Judicial Council says part of the Traditional Plan is unconstitutional

The United Methodist Judicial Council, the denomination’s high court, looked at the three plans for the denomination’s future to be voted on at the General Conference in February. The Council of Bishops asked the Judicial Council to decide on the constitutionality of the three proposals well before the plans are voted on. This is according to the denomination’s constitution.

The complicated Connectional Conference Plan proposes several changes to the denomination’s constitution. Because of that the Judicial Council ruled it had no authority to scrutinize the plan.

The Council unanimously decided there are a few problems with the One Church Plan, the one to allow each Annual Conference (region) to decide whether to ordain LGBT people or to permit same-sex marriages. The Traditional Plan, the one to tighten restrictions against LGBT people, has several significant problems.

Since I don’t want to wade through the 87 page decision, I turn to Rev. Jeremy Smith and his blog Hacking Christianity. He had a post about the decision ready the day after it was released.

Of the many pieces in the One Church Plan, only three sentences were declared unconstitutional, and in Smith’s opinion are irrelevant to the overall plan of “unity in diversity.”

The Traditionalist Plan is made up of 17 petitions (perhaps described a components). Nine of those were declared unconstitutional. The major points, according to Smith:

* The Council of Bishops was not designed to have its members policing each other for doctrinal purity.

* A Board of Ordained Ministry (the committee in each region that decides who may be a pastor) cannot reduce its decision to one aspect of a candidate (whether they are LGBT) and cannot single out one group of candidates for disqualification.

* The plan allows for Annual Conferences and individual churches to leave the denomination if they don’t like the LGBT restrictions of the Traditional Plan. But the Council says only Annual Conferences can leave, but individual churches cannot.

So some of the worst of the Traditional Plan have been nullified. But that doesn’t mean the plan is dead. It’s still dangerous.

The February General Conference is just a few days. The overall plan will be voted on during the second day with the third day for refining it. That means those who support the Traditional Plan can say all the bad stuff is gone, it isn’t perfect, but we can fix it later. Vote for it! Smith wrote of the plan and its supporters:

Their vision of a church without progressives and moderates is within reach and they won’t let our own court (even their hand-picked one) stand in the way. … All that matters is that the progressives leave, not that the plan is actually legal.

Smith points out another aspect of the Judicial Council decision, the things they did not rule against. This, says Smith, means the JC wrote model legislation for further LGBTQ harm. The regular General Conference in 2020 could quote these Traditional Plan provisions, say they already pass constitutional muster, and should be given preference over other petitions. These provisions include such things as banning the eligibility of LGBTQ people serving as bishops, even if properly elected (overturning the one lesbian bishop we have), and upholding minimum trial penalties for officiating at same-sex weddings.

The first comment to Smith’s post was a declaration that if the Traditional Plan is approved the writer could in good conscience no longer be a member of the United Methodist Church. That is immediately followed by a person declaring she could no longer be a member if they don’t approve it. Another says the denomination is stuck in legalisms. And another laments a denomination that has become lawless.

This is my own opinion of what the denomination should do:

The Traditional Plan is vile, way too punitive for a church that says it is Christian, and should not be considered.

The Connectional Conference Plan is too complicated to be practical.

The One Church Plan is much better than the other two, but I still consider it evil. The reason is that it allows the denomination to continue oppressing LGBTQ people, approves of it, even though the justification of the oppression (the phrase that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching) is removed. But it gives that approval in a way that isn’t easily changed in a future General Conference.

My preference is for the Simple Plan, which removes the LGBTQ prohibitions and their justification (that incompatibility clause) and does nothing else. I’m aware this proposal is not officially on the agenda in February, though it has been submitted as a petition for legislative action (as it has been for every General Conference in the last 44 years).

Defining unity

Rev. Jeremy Smith, in his blog Hacking Christianity, talks about unity within the United Methodist Church. It is an important topic because the denomination faces a unity question at the special General Conference next February. There is also a lot of buzz around the phrase, “a new form of unity.” So what does “unity” mean?

Already, in this diverse denomination, unity doesn’t mean uniformity. There may be a standard service in the hymnal, but few churches follow it. A service in the city, at a megachurch, at a Native American congregation, in the Philippines, or in Africa will all look different. Our polity statements include multiple viewpoints. Our Covenant is not international or national, but regional. We don’t require a set of beliefs. Even our guiding Book of Discipline is adapted by regions in Africa.

Unity means Diversity in Expression, United in Mission. The One Church plan to be voted on in February allows for each region, perhaps each congregation, to set its own guidance on such things as same-sex marriage. It may be flawed, but comes close to this version of unity.

But the Wesleyan Covenant Association and related conservative groups have a different definition of unity:

A new form of unity…seeks to bless progressive conferences as they form a new denomination that can be fully inclusive of LGBTQ persons. It provides for a similar kind of unity that the UMC has with the AME, CME, and AMEZ denominations today but envisions closer cooperation on mission.

This needs a translation. AME is African Methodist Episcopal. AMEZ is AME-Zion. I don’t remember what CME is. These are black denominations that split from the Methodist Church because of slavery and racism. They didn’t rejoin when the United Methodist Church was formed in 1968. So what the conservatives are saying is: We’ll bless your departure. Unity means we’ll all treat LGBTQ people the same way – our way.

Smith gets into Girardian scapegoat theory. When the dominant power structure of a group is challenged unanimity can only be restored when all become fixated on someone who can be held responsible. When that someone (or group) is expelled those who remain forge a new social unity in opposition to those who left. But they soon need someone else to hold responsible. Smith says the United Methodist Church is right now a textbook example of Girardian scapegoat theory.

An example of this at work is the Anglican Church of North America. They broke from the Episcopal Church over LGBTQ issues. Glad we got rid of them! And one of the first things they did was ban the ordination of women.

What should we be aiming for? Smith says “diversity without enmity” – “the church does not challenge the way we look at one another and hold one another.”

Truth and Reconciliation film

Back in 2014 Rev. Ed Rowe of the big United Methodist Church in downtown Detroit officiated at the wedding of a lesbian couple. He did it because he was the pastor of his entire congregation, even though same-sex weddings are against the denomination’s governing document, the *Book of Discipline*. A complaint was filed against Rowe. The complaint came from allies to undermine any complaint from opponents who might call for a trial and removal, even though Rowe was within a month of retirement. The resolution to this complaint was the agreement that Rowe would create a documentary film about the harm that denomination policies are causing. This would be reconciliation, not punishment.

After 3½ years the film is ready. I saw it yesterday.

The team narrowed its focus to the harm caused to gay and lesbian pastors. Even so, they filmed 15 hours of testimony. They chose 55 minutes to include in their film. It will soon be online. Look for Truth and Reconciliation Discernment.

If we as a denomination are to be in ministry with LGBTQIA people we need to hear their voices.

The film’s onscreen host was Jerry Peterson, Executive Director of the Ruth Ellis Center. The center provides services and a meeting space for LGBTQIA youth of the Detroit area, many of whom are kicked out of their homes because of religious doctrine. Because of that the Center has incorporated the principles of the Family Acceptance Project. More on this later.

The film features six people. One is a pastor who is also the mother of a transgender child. The child lamented not being able to have a wedding in Mom’s church. Another person is the father of a lesbian who feels the call to be a pastor but can’t do it in the United Methodist Church. Not only are these policies throwing out lots of wonderful candidates, there are dozens more who know not to apply.

The other four are gay and lesbian pastors who share the difficulties they faced. Most of the time was given to Louise Ott and Davita McCallister. Both shared how hard it was to be a pastor while being closeted. Ott said she could not assure people they would be welcome in her church when she was not fully welcome and had to maintain barriers to her true self.

After the film Peterson was there to host the discussion. First, we talked with those at our own table, then Peterson opened up the discussion to the whole group about how we might reduce harm within our churches. One idea that Peterson suggested is to use the Family Acceptance Project behaviors within the congregational family.

I first heard details of the Family Acceptance Project through a presentation at the Ruth Ellis Center. It’s primary premises (backed up by stats): Gay youth do better within their families. Parents want what is best for their gay children, but may not know what to do or say to achieve that. They may believe the only way a child can succeed is to not be gay.

Here are some of the recommended behaviors:

* Don’t physically or verbally harass a child because he or she is gay.

* Include gay youth in all family activities.

* Encourage access to gay friends, events, and resources.

* Don’t say that God will punish the child.

* Don’t pressure them to act more or less masculine or feminine.

At the end Peterson, Rowe, and others shared more ideas on how to get to reconciliation.

* Get over the fear of engaging differences.

* Focus on individuals and their stories, not issues.

* Let go of the need to be right.

* When faced with opposing views say, “Help me to understand. Why do you believe that? Why is that important to you?”

Rowe concluded by saying he is done proof-texting – arguing over what the Bible says. Instead, he focuses on loving the person. We are to do the same.

Reducing hate as a measure of church health

Pastor Jeremy Smith of the blog Hacking Christianity does a bit of data crunching and comes up with a proposal related to the question of how do we define whether a church is healthy? Smith confines his discussion to the United Methodist Church.

First the data crunching. Smith compares the number of hate groups in proportion to population in each state and notes which jurisdiction (region, there are five across America) that state is in. Yes, the highest percentage of hate groups is in the Southeast Jurisdiction.

Smith carefully says correlation is not causation. We cannot tell if church attendance (in a conservative region) inspires hate groups or whether hate groups encourage church attendance.

Instead, Smith asks different questions: Should churches be doing more to combat organized hate in their communities? Should they engage groups in their own backyard? Will it make a difference?

Smith uses the example of Daryl Davis, a black musician who has been in the news lately. When Davis encounters a Klansman he tries to get to know them and for them to know him. Over the years 200 of his new friends have left the Klan, many times giving Davis their robe.

Smith takes this one more step. He reminds us we value what we count. At the moment United Methodist churches must report dollars in the offering plate, attendance (“nickels and noses” as a commenter puts it), number of people involved in mission projects, and other similar numbers. But those numbers do not include engagement with hate groups. Perhaps the denomination should ask churches to report hate group contact hours (5 people as counter protesters at a rally for 2 hours is 10 contact hours).

Some of the comments are insightful. Others dismiss Smith because he got his data on hate groups from the Southern Poverty Law Center. I’ve responded to those who think the SPLC is corrupt and useless. Then as now a group that doesn’t want to be seen as a hate group will try to discredit any organization that says they are.