Seven Ways the Liberal Bishops’ Plan WOULD Impact Non-American United Methodists

on December 20, 2018

The specially called 2019 General Conference of the United Methodist Church will consider a variety of plans to resolve our denomination’s internal conflicts over sexual morality and accountability.

Liberal American bishops have been heavily pushing a plan to make the UMC join the ranks of other mainline American denominations that ordain homosexually active clergy and permit same-sex union services.

There have been a lot of misleading rhetoric being used to sell this plan, including its name, the “One Church Plan” (OCP).

One of the most widespread claims I have seen is that this plan would “have no impact” on central conferences outside of the United States, at least for those in which United Methodists have more traditionalist biblical values.

But this claim is just plain false.

Regardless of what we think about other aspects of the plan, it is important to get some basic facts straight.

Contrary to the misinformation being spread to promote the OCP, here are seven major ways in which this plan would have a MAJOR impact on United Methodists outside of the US:

1. The “One Church Plan” would change our denomination’s definition of marriage to be more open to same-sex couples.

2. The “One Church Plan” would dramatically, permanently change the witness of United Methodist central conferences on questions related to marriage and homosexuality.

3. The “One Church Plan” is GUARANTEED to split our denomination apart.

4. The “One Church Plan” would result in the United Methodist Church having much less money to support ministry in the central conferences.

5. The “One Church Plan” would make the United Methodist Church much less of a global church.

6. The “One Church Plan” would impose unfunded mandates and difficult debates on central conferences.

7. Finally, NONE of the promises you may hear about the “One Church Plan” allowing central conferences to continue a more traditional approach to such issues can be trusted as permanent.

An explanation of each of these points follows below:

1. The “One Church Plan” would change our denomination’s definition of marriage to be more open to same-sex couples.

Right now, our church defines marriage in our UMC Social Principles as a covenant “between a man and a woman.” But the “One Church Plan” would change several relevant parts of our Social Principles to alter our church’s definition of marriage from being “between a man and a woman” to being “between two adults,” to make marriage at least potentially open to including homosexual couples.

It is important to note that the Social Principles sections of the Discipline are in places that central conferences have NO right to change or adapt (per Paragraph 101 of the Discipline). You may have heard misleading rhetoric otherwise. But the fact is that if this “One Church Plan” is adopted, this new, liberalized definition of marriage will be THE definition of marriage for our entire global denomination, including in every central conference.

2. The “One Church Plan” would dramatically, permanently change the witness of United Methodists central conferences on questions related to marriage and homosexuality.

United Methodism outside of the United States would send mixed messages, at best, with regard to marriage and homosexuality.

Even if a central conference in Africa, the Philippines, or Europe/Eurasia forbade homosexual marriage ceremonies and partnered gay clergy, they would now be part of a denomination that officially allows same-sex unions in some areas and which has bishops openly living in homosexual relationships.

Even if a central conference had more traditionalist standards within its own context, it would still be subject to the leadership and under the authority of the whole denomination. And if the “One Church Plan” is adopted, we can expect that leadership positions in our denomination would come to include United Methodist clergy and bishops openly living in homosexual partnerships. And under the One Church Plan, United Methodists in central conferences would effectively lose their right to object to such persons being in leadership positions over the entire denomination. This could also mean that United Methodists in central conferences could be forced to welcome homosexually active bishops along with their same-sex partners if they came to visit Africa, Eastern Europe, or the Philippines in an official capacity.

If the “One Church Plan” is adopted, these new facts about our denomination would become known in the context of United Methodists in every part of the globe. In much of the world, this could give the church a bad reputation and hurt the ability of United Methodist congregations to attract new people.

This would also create confusion among members of United Methodist congregations in even the most traditionalist central conferences. They would hear their own pastors and their own bishops teach that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But they would also see leaders of our denomination teach and practice very different things, and see that their own pastor’s teaching is different from that of the denomination. Some may wonder who they should believe and trust for a Christian understanding of marriage.

3. The “One Church Plan” is GUARANTEED to split our denomination apart.

The name, “One Church Plan” is VERY misleading. Out of all the three main plans, this plan is the most guaranteed to split our denomination apart, and to the greatest extent.

Within the United States, there is no mystery. A great many faithful, effective pastors and congregations have ALREADY said clearly that they could not stay in the United Methodist Church if we change our Book of Discipline to officially allow homosexual union ceremonies and ministers who practice homosexuality.

Earlier this year, a survey was taken of the clergy and laity of the North Georgia Conference, the largest annual conference in the United States. The survey asked how people felt about the fact that the United Methodist Book of Discipline currently teaches that homosexual practice is sinful (“incompatible with Christian teaching”). Only 5 percent said that they would leave our denomination if this teaching remained in our Discipline. But 25 percent (five times as many!) said that they would leave the United Methodist Church if this teaching were ever removed. In other words, A LOT more people would leave the United Methodist Church if we move in the direction of the “One Church Plan” than if we moved in the direction of the Traditional Plan.

Also, in the US we have seen what happens when other major denominations adopted something similar to the “One Church Plan.” These other denominations have seen MAJOR losses of members, congregations, and sometimes entire regions. Why would anyone think that following the same path in our denomination would have any different results than this consistent pattern?

In denominations with similar property ownership systems as that of the UMC, they have also experienced ugly scenes of the denomination suing congregations in secular courts when these congregations have left the denomination. These other denominations have spent many MILLIONS of dollars on lawsuits to fight over the congregations’ properties.

Outside of the US, our denomination would also split. There will likely be some entire regions that would leave the United Methodist Church if we adopt the “One Church Plan.” Even if a particular central conference or annual conference outside of the US chose to remain United Methodist, some of its congregations would still leave. Or if a pastor was determined to keep his or her congregation in the denomination, many members may still leave. Thus, this plan would bring conflict and division to the local level, for United Methodists within as well as outside of the US.

4. The “One Church Plan” would result in the United Methodist Church having much less money to support ministry in the central conferences.

Again, if the “One Church Plan” is adopted, this would GUARANTEE a large number of Americans would leave our denomination. This is the pattern we have seen when other denominations have moved in similar directions.

This would greatly reduce the amount of money that would be left in American United Methodism to support mission and ministry in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Furthermore, the “One Church Plan” would follow the same pattern of policies in other denominations that has led to denominations spending tens of millions of dollars on lawsuits to sue congregations (in government courts) that leave the denomination. If we adopt the “One Church Plan”, every ten million dollars our denomination spent suing other Christians would be ten million dollars that would no longer be available to support vital missions and ministries.

5. The “One Church Plan” would make the United Methodist Church much less of a global church.

One of the things I personally love about our denomination is how we are a GLOBAL church, with a significant presence in America, the Philippines, and throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as a small but growing presence in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

But because of the reasons noted above, the “One Church Plan” would put this at risk. The “One Church Plan” would effectively drive large numbers of people out of the United Methodist Church. There may be some entire regions where we would lose most or all of what could be considered a significant United Methodist presence.

The more this happens, the less we would be a truly global church.

6. The “One Church Plan” would impose unfunded mandates and difficult debates on central conferences

The “One Church Plan” would change the United Methodist Book of Discipline to allow ordination of ministers who are in homosexual partnerships, and also (in at least parts of the Africa Central Conference and the European Central Conferences) allow United Methodist ministers and congregations to celebrate homosexual marriage ceremonies. This would become the DEFAULT policy of the United Methodist Church around the world.

It is true that, at first, a central conference would be allowed to take action to refuse to accept these changes. But this would require the central conference to take special actions. To do this, leaders in a central conference may have to spend a significant amount of time, energy, and money, which they would have to pay on their own. For some central conferences, delegates have such a range of different points of view that it could get very emotional or divisive for the central conference to debate and decide on a stance on homosexual marriages. For some in other central conferences, it is not culturally polite to talk directly about such matters, but this plan would force them to debate and discuss this at their central conference.

And they would have to go through all of this trouble just to keep some of the same policies we already have now.

If a central conference did not go through this trouble to take action within a certain period of time, then by default these new liberal policies on marriage and ordination would be imposed on them.

7. Finally, NONE of the promises you may hear about the “One Church Plan” allowing central conferences to continue a more traditional approach to such issues can be trusted as permanent.

Some of the most prominent supporters of the “One Church Plan” have said clearly that they do NOT see it as a final resolution to our denomination’s conflicts, but rather as a first step towards making our denomination more fully supportive of homosexual marriages.

So if this plan passes, what would be the next steps?

Because of all the people who would leave our denomination, it is clear that the One Church Plan would make future sessions of our General Conference (and therefore, future elections to the Judicial Council) more “liberal.”

It is true that Paragraph 31.5 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline gives each of the seven central conferences into which our denomination is organized outside the USA a limited right to make “changes and adaptations” to the Discipline as it applies within their own region.  But Discipline Paragraph 101 declares that there are some portions of Discipline to which central conferences may not make any regional adaptations.  And this paragraph, along with Judicial Council Decision #1272, makes clear that any future General Conference, by only simple majority vote, can change or expand the boundaries for which parts of the Discipline cannot be changed or adapted anywhere.

So after the One Church Plan passed, it would become rather easy for a future meeting of the General Conference and/or Judicial Council, with more liberal members, to further shift church law to REQUIRE every central conference to follow America’s lead in allowing homosexual marriages and/or homosexually active pastors in their churches.

 

 

United Methodists outside of the United States, as well as any American United Methodists concerned for not harming the ministries of our brothers and sisters overseas, should keep these seven implications in mind as they consider the proposals before our denomination.

  1. Comment by William on December 20, 2018 at 11:17 am

    This “plan” confirms that Satan is alive and well as he and his children work to destroy the UMC.

  2. Comment by Pudentiana on December 20, 2018 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you for this helpful analysis. When the serpent spoke to Eve, he was so crafty. That is the same “craft” we can perceive in the One Church Plan. It is hard to believe that UMC bishops can be so easily deluded. But then, Eve wanted that apple badly and her pride was so strong.

  3. Comment by William on December 20, 2018 at 3:49 pm

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A15%2C1+Corinthians+6%3A9&version=NIV

  4. Comment by big dave on December 20, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    As for me and my family, we’ll just follow the Lord at another church

  5. Comment by binkyxz3 on December 21, 2018 at 4:59 am

    The implementation processes for the OCP form a psychological minefield for traditionalists. An effort to re-establish the Book of Discipline “homosexuality is evil” doctrine will be labelled as regressive and the individuals as anti-gay. This will be played out in public and shame will be the liberals’ primary weapon. A similar fate awaits decisions about homosexual leadership and same-sex “weddings.”
    This is a classic fait accompli — the OCP, by undermining the Book of Discipline, insures a predictable reaction from the traditionalists; setting them up to be driven from the church. One need look no further than current political tactics to see this labelling-vilification-shaming model.
    On the 25% leaving if the BoD is changed (mentioned in point #3), I do not see that as positive at all. For such a serious, binary choice, isn’t the expected response close to 95%? I believe the liberals look at those proportions and say, “Yay, we’ve already won over or intimidated 70% of them.”

  6. Comment by Carol Tatum on December 21, 2018 at 2:34 pm

    Manipulative political tactics employed by pro-gay people aside, I will be leaving UMC, my beloved church, if anything other than the Traditional Plan is implemented. How sad as my genealogy goes back to an itinerant preacher appointed by Bishop Francis Asbury in the 18th c. riding horseback through the colonies to spread God’s Word. For me to have to leave my beloved denomination is extremely upsetting to me. If the Traditional Plan is not kept, I will have no other choice.

  7. Comment by William on December 21, 2018 at 5:04 pm

    Same here. The Wesleyan Covenant Association is the “fall back plan” if the “‘one’ church plan” passes. Traditional/Wesleyan Methodism will continue.

  8. Comment by Dave on December 24, 2018 at 10:14 pm

    Thanks for your honest and sorrowful comment, Carol. The sadness that will come over UMC will stretch to almost every congregation. Difficult days for us are ahead.

  9. Comment by Skipper on December 24, 2018 at 10:30 am

    It’s really critical that the Traditional Plan be passed, with an exit plan for the dissenters. Jesus was a moral person and we must follow Him. Those who disagree have not only taken the low road, but they are keeping people from taking the high road.

    It’s like Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” NIV

  10. Comment by Bill on January 4, 2019 at 12:43 am

    The fact that we’re even debating whether or not homosexuality is a sin shows that the Methodist church is a Liberal Action Committee, not a church that is spreading God’s Word. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Pray for homosexuals and their supporters.

  11. Comment by Bartum on January 12, 2019 at 6:07 pm

    If the US UMC insists that homosexuality should be accepted in the church, then the African delegates and those from nations that traditionally practiced polygamy should insist on polygamists being welcomed into the church.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.