To marginalize or Not to Marginalize: Why the One Church Plan is (still) the worst possible option for GC 2019

Can you imagine what would happen if an annual conference decided that it would refuse to ordain candidates of color? (Or a bishop refused and had to call in a colleague bishop)

What if a Bishop refused to find appointments for female clergy?

What if a Pastor decided they were unwilling to officiate inter-racial marriages?

All of United Methodism would lose their ever loving minds.  And rightly so.



Here is the deal, if the 2019 GC embraces the "One Church Plan" with regards to questions of human sexuality, what it is really doing is making the official position of the church one in which homosexual practice is affirmed while at the same time, sanctioning church-blessed discrimination.

This is wholly unacceptable.   It is every bit as unacceptable as if we were to say that Pastors, churches, conferences, and jurisdictions can decide whether or not they will do interracial marriages or refuse to ordain female clergy.

The Judicial Council has ruled that the language in the plan is by and large constitutional; yet, the logic of the plan is so terribly flawed that to pass it requires setting aside one's intellectual integrity.

And I get why it is appealing.  In many ways it is codifying our current realities and would (theoretically) preserve the institution.  But the current reality is that we are failing in our mission in the United States and both sides blame the decline on the disobedience of the other side.  Why would we choose to embrace this reality as what we want?

I am just a thirty year old dude from Central Ohio, and my opinion, my experience, my best guess should not be able to override the wisdom of the global church.


But if the wisdom of the global church leads to a change in official theology and language while not only allowing, but sanctioning discrimination, then woe to us.

Squatting on a swedish ball: a better idea than the One Church Plan


This blog was published earlier, but edited in light of the recent decisons by the Judicial Council.

The Craziest Thing

This evening at dinner I was watching the Yankees and the Red Sox and the craziest thing happened.  In the bottom of the second inning, the Red Sox centerfielder was on first base and attempted to steal second.  He was didn't get that good a jump and the catcher made a good throw and they got him by a mile.  But he wouldn't go back to the dugout.  So manager Alex Cora used his challenge, the call was upheld as the runner being out at second, but he still refused to go back to the dugout.

At this point, Yankees manager Aaron Boone went to the home plate umpire to have him get the retired baserunner off of the field so that the teams could continue playing.  So the umpire walked out to second base and had a conversation with the baserunner.  He returned to home plate and explained to Boone that the runner felt like the tag was unnecessarily forceful and he was unwilling to return to the dugout, so the umpire had decided that they would let the runner stay out on the base paths.

Boone sauntered back to the dugout shaking his head, in disbelief of what he was seeing, but the game went on.  And that runner who should have been out ended up scoring two batters later.

Again in the third, the Red Sox had a batter who grounded into a double play.  This time, neither runner complied with the rules of the game and returned to the dugout after being forced out.  Both of these runners scored as well.

By the end of the fifth inning, the Red Sox had pulled this charade 5 times and the game was tied 7-7.

In the top of the sixth, the Yankees scored three runs to take the lead 10-7.  In the bottom of the sixth, the first Red Sox hitter struck out on three straight pitches, but he refused to go back to the dugout, instead he demanded to be allowed to hit until he put the ball in play.  And he did, 9 strikes later, the hitter doubled to right field.  The next hitter was struck out on three pitches as well, but this hitter too was unwilling to leave the field of play.

So the Yankees pitcher, utterly frustrated, plunked the hitter in the back with a 95 mile per hour fastball.  The batter took his base and the umpire warned both teams against throwing at opposing batters.  The third hitter of the inning worked the count to 2 balls and 2 strikes. And on the next pitch hit a towering fly ball that drifted just a few yards from being a home run, resulting in a long, loud foul ball.  But the hitter rounded the bases as if the ball had been fair, and the scoreboard read 10-10.

At this point, the Yankees left the field, unwilling to waste their time with a team that was not going to follow the rules and unwilling to be subject to umpires that refused to enforce the rules.

After the game, the 'AL East Insight' blog wrote a scathing rebuke of the Yankees for being quitters.  And 'Hacking Baseball' accused the Yankees of conspiracy against the integrity of the game. 

But can you blame the Yankees?  The umpires showed no intention of upholding the rules of the game; and while it is terrible sportsmanship to walk off the field before the game is over, what is gained by sticking it out to the end?