This category collects commentaries on the various plans presented to the 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis, May, 2020.
‘Next Generation UMC,’ ‘Indianapolis Plan' Outlined at Gathering
by Cynthia B. Astle (Used by permission of United Methodist Insight.)
September 27, 2019
LEAWOOD, Kansas – For those expecting clear-cut strategies on The United Methodist Church’s future, the presentation of two major proposals proved that the future is still in flux – and will require lots of reading in the coming months before the 2020 General Conference.
“I hoped to come away from here with a clear idea on what these plans mean, but now I’m more muddled than before,” said a participant.
Since the 2019 special General Conference’s adoption of the Traditional Plan rocked United Methodism worldwide, this year’s session of the Leadership Institute sponsored annually by United Methodist Church of the Resurrection had been promised as the time when a concrete future scheme would be unveiled. Instead there were summaries about aspirations of two high-profile plans, warnings about the dire consequences of splitting the UMC, and urgent pleas to the General Conference delegates in attendance to read through all legislation involved before the 2020 General Conference May 5-15, 2020.
This is an important exposé of strategy:
This Deal is getting worse all the time: Behind the WCA support of the Indianapolis Plan
October 17, 2019 by Jeremy Smith (Hacking Christianity)
“I am Altering The Deal”
In 1980’s Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, the evil Darth Vader has made a deal with the opportunist cloud city administrator Lando Calrissian: If Lando helps Vader capture Luke Skywalker, then Vader would take Skywalker and leave the cloud city alone.
However, once Vader had Skywalker on site, he changed the deal: Vader would now be taking Princess Leia as prisoner, and Han Solo would be given to the bounty hunter Boba Fett. When Lando objects to these changes, Vader replies with menace:
“I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”
Read more: This Deal Is Getting Worse: Why the WCA Supports the Indy Plan
Answering and Explaining 10 Early Questions and Comments about the Plain Grace Plan
by Frank Holbrook, a retired attorney and first-time delegate to GC2020 from the Memphis Conference, where he serves as conference president of United Methodist Men and also serves on the Episcopacy Committee.
1. The Plain Grace Plan is merely a repackaged version of the One Church Plan (“OCP”).
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Report of the Commission on the Way Forward offered the following one sentence summary of the One Church Plan: “The One Church Plan provides a generous unity that gives conferences, churches, and pastors the flexibility to uniquely reach their missional context without disbanding the connectional nature of The United Methodist Church”. Commission on the way Forward Report at p. 11. Using the commission’s phraseology, the PGP allows the United Methodist Church’s competing factions to “disband”. After the Organizing Conference required under ¶431D, each new expression is an entirely separate entity, what one would historically term a new “Denomination”.... [Continue reading] [The Plain Grace Plan is here.]
Rev. Jeremy Smith, of HackingChristianity.net, discusses a "Fuddling Cup" and how the current state of the UMC is similar. Citing Elisha, he calls for something new to be added to the mix--and gives a suggestion or two.
September 23, 2019
...In United Methodism right now, there’s a prevailing narrative that we are a church of three separate cups: Progressive, Centrist, and Traditionalist. We are at the breaking point of contention without a common future, and we should separate in some way to drink from separate cups.
- Progressives should drink from their cup of full LGBTQ+ inclusion.
- Traditionalists should drink from their cup of continued LGBTQ+ exclusion in peace.
- Centrists should drink from their cup of prioritizing the institution over inclusion or exclusion.
Many of the plans for our future (see this helpful list here from Rev. Becca Girrell in New England) have us dividing into separate cups, or dissolving the connecting handles altogether.
The prevailing narrative in the church today is that we are three cups, and we should divide to allow each of us to be on our own and seek the fullest expression that cup can provide. Only then can we head into a stronger future with full cups of our own making.
Unfortunately, we will be fuddled indeed if we fall prey to this narrative that we would be better apart than together. [Read his complete analysis]
Here is a comparison between the Indianapolis Plan and the Bard Jones Plan, by Frank Holbrook, a retired attorney and first-time delegate to GC2020 from the Memphis Conference, where he serves as conference president of United Methodist Men and also serves on the Episcopacy Committee. An excerpt:
This post is my first look at some of the ways the Indy Plan differs from the Bard Jones Plan (“BJP”).
I’ll begin by noting that both plans advance the dialogue concerning potential separation. In fairness, it should also be emphasized that the Indianapolis Group released its work to encourage discussion and critique. It’s clearly a draft plan. Releasing a draft truly encourages a good process because it allows the framers of the plan to get feedback and make necessary additions and adjustments. This post discusses some of the differences between the Indy Plan and BJP.
DIFFERENCE ONE – THE DEGREE OF SEPARATION
When comparing the BJP and the Indy Plan one must begin at the fundamental difference between the two plans. Both plans agree that there must be separation, their fundamental difference is how much distance to put between the freshly minted new expressions. [Read his full article]