This category collects commentaries on the various plans presented to the 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis, May, 2020.
by Uniting Methodists
September 18, 2019 [from UM-Insight.net]
Since its inception in 2017, the Uniting Methodists movement has remained steadfast in its commitment to seeking and building unity among the many diverse groups who hold competing visions of the future for The United Methodist Church.
Consistent with those values and beliefs, we fully support the decision to chart a new path forward as determined by the results of the Special Session earlier this year. Our goal is to provide our members with critical information about the current Next Generation UMC Proposal (legislation presented by UMCNext), which in many ways is a departure from the earlier vision that The Commission on a Way Forward outlined in the One Church Plan. We hope this will result in greater clarity and allow us all to move forward together with one voice into the future.
As many of you have observed, there is agreement between the two proposals on some broad principles. Both reinforce the respect that the Church has for diversity of opinion and strive for continuity even as we adapt to changing practices and new structures. While the Next Generation UMC Proposal is offered only a few months after the called 2019 General Conference, it addresses different concerns of a different time in the life of the UMC. It unequivocally calls for a moratorium on trials arising from the Traditional Plan as well as the repeal of all of its provisions in the Book of Discipline. The proposal calls the church to a life where all are affirmed for their gifts in ministry and where no class of persons would experience discrimination. The proposal continues to trust pastors with the capacity to choose when they will perform marriage ceremonies. The Board of Ordained Ministry will have the ability to ordain, license, or certify all persons who are duly qualified to be in ministry. [Continue reading...]
by Ben Gosden
September 6, 2019 [from UM-Insight.net]
Plans, Plans, Everywhere
It seems like everyone has a plan for the future of The United Methodist Church these days:...
Why I Support the Indy Plan (or some variation of it)
Another plan has emerged that intrigues me a great deal. The Indianapolis Plan strikes a balance between a couple of competing notions. It reimagines the denomination, but creates more workable space than the Bard/Jones Plan. It gives the basic legal entity of the UMC to the centrist/progressives without doing with a scorched earth strategy like UMCNext. Most importantly, it ensures that ALL of us put skin in the game. Winners and losers are not the way to administer the Body of Christ. And I feel like the basic construct of the Indy Plan ensures that everybody wins a little and loses a little in the process. [Continue reading]
Blogger Rev. Jeremy Smith of Hacking Christianity has critiqued a draft of the Indianapolis Plan: its authorship, its process, and its "knives" as he puts it. I appreciate Jeremy's incisive insights to the conflict in our denomination. Excerpts are below. Blogger Rev. Darren Cushman-Wood points out that the final copy didn't have the 50/50 asset split mentioned in the draft. But Jeremy cautions that some of the work of the draft document allegedly from the Rev. Tom Lambrecht might end up in the legislation.
The Spin Cycle
August 16, 2019 by UMJeremy
Earlier this week, all the United Methodist lights went up on the Indianapolis Plan, a plan for the future of The United Methodist Church. ...
…But the reality does not match the marketing.
A Well-Meaning But Stilted Gathering
All three articles allege that the Indianapolis Plan was created jointly between Progressives, Centrists, and Traditionalists. That turns out to be a deceptive claim.
Here’s the endorsers. Among the conservatives involved were the WCA chairperson and the Good News Vice President (two major leaders of their perspective), and a WCA Leadership Council attorney and GC delegate (Nicklas). The moderates involved were centrist folks (here’s one reflection), and the progressives involved were…well…not equivalent caucus group leaders of progressive movements. No offense to them and their terrific local ministries, but their involvement in global ecclesial politics is not equivalent to the Traditionalists.
Read more: Cutting through the Spin on the Indianapolis Plan