The Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth is the interim pastor of Sandy Cross United Methodist Church outside Nashville, NC and the editor/president of Lifewatch. He lives in Wilson, NC. We have earlier presented a “negative” case of why we cannot trust the public presented reasons for the liberal American faction of the Commission on the General Conference filibustering General Conference until 2024. In this guest column, Pastor Stallsworth makes a more positive case for why the Commission had a duty to make General Conference happen this year, and therefore its majority faction made the wrong decision with the latest General Conference postponement.
UM Voices is a forum for different voices within the United Methodist Church on pressing issues of denominational and/or social concern. UM Voices contributors represent only themselves and not IRD/UMAction.
GENERAL CONFERENCE IS NECESSARY
General Conference is essential to United Methodist life. For that reason, the absence of General Conference is destructive to United Methodist life.
General Conference is composed of nearly 1,000 elected delegates from across the church and around the world. These delegates gather in one place to propose legislation, to deliberate, and to vote on matters considered significant by the church. In American society, this kind of a process is called “democracy.” In the United Methodist Church, it requires “Christian conferencing.”
In “The Politics of Postponement and the 2020 General Conference,” Dr. David F. Watson of United Theological Seminary notes the importance of General Conference to the church: “The UMC [United Methodist Church] was built to hold disagreement. At our [founding,] we established certain processes by which we could resolve disagreements and move forward with the business of the church.” At General Conference, those “certain processes” were on full display. Without General Conference, those “certain processes” cannot help the United Methodist Church to “resolve disagreements and move forward.”
LEGALITIES AND LOGISTICS
To do its essential work for the United Methodist Church, General Conference is held every four years. The church’s constitution in paragraph 14 of the Book of Discipline mandates: “The General Conference shall meet once in four years at such time and in such place as shall be determined by the General Conference or by its duly authorized committees.” Furthermore, General Conference established the Commission on General Conference (COGC). Paragraph 511 “Commission on the General Conference” in the Discipline legally describes the COGC so it can set the times, places, and logistics for upcoming General Conferences.
Recently, the Commission voted 14-9 to postpone the next General Conference until 2024. According to the Commission and press reports, this postponement was based on the perceived possibility that delegates — particularly those from outside the United States — would be unable to attend General Conference because of vaccination and/or visa issues.
REASONS FOR WRONGNESS
By postponing the next General Conference for two years, the Commission made the wrong decision. Here are four reasons why:
First, the Commission on General Conference was established to make sure that General Conference actually occurs as prescribed by the Book of Discipline. Under COGC’s “responsibilities” in Discipline ¶511.4, the word “shall” is repeatedly used: “The commission shall select the site and set the dates of the General Conference….” (4a); “[t]he commission shall plan the schedule for the opening day of the Conference….” (4b); “[t]he commission…shall make all necessary arrangements for the publication of the Advance Edition of the Daily Christian Advocate….” (4c); “[t]he commission shall take necessary measures to assure full participation of all General Conference delegates….” (4d); “[t]he commission shall recommend to the General Conference the per diem allowance….” (4e); and “[t]he commission shall set the number of legislative committees…. (4f) (emphases added). In sentence after sentence of paragraph 511, the Discipline assumes that General Conference will take place and that the Commission will do everything in its power to serve the next General Conference, as the prior General Conference has decided.
In deciding to postpone the next General Conference until 2024, based on “full participation” concerns, the Commission wandered from its disciplinary responsibilities. Then it decided wrongly.
Second, because of COGC’s General Conference postponement vote, the United Methodist Church will not be able to address (let alone resolve), as a body, its current division (over human sexuality, doctrine, and just about everything else). The Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, which was negotiated in good faith to allow traditional pastors, congregations, and conferences to continue into another denomination without punitive penalties, cannot be considered and passed without General Conference. But pastors, congregations, and perhaps even annual conferences will nevertheless continue to leave the United Methodist Church in increasing numbers. Flagrant violations of the Discipline — involving same-sex services and the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy — will not be addressed with integrity in many areas.
The United Methodist Church will most probably, in a word, implode.
The Commission’s decision failed to take seriously this probability.
Third, the Commission’s postponement decision denies the United Methodist Church its democratic identity, which is exercised under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Democracy happens, it is practiced, it is done. It requires a community in conversation. United Methodists do democracy, in a grand way, at General Conference. In participation in or observance of General Conference, United Methodists rely on the movement of the Holy Spirit in their deliberations and seek to discern the guidance of the Lord Jesus Christ. No General Conference means no Holy Spirit at work in the denominational body. No General Conference means no deliberation under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. No General Conference, no good. The Commission decided in error.
Fourth, General Conference postponement increased distrust of the people for the leaders, and of the leaders for the people, throughout the United Methodist Church. Not a few United Methodists believe that the bishops were somehow behind the Commission’s decision to postpone.
This pastor does not know. But it does seem eyebrow raising that the Council of Bishops (COB) March 3 press release on the decision to postpone awkwardly declares: “The bishops do not serve as voting members of the Commission.” That same day, Bishop Ken Carter’s “pastoral response” to the postponement decision used the same COB language: “I note here that bishops do not serve as voting members of the commission.” The Council of Bishops and Bishop Carter seem eager to distance bishops from the Commission and its postponement decision; unfortunately, their statements give rise to a suspicion that actually some bishops, behind a curtain, were lobbying or pressuring the Commission to postpone General Conference.
CONCLUSION
The United Methodist Church needs the next General Conference to occur sooner, not later. The Commission on General Conference decided otherwise in the vote to postpone. The Commission (well intentioned as its members might have been) went in the wrong direction. So what is to be done?
Commission, how about reconsidering your decision to postpone?
Council of Bishops, how about calling for another special General Conference — this one to begin as soon as possible?
Commission and Council, how about doing something that would encourage the United Methodist Church to be itself — in democratic deliberation, in the power of the Holy Spirit, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ — in a General Conference way before 2024?
Comment by David on March 21, 2022 at 7:33 am
Given how the GC has reversed itself over the years on matters such as female clergy, going to the movies and circus, and abortion, it is laughable to claim that it acts under the influence of heaven. It is a political institution and reflects the cultural divisions in the US.
The expanse of the church has becomes unwieldy when it is difficult for delegates to gather in one place. It is time to give up colonialism. US Methodism is not controlled by British Methodists. I would call for the formation of a Galactic African Methodist Church.
Comment by Dr. Terry L. Polen on March 21, 2022 at 1:52 pm
To those of you that are reading this, please accept the wisdom of my old friend and pastor.
I will simply add that to those of us who still stand upon the word of God, that we must trust that “all things work together for good to them that love the Lord and are called according to His purpose “. (Philippians 4)
The chubby Augustinian monk named Luther created a split. The man plucked from the fire as a child, John Wesley created a split of sorts. Even Paul and Barnabas was to the glory of God!
People are going to have trouble accepting this as good. But all things work together for good…
This great old friend (he married my wife and I many years ago) speaks words of wisdom.
But we, you and I, are called by Jesus to help people accept, and love.
It is yet another aspect of the great commission.
Dr. Terry L. Polen. DM, PE
Comment by Chris on March 21, 2022 at 4:10 pm
Why were the negotiations framed in terms of “allow[ing] traditional pastors, congregations, and conferences to continue into another denomination without punitive penalties”? The potential breakup of the church saddens me, but I am absolutely baffled by traditionalists should be expected to leave. The liberal congregations are unhappy with longstanding UMC doctrine and say they cannot continue in a church that holds a traditional view of marriage and sexuality. If they want to leave, then I think a fair split needs to be negotiated. But why is anyone indulging the arrogant assumption that the liberals get to eject the majority from the UMC?
Comment by Anthony on March 21, 2022 at 5:28 pm
It is almost amusing that so many traditionalists seem surprised and astonished at the continued antics and behaviors of of the UMC liberal brethren. This is their DNA. They do not work with others for resolution of ANYTHING. If ALL traditionalists left the United Methodist Church this week – all of them – these people would immediately begin fighting among themselves. This is who they are, and this is what they do. Without controversy, dissension, rebellion, disturbance, disobedience, destruction, and obnoxiousness- they would have no reason for being.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 21, 2022 at 9:33 pm
The arguments go round and round the conflict like carnival bumper cars, making commenters dizzy and sick. There are some bishops willing to negotiate with mercy and restraint. But there are also intriguers of dubious charm, like the loquacious UMC conspiracy theorist Jeremy Smith (PNW), who obsess about sending traditionalists penniless and homeless into the dark night. These intriguers are the hawks of war against WCA and a nascent GMC.
Comment by Loren J Golden on March 21, 2022 at 11:25 pm
The relationship between the UMC bureaucracy and the UMC General Conference, with the former stubbornly refusing to schedule the former, increasingly strikes me as the relationship Charles I had with the English Parliament. Charles convoked parliament shortly after his ascension to the English throne in 1625, then again the following year, in 1629, and in the spring of 1640, but when he couldn’t get what he wanted out of parliament, he simply dissolved it. However, losses in the war he was waging against Scotland (in which he was attempting to force the Scots to accept English forms of worship and the rule of English bishops over the Scottish Kirk), he was forced to convoke what has come to be known as the Long Parliament, to raise taxes to fund his war. However, once in session, parliament refused to be dissolved; and to make matters worse, parliament raised its own army and made an alliance with Scotland, leading to the English Civil Wars—which did not turn out at all well for Charles I.
Clearly, the continual postponement of the General Conference works to the bishops’ favor. There is great dissatisfaction among the general membership with the current state of affairs in the UMC, and a truly gracious separation plan has been negotiated that would allow those congregations most dissatisfied with the bishops’ political program to separate from the denomination and form their own. Yet it needs a vote of the General Conference to ratify it and put it in force. And with the voting power of traditionalist Africa backing it, the plan is certain to pass.
Then in 2020 a worldwide pandemic broke out, thousands of churches closed their doors (most of them temporarily) per local legislation, and American denominations canceled or postponed their national meetings. The UMC, quite naturally, followed suit, postponing the 2020 General Conference until the following year, contingent upon a change in the pandemic situation. Churches that would have gladly departed under the proposed plan would have to wait at least another year before they could. And, while they were still in the denomination, they would still be obligated to pay their annual apportionments to the UMC. Thus, the bishops benefited from the postponement of the General Conference.
Then 2021 rolled around. Three different vaccines were introduced, to limit the spread of the pandemic. COVID-19, while not eradicated, was at least now under control. Most American denominations resumed their annual meetings. But not the UMC. Citing problems with vaccinating African delegates, obtaining visas for them, etc., the Commission on the General Conference once again voted to postpone the UMC’s annual meeting for yet another year. Once again, churches that would have preferred to leave under the gracious separation plan were forced to stay put. And continue to fund the UMC bishops’ salaries.
Now it is 2022. Everyone who wants a vaccine can get one. Life has returned largely to normal, despite the fact that COVID-19 has not been eradicated. And all the American denominations are holding their annual gatherings. Except the UMC. Citing challenges for African delegates, the Commission on the General Conference has once again voted to postpone the General Conference—this time by two years, instead of one. The UMC bishops, perhaps mindful of the benefits they reap by having congregations desiring to leave being forced to wait yet another two years, were very quick to point out that they have no voting rights on the Commission that has effectively decided to cancel the 2020 General Conference altogether.
Traditionalist Methodists are quite disgruntled over the whole affair. “Something’s rotten in Denmark,” they say—or in Nashville, as the case may be. Many are quite cynical over the matter and are convinced that their bishops are buying time until they can concoct a scheme to derail the gracious separation plan. Some are thinking they should simply leave without the gracious separation plan, since it seems so long in coming to fruition. Of course, such would once again play into the hands of the bishops, who would doubtless sue any UMC congregation that sought to leave with its property without their blessing (and without having paid an extortion for such a privilege). And if traditionalist Methodists departed the UMC without their property (Stateside property, at any rate), the bishops would gladly sell the abandoned property for a profit. Or if sufficient traditionalists left mixed UMC congregations, it would make it much more easier to retain those congregations, without those pesky rabble-rousing traditionalists.
But just as Charles I was eventually forced to convoke the Long Parliament, the Commission on the General Conference will be forced to schedule the General Conference. As Rev. Stallsworth put it, “General Conference is essential to United Methodist life.” The General Conference must meet eventually. And when those representing millions of disgruntled Methodists finally do meet in General Conference, I would not be surprised if they were to launch an investigation into the Commission on the General Conference. Indeed, the commissioners might even find themselves disciplined for delay of Conference (much the same way a sports team is penalized for delay of game). And it might be found that the bishops did, indeed, have some kind of influence over the Commission that led them to unwisely postpone the General Conference.
Matters did not turn out at all well for Charles I, in his efforts to rule England without the support of parliament. Neither do I think that matters will turn out at all well for the bishops and for the members of the Commission on the General Conference who are responsible for postponing the UMC General Conference these three times, when there are explosive matters threatening the denomination’s well-being that need to be resolved.
Comment by Dan W on March 22, 2022 at 7:13 am
I did not know the history of Charles I, and read the Wikipedia article on him. Yes, things did not turn out well for him. A great lesson for us all.
Comment by Pudentiana on March 22, 2022 at 4:11 pm
Justice delayed is Justice denied and we have learned that our suspicions about the politicians posing as Bishops are proven and that they are untrustworthy and many lay members will leave. Their status will not protect them.
Comment by Patricia B Russell on March 22, 2022 at 7:22 pm
Thank you! Why not decide to go ahead and have General Conference in 2022? Please consider this change of plans.
The world is watching and observing our Christian behavior. This is a perfect opportunity to witness to God’s Love and demonstrate Holy Spirit guidance. If our denomination separates in an amicable way, it will do way more to win the respect of members and observers.
United Methodists will hold General Conference as previously planned in 2022! Let’s pray to that end. The world is watching.
Comment by Anthony on March 22, 2022 at 7:27 pm
Loren,
Apportionments. That’s their lifeblood. This thing could be ended overnight IF apportionments were withheld UNTIL a special General Conference is called by the bishops for the sole purpose of a Protocol vote. Withhold the money and they would kick into action rapidly.
Of course that is wishful thinking. But, why are congregations so AFRAID of withholding apportionments while other parts of the BOD are being violated by the very people depending on these apportionments? Why such fear of these bishops?
Comment by Loren J Golden on March 22, 2022 at 11:22 pm
Dan,
I had not read much about Charles until recently (although the names in the line of Stuarts from James I to James II matches the first names in my paternal lineage from my great-great-grandfather to my father). However, I’m currently writing a blog post expounding on the first chapter of the Westminster Confession (Of the Holy Scripture), and I wanted to provide a little historical background for the Westminster Assembly, and Charles I figures quite prominently in that history.
Anthony,
In the immortal words of the Great Jedi Master Yoda, “Luke, do not underestimate the powers of the Emperor, or suffer your father’s fate you will.”
I really don’t see how withholding apportionments will motivate the bishops (or the Commission on the General Conference) to set a date this year or next for a General Conference. The only churches that would withhold apportionments that would be those that would take advantage of the gracious separation plan, and once they leave, their apportionments go with them. The bishops really have nothing to lose by making traditionalist congregations stay put for another two years (at least).
And don’t forget that the Empire Strikes Back. As long as traditionalist congregations are within their jurisdiction, the bishops retain oversight of the pastors in their respective regional conferences, and they can reassign a traditionalist pastor wheresoever they want and assign an SJW to be a traditionalist congregation’s next pastor. It’s a power that the UMC’s predecessors decided long ago that the bishops should have, and it’s not likely to change anytime soon.
Rather than withholding apportionments, have you considered that maybe a call to repentance, fasting, and fervent prayer might be more effective (Jas. 5.16)? Just a thought.
Comment by Lynn on March 23, 2022 at 9:49 am
Apportionment withholding is one avenue to speak traditional & liberal displeasure. Both groups want a separation and to stop the turmoil. For too long traditionalists took the bishops and the methodist leadership at their word and believed they were going in good faith. That has proved a fallacy. It is evident that power and money is the only thing that matters. They want traditionalists funding, “because they believe they know best how is should be spent”. I ask all traditional Methodists and liberal groups to consider withholding all apportionment until a separation is complete. Have your congregation look to see where the funding is actually going. If there are causes that your congregation/individuals believe should be funded, send your money directly. Methodists have too many “on the payroll” who think it is in their best interest to keep this farce going. Those who truly believe in taking Jesus to the world and our communities, understand this must end for either group to have a chance at being a witness. Now, it is a joke among secular persons and even other denominations, that it is too messy to be a methodist, they don’t even know what they stand for or believe. Sad, but as long as this is prolonged we are hurting everyone. The many Methodists members (pew members) must remember the bureaucracy should not dictate to us, they should represent us faithfully.
Comment by John Cobil on March 23, 2022 at 11:39 am
Over time I have become increasingly cynical about the actions of the top echelons of UMC leadership. I hope I am wrong, but what appears to be happening is a slow-motion purge. A few traditional churches have left the denomination but many more traditionalist members are walking with their feet. Every time a liberal pastor announces that participating in the communion sacrament doesn’t require any repentance, commitment or even belief in Jesus who established it, a few people won’t be back. Every time a liberal pastor directly contradicts scripture in order to push social issues, a couple of members will leave.
Comment by Anthony on March 23, 2022 at 11:48 am
REGIONALIZATION, a reworked One Church Plan, is rapidly emerging as the liberal battle cry now that the Protocol is on hold or presumed dead. The liberal agenda now shifts to preserving as much of the INSTITUTION as possible with its money, assets, properties, positions, salaries, benefits, et al, opening a back door for an official LIBERAL THEOLOGY, and extracting as much money as possible from departing TRADITIONAL-ORTHODOX congregations.
The favored plan for accomplishing this, led by liberal bishops, liberal general church boards, liberal general church agencies, and the influential liberal organization — UMCNext — calls for a restructuring of the denomination into an INSTITUTIONAL COLLECTIVE of self-governing, autonomous regions, each with its own Book of Discipline.
Therefore, this next UMC would preach, teach, and proclaim two diametrically opposite theologies simultaneously and define United as unified in THEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY on such matters as Biblical Authority, Marriage, Sin, the Gospel & Repentance, Ordination Standards, Etc.
This all envisions an INSTITUTION supported by apportionments from all of the regions while being administered by a majority liberal bureaucracy and governed by a majority liberal institutional General Conference.
Comment by Anthony on March 23, 2022 at 2:53 pm
Furthermore, as a traditional-orthodox Methodist contemplating remaining in the coming/future/next United Methodist Church — am I willing, among other things, to…….
🔺compromise or reject the traditional-orthodox understanding of Biblical Authority and, instead, support, condone, or have complicity with a new understanding as Scriptures could be categorized, at the discretion of the reader, into three categories consisting of (1) Scriptures that express God’s heart, character, and timeless will, (2) Scriptures that expressED God’s heart, character, and will for a particular time but no longer binding, and (3) Scriptures that never expressed God’s heart, character,
🔺compromise or reject traditional-orthodox beliefs on Christian marriage and, instead, support, condone, or have complicity with same-sex marriage and other types of LGBTQ+ marriages with the marriage ceremonies officiated by UMCNext ministers inside UMCNext sanctuaries,
🔺compromise or reject traditional-orthodox beliefs regarding the sins of sexual immorality and, instead, support, condone, or have complicity with welcoming into church pulpits practicing homosexual clergy, other practicing LGBTQ+ clergy, and, together with their partners, occupancy of the church parsonages,
🔺compromise or reject traditional-orthodox beliefs regarding the sins of sexual immorality and, instead, support, condone, or have complicity with full inclusion of LGBTQ+ identified persons with their sexual lifestyles and relationships affirmed, even celebrated, thus exempting such from the call of REPENTANCE,
🔺 compromise or reject traditional-orthodox standards of clergy licensing and ordination and, instead, support, condone, or have complicity with the welcoming into full inclusion LGBTQ+ candidates who are in LGBTQ+ sexual relationships as well as being a safe harbor for LGBTQ+ clergy who are in sexual relationships,
🔺 support, condone, or have complicity with church literature, including children’s literature, that includes LGBTQ+ and gender identity advocacy, and
🔺 support the TRUST CLAUSE continuance whereby the annual conferences, instead of the local congregations, own the local church buildings, furnishings, grounds, all assets, and financial accounts to do with as they deem necessary for the benefit of the conferences and collective institution?
Comment by Loren J Golden on March 28, 2022 at 12:16 am
Lynn,
I am afraid that withholding apportionments as a way to express one’s “displeasure” of the bishops’ leadership of the United Methodist Church is not only wrongheaded thinking, it is full of the world’s wisdom and actually runs counter to the Lord Jesus’ teaching.
First, it is a form of retaliation—the bishops’ behind-the-scenes manipulation of matters, to postpone the General Conference, is a wrong that affects me, so I am going to pay them out by withholding the apportionments that, according to the Book of Discipline, I am obligated to pay them. Yet against this type of thinking, the Lord Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” (Mt. 5.38-42; see also Rom. 12.17-21, I Pet. 2.23)
Second, the Church belongs to the Lord, not to the bishops, and withholding apportionments is a strike against the Lord’s Church, and not simply against disobedient undershepherds. Like it or not, the bishops of the UMC received their appointment from the Lord, irrespective of their stewardship of that appointment, and withholding your apportionments from them is tantamount to withholding your apportionments from Him. “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.’” (Mt. 23.1-3; see also Rom. 13.1-7, I Pet. 2.13-17)
Third, the apportionments the local churches owe to the bishops is due them per the Law of God, irrespective of whether they are paid or not. “When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, ‘Does your teacher not pay the tax?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?’ And when he said, ‘From others,’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.’” And again, “And (the Pharisees) sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ They said, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’” (Mt. 17.24-27, 22.16-21; see also Dt. 14.22-29)
To be sure, the bishops are directly accountable to God, and they will have to give an account to Him of their (mis)management of His Church (Lk. 12.42-48, Jas. 3.1). I know that it is your desire (and likely the desire of most within the local congregation in which you serve) to be separated from the UMC and its bishops, who have been working to keep the UMC from falling apart, even as they have been seeking to make friends with the unbelieving world (contra Jas. 4.4), and I know that you would see this separation occur sooner rather than later. Yet in your haste to be rid of the oversight of faithless shepherds, and in the ecclesiastical community of like-minded believers, do not, I beg of you, sin against the Lord. As long as your local congregation is covenantally united with the UMC, it is under the God-ordained oversight of the UMC bishops, and as such, your congregation is (and you, as a member thereof, are) obligated to obey their rules and honor and respect their office and authority. “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb. 13.17)
Comment by Anthony on March 30, 2022 at 4:21 pm
With this postponement- the Traditional Plan adopted at the 2019 Special General Conference to solve, once and for all, the conflict in our denomination is still the LAW of the church. Now, for the next two years, will complaints start being filed and adjudicated per the Book of Discipline? A rhetorical question of course, but as the Judicial Council continues to nit pick the BOD on ridiculous matters, and Bishops follow it to the letter of the law on matters that suit their agendas, seems to be a legit question? However, the TRADITIONAL PLAN is still the law of the church — a laughable statement to liberals.