Dr. Bill Arnold is a friend and dialogue partner. I got to know him first by our common work on the University Senate. We both care very much about the church, the work of ministry, and theological education. We are committed to the UMC and would see denominational division as a very sad and regrettable course of action. Lately we’ve had numerous conversations about the state of the church, the talk of division and its precipitating factors, and what might be necessary for the unity of the UMC going forward. After considerable conversation and counsel with other colleagues, we have developed a list of suggestions that we think would help to preserve the unity of the UMC if implemented.
These are not proposals that will resolve our differences around the matter of same-sex practices (intimacy, marriage, ordination), nor will they change our basic polity and allow a local or jurisdictional option around matters of sexual ethics. Dr. Arnold and I have read some such proposals, and, while we appreciate their ingenuity and creative thinking, neither of us sees them as plausible. (We have offered some critique of these proposals here and here). The main reason is that most would require some, and probably several, constitutional amendments, which are very hard to achieve. Further, they tend to require too great a change to the system of governance around which the UMC is built. We have a system of conferences—General, annual, jurisdictional, and charge, that have been developed to function as a more or less coherent system. Changing one part in a significant way would affect the other parts as well.
If any proposals for GC are to go through, they should probably be quite modest. In that spirit, then, Dr. Arnold and I wish to offer the following modest proposals, which are intended only to restore our polity to proper functioning, rather than restructure the denomination to accommodate irreconcilable perspectives.
(1) Suspension of the Trust Clause (BOD ¶2501) for one quadrennium specifically and only for the purpose of allowing local churches who cannot in good conscience live within the parameters of our Social Principle on human sexuality to leave the denomination with full ownership of their properties.
(2) Addition of new paragraph to BOD ¶248 allowing local churches to use the Church Conference as a venue for voting to leave the denomination. New paragraph at the end of existing ¶248: “The church conference may be convened for purposes of withdrawing the local church from The United Methodist Church for reasons of conscience related specifically and exclusively to the Social Principle on human sexuality (¶161F) and the Qualifications for Ordination (¶304.3). Ordained clergy of said church conference may withdraw to unite with another denomination under the provisions of ¶361.1. The local church of said church conference shall be released from the requirement of the trust clause of ¶2501. The local church shall retain full rights to its properties. Debts upon such properties and any other debts payable by that local church are assumed by the local church.”
(3) Empowerment of the General Board of Pension & Health Benefits to allow clergy who cannot in good conscience abide by our Social Principle on human sexuality to leave with full benefits.
(4) Amendment of the language around “just resolutions” in the Discipline. The definition of “just resolution” in 363.1(c ) is clear that “the person filing the complaint” must be included among the parties finding satisfactory resolution. Surprisingly, some have found ways to exclude complainant(s) as the “appropriate persons” entering into a such written agreement, as defined in “Just Resolution in Judicial Proceedings” (2701.5). We call upon GC2016 to refine the terminology of both the definition of “just resolution” (paragraph 363) and its implementation in the judicial proceedings to prevent complainant(s) from being excluded in the future (paragraph 2701.5).
(5) Election by the General Conference of a set-aside bishop to enforce and implement policy within the Council of Bishops.
(6) Empowerment and requirement of the set-aside bishop and Council of Bishops to hold their members accountable to the Book of Discipline.
(7) Creation of a “bishop emeritus/a” status for retired and inactive bishops; in order to maintain emeritus/a status, retired bishops shall uphold their vows at consecration and are to be held accountable to the episcopal vows and subject to correction and discipline of the Council of Bishops and set-aside bishop. Additionally, bishops emeritus/a would be removed from membership in the Council of Bishops, leaving bishops emeritus/a without voice or vote in the Council of Bishops.
We submit these seven proposals for your consideration, critique, and discussion, and we hope that they make a helpful contribution to our ongoing discussion in the UMC. We realize that no plan for moving forward will be perfect, and that there are problems that attend what we’ve written here, just as there are with any plan. We think, however, that these proposals are plausible and realistic, and that their implementation would help to restore order to our denominational life together.
What do you think?
David F. Watson 
I have many concerns with this.
First, allowing churches to leave with “their property” assumes from the onset that the property is theirs and has no significance to anyone outside their church. For historic churches, this is not the case, and churches have precious archives inside and have a significance beyond ministry to the current congregation meeting there. Churches that have a burden of conscience to leave the denomination should have a chance to leave, but not with historic church properties and endowment assets given by persons who, if living, would not be supporting their agenda. This proposal is in very bad faith to the communion of the saints.
A more appropriate measure would be to allow the congregation to leave the denomination and continue meeting at the church with rent being paid to the Conference Board of Trustees to maintain that property until they find a more appropriate meeting space. Such an approach could have the secondary benefit of helping restore distressed properties.
Secondly, to my knowledge, no one can take away the retirement benefit of a UMC clergy person. Only bishops are at risk, since they surrender their pensions and get supported for life from the Episcopal Fund.
Thirdly, allowing bishops to hold bishop accountable is not only unconstitutional, it is absurd and the source of our current problem.
Regarding our bishops, we need a General Commission of the Ombudsman to investigate charges of maladministration by Bishops that can make recommendations to General Conference about continuance. The General Conference already has the constitutional authority to discontinue unacceptable bishops. We also need to mandate a procedure for handling such concerns and standardize a practice for evaluating bishops. In addition, we need to abolish the practice of Bishops surrendering their pensions and going on the Episcopal Fund and simply pay them a salary and add to their retirement fund when they serve. That way, if they are removed as Bishops they can return to service as clergy.
Some great comments here. I’ll offer a few quick responses.
(1) I get the problem with giving away the properties, but I think I’m personally coming to realize how deep-seated is our crisis and willing to concede the point. You make a great point about keeping faith with the communion of the saints but I just don’t think fighting over the buildings will improve our witness. The Episcopalians have taught us the futility of that much.
(2) I think you’re right that no one taking away a clergy person’s retirement. But our idea was to empower the General Board of P&HB to devise a convenient mechanism to allow a pastor to take it with them, like a rollover IRA.
(3) I’m not sure I understand how it’s unconstitutional to build into the system more accountability within the COB. I can imagine several ways that would help our current crisis.
(4) Something like a General Ombudsman is not a bad idea. Essentially, that’s what our set-aside bishop would be. Your reference to the GC’s ability to discontinue a bishop is something that hasn’t been done since the 19th century, to my knowledge. Perhaps a better idea is to write into the BOD’s description of the Committees on Episcopacy for each jurisdiction more specifics about their periodic review process. That process has been followed VERY inconsistently between the jurisdictions.
Following up with #7, I would expect, then, that retired clergy would eventually be removed from votes at Annual Conference? If the problem is that retired bishops are causing trouble, it would make sense to remove retired clergy from voice or vote at annual conference, too, when they retire.
Pingback: Throw in a Root Beer Float | In The Neighborhood of Holy
So if I read this right, you are saying ‘if you want to liberalize our stance on homosexuality, please leave.’
But this is my church, too.
This is no more than another plan for a division of the church.
Don, that is not what we are saying. You’re right: it is your church, too. Our proposal is not meant to kick out those who disagree with the church’s stance. It is meant to deal with the problem of of ecclesial disobedience.
I like this proposal, but I think the biggest hurdle this faces is that those who are breaking our shared covenant don’t want to leave. Numbers 1 and 2 offer a gracious exit for people who don’t want to leave graciously. Since they don’t want to leave, expect pushback about holding them accountable under #3-7.
I still think the “Do Nothing” option outlined by Kevin Carnahan is most likely to “pass” GC.