from African delegates to the Indianapolis Plan.
Thanks, Tom. While I might disagree with you in many areas, I understand and appreciate that there are different views and understandings that come out of a particular meeting – trying to get the pieces from the different sides helps to get a fuller picture of the situation.
Thank you Rev. Thomas for your writings ,that help me to understand better about conflict our church is facing. I have questions : Why African are involved in these issues? Why putting this issue on Africa shoulder? What is the impact of Africa in decision making?
Thank you for your question, Louis. African United Methodists make up over 1/3 of the global UM Church. As such, their votes at General Conference are very important for determining the policies and direction of the church. The Africans support a traditional understanding of marriage and sexuality. Therefore, they are unwilling to support a denomination that allows same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. If the centrists are successful in changing to denomination’s policies to allow same-sex marriage and ordination, that will alienate the African part of the church. The African delegates have been a key part of the coalition to maintain the traditionalist understanding. They will have an important say about which plan is accepted for moving forward.