On Friday October 26, 2018 the Judicial Conference issued its opinion concerning the constitutionality of the One Church Plan and the Traditional Plan that will be presented to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church in February 2019.
In sum, the Judicial Council ruled that the One Church Plan, proposed by the American Bishops, is largely constitutional, while the Traditionalist Plan, that is consistent with the historic faith of the Methodist Church, was given limited applicability.
In his blog, People Need Jesus, Senior Pastor Chris Ritter did an excellent job summarizing the decision of the Judicial Council. Rather than preparing a new post on this topic, I urge you to read Pastor Ritter’s blog post that reposted below.
Regardless of the decision of the Judicial Council, the bottom line remains the same. There is no guarantee that the members of the General Conference will approve the One Church Plan, the Traditionalist plan or any other plan presented at the Conference. Now is the time to work with us to evaluate and prepare your entity for whatever the future holds. Contact Daniel Dalton at Dalton & Tomich PLC to discuss your concern and ask for the document check list to help you start the evaluation process.
Did the Traditionalist Plan Survive?
by Chris Ritter
I appreciate the Judicial Council ruling on the Way Forward plans. Their decision opens an important window into the courts’ thinking on issues never before explored. We now have a foundation for the further legislative work that will doubtless be necessary. My quick, first read leads me to believe that the One Church Plan will come to General Conference requiring only modest revisions. While certain language was found unconstitutional, its basic framework was upheld. This was always going to be more or less the case. We’ve known for some time that the liberalizing measures are constitutional. What was questionable were the assurances given to traditionalists that their point of view will be protected.
For example, the provision that invited a bishop to seek the non-binding advice of the full annual conference session with regards to clergy standards was ruled unconstitutional. This strips the plan of a feature meant to convince us that laity would get some sort of say in what happens in their annual conference with regards to practicing gay clergy. It was a modest “window-dressing” sort of provision to begin with and it was taken away. Also, a measure stating that a pastor with unresolved disagreements with their congregation over same-sex marriage “shall” be reassigned has been struck down as an infringement on the appointive power of bishops. No surprise here, but this underscores the question of what happens when pastors and congregations are in irreconcilable places on the subject of same-sex weddings.
The One Church Plan fought off claims that it is not in harmony with our doctrinal standards. Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, which include comments on the passages commonly understood as rejecting sex between persons of the same gender, were relegated by the court to secondary status below the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. This move deserves more thorough examination later.
The Judicial Council declined to rule on the Connectional Conference Plan. Because the plan is based on multiple constitutional amendments, our top court decided that they did not have proper jurisdiction to rule.
Vetting the Traditional Plan
The Traditional Plan faced a more substantive critique. It would be an overstatement to say that the Traditional Plan was “gutted,” but I believe it will be necessary to think in terms of Traditional Plan 2.0 moving forward, as opposed to Traditional Plan 1.1. The plan seemed to have had a target on its back before it was even written. A sketch version was stifled by the bishops last November and last-minute reconsideration brought it hurriedly to its full legislative form. An effort before Judicial Council to rule the Traditional Plan “off the table” outright (as not in keeping with the call of General Conference) was dismissed by the court. They left this decision to General Conference itself through its designated committees, officers, and presiders.
As you may know, the Traditional Plan includes a whole raft of measures aimed at accountability. Some of these survived and some did not. Those provisions that passed muster:
The following legislative items in the Traditional Plan were ruled unconstitutional:
The Heart of the Traditional Plan: Still Beating?
I was very interested in what our top court would say about Paragraph 2801. This is the declared “heart of the Traditional Plan.” It allows annual conferences to leave the United Methodist Church and came close to insisting that some should. The Judicial Council did uphold the ability of annual conferences to leave The United Methodist Church should the General Conference make that possible through enabling legislation. It struck down, however, the provision that required each annual conference to indicate their willingness or unwillingness to follow the Book of Discipline in the future. This key sorting mechanism was an important part of charting a decisive way forward. Likewise, the court struck down a mechanism that would have sorted out bishops based on those who were willing/unwilling to uphold the Discipline. Those unwilling would have been referred to the new relations committee of the Council of Bishops, but that entire mechanism was also stripped.
The provision that would allow groups of churches to form their own self-governing church was struck down because the Judicial Council (surprisingly, to me) imposed upon this provision the requirements of Par. 41 (a constitutional provision governing the transfer of local churches from one annual conference to another within the UMC where conference lines overlap, such as with a missionary conference). Frankly, I don’t see the relevance of Par. 41 to this measure… at all. This section of the Traditional Plan could presumably be repaired, but the ability of a congregation to leave the UMC for a self-governing conference would require the consent of the annual conference. This means that churches that disagree with their conference (as many do) could be held against their will.
What we are left with in Par. 2801 seems to be the confirmed right of an annual conference in the United States to leave the United Methodist Church should General Conference make that possible through legislative action. This seems to be the basis for a possible “exit ramp,” but it does little to answer the question of the thousands of churches and clergy who will find themselves under a Discipline with which they cannot live… either under the Traditional Plan or the One Church Plan.
It is relatively easy under our current Discipline for a church to transfer to another “evangelical denomination” (Par. 2548). Property can be deeded over with “only” the consent of the bishop and cabinet. If one conference left the UMC voluntarily, they could form the basis for a new denomination and widen their borders to accept the transfers described in Par. 2548. (I presume) But many churches would find themselves captive to bishops loathe to see their congregations slip away.
The Judicial Council made it more difficult for a slim Traditional majority to conclusively and decisively set the direction for the UMC. But those supporting the Traditional Plan will undoubtedly arrive at General Conference with a new and improved version that can be introduced as updates. The One Church Plan will require updates, too. The decisions released today raise the spectre that General Conference might uphold our current views of human sexuality without meaningful new enforcement. If a toothless traditional plan is passed, it remains to be seen whether the exodus that has already begun would accelerate or whether the stage would merely be set for the long battle to continue at GC2020 in Minneapolis.
Dalton & Tomich, PLC is the national leader in successfully helping churches, other religious institutions and their insurers defend their rights in land use and zoning matters under RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We have helped clients win cases against municipalities and other local government bodies from coast to coast, with experience serving both as general counsel and special litigation counsel.
In 2015, Hope Rising Community Church experienced extreme opposition, the kind that would force it to close its doors and leave behind the families and youth it was so passionate about reaching. As the lead pastor I felt helpless, inferior and as if I had no […]Read More
Dalton & Tomich’s assistance in our RLUIPA matter has paved the way for our church to continue serving the community and for new churches in the area to thrive in the future. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your stand for religious […]Read More
The Urban Church will be forever grateful to Dalton & Tomich plc for navigating it through a difficult land use issue. Let them give you honest and caring advice because that’s exactly what they’ll do.Read More
Dalton & Tomich, PLC defended a complicated case at a church we insure. Not only is the firm professional, they understand how church business runs and work well within church leadership.Read More
Dalton & Tomich, PLC helped us immensely in the areas of litigation and negotiation! Their professionalism and understanding of church policy helped our church be victorious in a modern day religious land use battle. RLUIPA Religious Land Use Case: Lighthouse Community Church of GodRead More
Dalton & Tomich, PLC serves as General Counsel for the 144 churches within the Church of God in Michigan. The firm provides the legal expertise we need in dealing with the issues that arise during the course of fulfilling our ministry.Read More
I met Dan Dalton during a dark time for our church. He was recommended as the leading RLUIPA attorney in the nation. He demonstrated wisdom, expertise, a gentle nature, a calming inter-relational skill, genuineness, and a humble demeanor, while at the same time, being sharp, […]Read More
Mr. Dalton’s expertise and experience helped us through a very difficult legal journey, ultimately achieving a favorable outcome. His personal interest in helping our church went “above and beyond” just the call of duty. His understanding of both legal and spiritual matters seems to uniquely […]Read More