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 
Echoing Andrew Thompson (and others), this work is of great service, even if doomed. I continue to believe it’s chimerical to set forth a premise for resolving a problem that the church is unwilling to acknowledge is central to its message, historic DNA and ecumenicity. Marriage is about the doctrine of creation (Jesus and Paul affirm this), and creation provides the analog for our understanding of salvation. If we cannot get this right, and if we are unwilling to contend for this, all these machinations will soon become part of the backwater debris of a failed sect. The notion that our covenant concerns spring without roots from a rule passed by a sleepy General Conference in 2004 is fantastical in falsehood.
You have seen the comments of K. Carnahan which I believe are logically flawed, and I would encourage you to respectfully point out the errors in his reasoning (e.g. suspension of the trust clause is more for the benefit of breakaway liberal congregations than anyone else). I believe many in the church will take his position because they want to keep pace with social trends and want conservatives to continue footing the bill for their social activism. Contrastingly, it seems to me that your proposal is very generous, particularly with regard to the indisputable fact that numerous clergy have violated their vows before God and the church. Those who agree with these renegade clergy must ask themselves a question: once established as a covenant-breaker how can one be trusted to keep a new covenant?
This is insulting. Your suggestion is to tell the churches that believe in civil rights that they can leave the denomination?! This is why young people don’t go to church.
Wrong. He is advocating that people keep their vows. Whether or not redefining marriage is a civil rights issue is a matter of opinion, but insisting that the church redefine marriage is nothing more than bullying the church into accepting contemporary cultural mores in violation of its moral teaching.
Young people don’t go to church for many of the same reasons they haven’t in the past: apathy, natural rebelliousness, etc. One thing that is present today that has not been as prevalent in the past is a media/academic/political complex with a strong anti-Christian bias, as well as kids growing up in dysfunctional environments.
Amen… clearyedtruthmeister
You know, with all of the crises going on in the world such as the one going on among Christians in Iraq, it is just shameful that so much time, energy, and effort has to be placed on such this issue. It really makes me sick at my stomach and I pray that this so-called “conversation” comes to a conclusion so that we can make a difference in the world as a body of Christ.
Thanks David for providing a coherent and workable way forward. This “A&W” plan is what I have been hearing for quite a while. I was sort of thrown for a loop by the evangelical pastors calling for separation but I think a lot of that was misconstrued. They really only said that the present situation is untenable (which it is) and that there needs to be a different approach taken than simply investing so much time, money, and effort every four years in maintaining the discipline’s prohibition on homosexual behavior.
I personally believe that the “do nothing” approach will win the day once again but hopefully this new conversation that has been started will lead to some changes that will prevent such wanton breaking of our covenant without repercussions from happening in the future. My belief is that the Western and Northeastern conferences are just going to continue on their course of shrinkage until they dwindle down to nothing – and that will not be very long from now. I know, that on a personal level, I will be very selective with what I give my money to.
Pastor J, being from the West, I share your observation, but with this caveat: The “conversation” is not insignificant to the future of the Church (because it is an ecumenical, historic conversation, not parochial). The orthodox of all traditions have been impelled by revisionist rebels to “defend the faith” (that’s a scriptural injunction, as you know). And we must “not grow weary” in doing so (also a scriptural mandate). Keep on…
I wrote “conversation” in parenthesis because it has not really been a conversation. I personally have learned a lot through the process of listening and thinking through the various aspects of the issue (for example: the ethics and implications of genetics, what science can tell us and what it cannot tell us, the underlying assumptions behind genetic determinism, and how orthodox theology speaks to all of these and other things) but there is no conversation taking place and there hasn’t been for quite a while. It’s just about one side trying to force it’s view on another by force, intimidation, and other worldly practices.
Not to belabor…but must differ with “PastorJ” in that there (indeed) is a conversation going on, but not primarily a Methodist-conducted one (though Methodists are talking and poking at each other). The conversation is ecumenical and global, and it’s not just the low-watt uproar we see in the blogoshere. First Things, for example, hosts this conversation at a very high level of serious, thoughtful discussion across traditions. God’s truth will prevail…
Oh yeah, there has been some very good conversation in certain areas. As I noted, I have benefitted quite a bit from those who have taken this issue seriously and thoughtfully. Timothy Tennet, president of Asbury, just put forth a very thoughtful series of post about the matter. I encourage all to go to his blog and read through them.
What I am talking about is the so-called conversation within the UMC. There is not much of a conversation – and thus little opportunity for learning – because of the deep divide in core beliefs.