Unraveling the Protocol

When my wife was a young child her mother made most of her clothes. As Tracy set off for school one day wearing a beautifully crafted new sweater my now mother-in-law said, "Tracy, that sweater has a loose piece of yarn on the arm. You can wear it but you must not pull on that piece of yarn.

You know what she did. How could she not? By noon tearful Tracy had to go home because her sweater was now missing an entire arm.

Pull one thread on some industrial manufactured jeans and you'll be fine. Pull one thread on an artfully crafted clothing item and you may well have a problem.

It is called "the art of compromise" for a reason. We were fortunate to have an elite artist, Kenneth Feinberg, work with a group of 16 to craft a deal that could resolve our differences. At the moment of highest tension at the 2016 General Conference I called a friend to say that if someone moved to dissolve the denomination it would not pass and if someone moved to continue the denomination it would not pass. We were stuck. In 2019 some thought we would get unstuck through the Traditionalist Plan. Clearly, and as acknowledged by traditionalist leaders themselves, that is not the case. Enter Feinberg with one more chance.

That is what we have here - we have one more chance. No other denomination has ended this kind of feud well. The last time we were at a point like this, just before the Civil War, we did not end it well. Now we have one more chance.

But people keep pulling on the thread.

• WCA board member Chris Ritter has published an alternative regionalization plan. The WCA has endorsed the Protocol and been clear that they do not intend to remain in the UMC. A board member recommending a plan that he will not even be around to see, and pitting it against a regionalization plan like the Christmas Covenant which was created and shepherded by central conferences, seems disingenuous.
• The Liberia Annual Conference passed a resolution calling for multiple amendments, including considerably more money and other provisions that would make the Protocol resemble the Indianapolis Plan.
• Tom Lambrecht, Vice-President of Good News, responded to the Liberia decision in part by saying, “We hope to arrive at a unified strategy with the Africa Initiative and delegates from Europe and the Philippines in approaching the protocol.” It could be that Lambrecht means Good News hopes to use their considerable influence with the Africa Initiative and others to calm fears and move forward with the protocol together. It could be that this quote was taken out of context by the UMC News reporter. That's not what it sounds like to me. Note: after this was written the Africa Initiative released a statement endorsing the protocol legislation while also urging three changes. This is an important step in the right direction and improves trust both with African and U.S. leadership.
• WCA regional leader Keith Mcilwain told me on Facebook, "for my progressive friends to realize their dreams, they may have to wait until 2022," because, after voting to separate the denomination, traditionalists will continue to vote against removing what progressives and centrists consider harmful language. Note this is what would happen AFTER already effectively voting to leave the denomination.
• Separately, last month I had a conversation with a third leader of the WCA (although it was in a public space I don't feel I am at liberty to share the name) about adding another $10 million and the UMC name and emblem for Africa to the deal. 

The authors of the protocol have been abundantly clear that when we pull one thread the whole thing will begin to unravel. I just listed five threads that are being pulled. That I know of. And four of the five are right out in public.

Here's what it means to pass the protocol - separation, regionalization, and removing language. This is clear in Article VI of the original protocol. These are the strings that simply cannot be pulled:

• Separation - We  must commit to passing the legislation as it is submitted. Any amendment, even those genuinely intended to improve the protocol, will ultimately decrease support. One reason is that opening the door to amendments will only increase the number of amendments.
• Regionalization - Pass the Christmas Covenant. This legislation, created and submitted by central conference delegates, is the most complete and best of the regionalization plans. It is consistent with but superior to the Connectional Table plan. We will not be able to fully implement this until constitutional amendments are passed, but we at least need a start.
• Remove harmful language - Some traditionalists may not be able to stomach removing language, even if they are planning to leave the denomination. For those who plan to leave, I believe one can still maintain integrity by either abstaining or by giving their seat to an alternate delegate. Recall that the language only needs to be removed - it does not need to be replaced with language that affirms LGBT+ relationships or clergy. 

Don't pull the thread. Don't repeat St. Louis. Don't take away the opportunity for all groups to get something and force us into a self-destructive, lose-lose proposition. We will leave Minneapolis together with all three of these elements or we will leave with nothing but an embarrassing witness to the world.

Like It or Not, We're In This Together

The ink on the legislation for the  Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is barely dry and it may already be on the verge of fraying.

Regretfully, I think the Protocol is the "best bad decision" available to us right now. So I support it. As a progressive on LGBT+ inclusion, I favor the Protocol because it allows for the possibility of regionalization and eliminating harmful language in at least portions of the denomination. I am grateful that progressive and centrist leadership is maintaining this stance.

- The first elected delegates from the Western Jurisdiction have all signed on to all three of those goals.

- The centrist Cavite conference in the Philippines has also approved both the Protocol and The Christmas Covenant (a good regionalization plan).

While I hope that ultimately the post-separation UMC will still be a big-tent church, I do not begrudge those who need to pursue a different path. The Protocol gives them that opportunity. So I am also grateful for the traditionalist leadership, like Keith Boyette in this piece, that has continued to advocate for the Protocol. 

The key to this all working is Article VI of the original Protocol statement. Article VI was not turned into legislation, but it is a piece of the agreement signed by all 16 members of the negotiating team and with the names of 10 others who were involved for months in the process. Framers and others have since recognized that there are some practical limitations to implementing all of this article precisely as written. The intent, though, remains. The intent includes 1) passing a regionalization plan and 2) repealing the harmful LGBT+ language. Understanding that some, maybe most, traditionalists will not be comfortable voting for those changes, Article VI suggests that those who intend to form a new denomination act with integrity by not participating in the discussion of a denomination that they will not be in. All that makes sense, right?

Now for the But.

This only works if we don't get in each other's way. And I don't think that is happening. Here's the evidence (so far).

1. Chris Ritter, a member of the WCA Board of Directors, has proposed an alternative to regionalization. He goes so far as to say, "Traditionalists will not support passage of the present regionalization plans at GC2020." Ritter was not a signer of the Protocol, but he is a board member of an organization that is. I am not aware of any board member of any progressive or centrist group that signed the protocol making any statements contrary to full support. The key is full support. I become skeptical when board members of signatory groups hedge.
2. The Liberia Annual Conference just passed a resolution recommending four significant amendments to the Protocol. Jerry Kulah is one of the most influential voices in the Liberia Conference, indeed in all of African Methodism. He is a leader in the Africa Initiative, which is inextricably linked to the "reform and renewal" groups in the U.S. like Good News and the WCA. Like Ritter, he is also a WCA board member. Liberia "unanimously"  passed these amendments - which simply could not happen without the full endorsement of Kulah. Like Ritter, Kulah was not a signer of the Protocol. One can even reasonably say that Africa was underrepresented in the group of framers. But the agreement has to be that we move forward with the Protocol as is or we don't move forward at all. There are lots of amendments I would like to make - and I'm not going to make any of them for the sake of all of us getting to the finish line. U.S. traditionalist leaders have reminded us for years that Africa and traditionalists will vote in lockstep together. Is it unreasonable to question how such an important player as an entire Annual Conference could potentially blow the deal up before it is even officially before us? Was there no "Please don't do this  - help us work together" phone call? Or was there an "I can't say this out loud but you can" conversation instead?
   
   3. Today, Mark Tooley of the IRD wrote a glowing report of the Liberia decision. Tooley also was not a protocol signatory - but he was a participant in the conversation whose name appears on the original agreement. It is reasonable to assume that the protocol would never have been approved without Tooley's tacit support. Yet he has never officially signed on and is now hinting at undermining it.
   
   It is in everybody's best interest for the protocol, regionalization, and removal of harmful language to happen. Nobody will get all of what they want. All of us will be disappointed to some degree. This is inevitable in any true negotiation. If all of these three pieces don't pass then we all lose. We will spend millions of dollars on lawsuits. We will still part, but now with total animosity. General Conference itself will be a nightmare. Our trust is so low that the only way we can make this happen is if we all truly work together.
   
   I'm all in on the Protocol. I promise 100% support on the condition that it includes Article VI - that we achieve regionalization and at a minimum begin to remove the harmful language in the Book of Discipline. If that doesn't happen then I immediately move from 100% support to 0% support. We are either in or out. This is a time for our yes to mean yes and our no to mean no. We know that General Conference is full of dysfunction. We must be fully honest with one another so that we can end the dysfunction and move on to our new realities.

Pastors - It's Time for the Talk

I don't like conflict. I don't think anybody becomes a pastor because they look forward to conflict. Yet if we are going to lead - and an effective pastor must lead - conflict is inevitable. One mark of a leader is how we handle the conflict that arises.

Friends, we are in the midst of conflict over the future of the Church. The reality is that 99.9% of our churches are also in conflict. I don't mean to say every church is in crisis. The amount of conflict is different in different places. In one place it could be a true crisis with a 50/50 split about staying or leaving in the denomination. In another it could be just one or two voices speaking in one direction - or even just our own internal conflicts over leaving a denomination we love or an impending end or change to relationships. Wherever the church you serve is, the reality is that conflict has arrived.

As peacemakers, our temptation is to avoid the conflict. We may do that by delaying conversation about it ("We'll talk about it after General Conference makes a decision"). We may deny it ("I think everyone in our church pretty much feels the same way.") We may relocated it ("The real problem is those other people.") None of those approaches demonstrate leadership. If we are going to lead our congregations it's time to have the talk. Delaying and denying the obvious serves no purpose.

I've had the talk in two churches - one after the 2019 General Conference and now a second after a July 1 appointment change. The first church is relatively young and a reconciling congregation. The second is an established "big steeple" church that is more theologically diverse. For what it's worth, here are some principles that have been helpful for me.

Name the Reality

I'm convinced that we all agree on 90% of the same "stuff." You can name that. It is also important to name that we don't all believe exactly the same. I introduced this most recently by telling the congregation that I gathered together in the sanctuary all of us who believe exactly the same things in theology and politics. Then I showed them a picture of our empty sanctuary. Everyone on both sides of the division laughed because we all recognize that where two or three are gathered there will be differences of opinion. Naming the reality disarms some of the anxiety that your congregation is undoubtedly experiencing.

Name Where You Are

Everybody knows you have an opinion. You may have hidden it well, but they still know that you have it. If they are not certain of your opinion then you can be sure they are guessing at it. Why not end the uncertainty and just say where you are? You might say something like "If you listen to me preach long enough your bound to disagree with me on something. This may be one of those times. For many reasons, this is what I believe..." You might also include a number of beliefs that you know everyone shares as a reminder of what holds us in together. Name where you are but only if...

Give Permission for People to Believe Differently

I'm convinced that people will give us permission to believe differently than they do as long as we give them permission to believe differently than we do. Don't say, "At this church we all believe...." If some don't believe that way you have excluded them. If everyone does feel that way then it probably doesn't need to be said. You might instead say, "Here's where I am. I know that you may not be in the same place. Regardless of what you believe about this or any other subject I am glad we have been able to serve God together and I am grateful for the opportunity to be your pastor."

Prepare the Congregation for What's Next

It's hard to prepare for what's next when we don't know for sure what is next. You can still do some preparation. For example, we do know that something will happen at General Conference. Even if nothing passes it has become clear that we will not continue to live in the same denomination as we have before. You can say that. You could also say, "The plan getting the most attention right now is the Protocol. If it passes, then our annual conference will most likely vote to.... If we want to stay with the other churches in our conference we don't need to do anything. [Most churches will stay in the same conference and will never need to vote. That knowledge alone could deescalate some of the anxiety people feel]. If you think we should do something different then we would have until  the end of 2024 to take a vote. So we will have plenty of time to decide what we need to do." [We get more anxious when we have to make a quick decision].

Give Permission to Grieve

This is hard for all of us. We all will lose something. Change really is hard. It is not helpful to pretend that this is not true.

Give a Word of Hope

John Wesley's dying words were, "Best of all, God is with us." That hasn't changed. We are still called to be Christ's witnesses in the world. Our mission is the same and our God is the same. That's Good News, and nothing that happens in the denomination can make that change!