The Unity Plan is still a bad idea. Tonight, my old church in NC is going to announce that they are not signing it. I doubt they will post something on their website. Just in NC, you have five churches – two that signed it (Greenville and Fayetville), one that will not sign (Triangle), one that is ambivalent (Triad), and a final one that no one knows what they will do (Charlotte). Relationships were strained a couple years ago, but they were meeting together sometimes. This UP did not help, especially with the mentality of “we have to know who’s committed in order to know who we’re responsible for.”(sic) Now a big question when they get together is, “why did you/why didn’t you sign?” That is assuming that they still meet monthly.
The admonition to form a regional group may or may not be heeded – all of them are sending folks to Beachstock. (Ironic.) Point is that this plan has exacerbated problems that were already there. They had problems before and all five churches need to work together to work through them – however – trying to separate the sheep and the goats pushes them further apart. Is Triangle the goat now for not signing? Is Fayetville a sheep for signing? Is the Triad righteous for not saying which way they will go? Personally, I think their issues are theological and historical – if it is worked out, it will take quite some time.
In 2004 at the Dallas M.O.A.C. I spoke to leaders from churches in NC and VA. The idea of forming a regional group or even calling Mitch to offer encouragement seemed a distant hope. Things have changed some and I hope that the differences can be worked out despite the UP. Oddly enough, the only person that said they would call was Wyndham Shaw, the man that baptized Mitch.
What I have come to peace with, is that the church I attend has signed it. I do not agree with their decision. I believe it was the wrong one. I believe that the rationale behind signing it is not valid. Despite that, I can accept that they have signed it and that I can be respected for disagreeing. I disagreed with the 40 Days of Purpose Campaign and we worked through that. I am at peace with the fact that I want some kind of relationships with the people here, even if I place membership elsewhere.
I am not at peace that this was done in the first place – but I have chosen to give up fighting about it. There is a time to pursue and a time to give up. I give up. I think all the people that are going to sign, except NY and San Antonio have signed. Given that, the UP is hardly a mandate, especially from the US churches. I think that fact will void the UP and something like what I and others have proposed will be done. Even if everyone suddenly signs, then I will move on. I have said what I needed to say about it.
John Engler had once said that some find peace within the ICoC subculture by forming their own little ’safe’ groups of trusted friends. It allows them to stay a part of the church while not agreeing with decisions and events elsewhere. That is my separate peace that I have acheived. When my wife and I move in a few years, the likelihood that I will be a part of the ICoC congregation there is almost zero. I do not want to fight these battles all over again. I’d rather go somewhere with a different set of problems.
Knowing this has allowed me to live my life in what I percieve as a healthy and honest way.
Comments
7 Responses to “Unity Plan Postscript”
Never ceases to amaze me that you know more about Triangle from Omaha than I do from Garner…
Much love!
Later!!
Isn’t it just nuts the crazy things that separate us. To one they are ridiculous/silly to the other they are worth going to hell for.
I think the UP will become irrelevant pretty quickly. There will continue to be adhoc retreats and conferences, and both signers and non-signers will participate. People will continue to move from town to town and will cross UP lines as they join congregations in their new towns. Relationships that are in place will not evaporate. The signature list on the UP does not define who can fellowship with whom.
If you ever find yourself in the Atlanta area send me a note and let’s try to have a burger together somewhere.
Alan
Hey Alan,
Would love to say hey if I’m there again. It would be fun.
As far as the UP becoming irrelevant, why did we have it in the first place? These nine were chosen at Seattle to come up with a way to unify the fellowship. After taking 40 proposals, talking to 200 people, and discussing it for six months, they came up with the UP as delivered.
Did they work this hard only to have everyone say that it is irrelevant? Personally, I would have a difficult time accepting that six months of hard work involving thousands of manhours could be written off as irrelevant.
I’m not saying that I disagree with you. Ultimately, it will be irrelevant and is moving this way with all speed.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that the UP is irrelevant. Will we hear from DToday that the UP group declares it irrelevant? Will we have UP 2.0? Will the national meeting with representatives allow non-singing delegates?
We have six large supporting papers for this thing talking about interdependence, the way to choose delegates, missions needs worldwide, etc. It is akin to the Federalist Papers role in support of the Constitution in some ways. The Constitution didn’t really address some specifics, but the Federalists Papers went to great length to do so in order to drum up support. This may not have been the intent in this case, but the parallels seem to be there. My point is that a tremendous amount of effort has gone into something that is now being considered irrelevant by almost every leader I’ve spoken to.
Personally, a national group of delegates is meaningless without all of us there. How can we decide “issues that affect the worldwide fellowship” with only 1/4 of our churches there?
I realize that there is another parallel with the Consolidation Agreement that came out in May 2003. In that case, Liability Insurance was shoehorned into a case for the ICoC central office to exist. There were all kinds of diagrams about models of unity, best practices, etc, but it was about trying to get good rates for a group policy. Ultimately, that document became irrelevant.
So, since 2003 there has been at least three attempts at unity in the post-HKL Renaissance: the Consolidation Agreement (2003), LA’s Unity Plan (2005), and the UP (2006). All of them contain similar language, especially in regards to uniform practices and a common set of beliefs. If this has proven to be an irrelevant idea three times, can we get a completely new idea? Can we at least cease the attempts?
Wordy, I know, but it comes down to this: if this is irrelevant, it cannot acheive lasting good. I doubt that it can acheive temporary good. It certainly got a few people stirred up (me included) and led to some hand-wringing and stress. More than that, it got the ex- community relly lathered up. I know of no example of anyone coming together as a result of all of this. As such, I contend that it shouldn’t be alowed to fade away, but should be removed entirely.
Well said.
Hey Pinakidion,
It will be interesting to see what transpires at the next ILC. Will the non-signers be shunned? Will they be invited to speak the program? Will they be left out of any group discussions? Will their non-signing status make a difference in how they are or are not included in things?
IMO it would be self-defeating for the signers to exclude the non-signers in any way. If they do, they are making a pretty clear statement that they are an exclusive club. Aside from the obvious sinfulness of that, it would hinder progress toward the very unity they seek. But if they do not make a distinction, then signing the document means nothing. I think the latter is the more likely scenario, but time will tell.
BTW, since missions support is one of the major topics for discussion among these churches…I’m confident the churches that depend on missions contributions for ongoing support would not want to exclude any of these churches that want to contribute to their needs. So I anticipate that they will be welcome at the table, and their interests are not likely to be ignored.
Alan
My guess the up is about control/power, money, exclusion and then a small bit of unified doctrine.