General Conference 2019: A 2022 Epilogue

The day after the South Central Jurisdiction's election of bishops made history, I commented to a delegate how grateful I was that the election surpassed my already high expectations. She simply said, "David, we are just doing what we were elected to do."

It's true. 

In the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference, a conference that passed draconian language that you can read about here, here, and here, our Annual Conferences in the U.S. elected delegations that were, on average, over 75% progressive and centrist. These elections happened because we understood clearly that the Traditional Plan adopted by General Conference did not represent a future that the majority of United Methodists would want to be part of. Other reactions included the Connectional Table's plan for regionalization as well as the Christmas Covenant, a similar plan written by people outside the U.S. Across the globe, and particularly in the U.S., we vowed that this mean-spirited plan would not stand unchallenged. The election of bishops and passing of resolutions the first week of November, 2022 was the fruit of that vow.

This context is important. As I predicted the week before the elections, we are now hearing traditionalist leaders calling the elections proof that there is no place for anybody other than extreme progressives in the denomination. This is a misstatement for three reasons. First, our vocabulary is wrong. When you hear most of us talk about "progressive" and "traditional," we are not talking about a holistic theology. When I was in seminary, one person labeled me as "ultra-conservative" because of my beliefs. I don't think that was a fair assessment, but it is fair to say my core beliefs have not changed since then. I still believe all the basic tenets of the Christian faith and could, today, sign off on nearly every aspect of the Global Methodist Church's doctrinal and social statements. In many ways, I have a very "traditional" theology. But my interpretation of scripture has led me to a less traditional understanding of human sexuality, thus earning me the label of "progressive." I'm labeled progressive only because I believe in a) full-inclusion of people who are LGBTQ+ and b) a Church that allows for wide differences in opinion. If we must put people into groups, there is only one group who is being rejected by the denomination right now - the "traditional incompatibilists" who, by their own admission, believe that they cannot share a denomination with people like me. To be clear, even these people would be welcome to stay - they have chosen of their accord to identify themselves as people who cannot stay. 

The second reason bishop elections were not proof that conservatives must leave is that it is not the case that only theological progressives were elected. To be fair, I don't know the full beliefs of any of the elected bishops. I do know that there was no theological test of the candidates to make sure they were not orthodox. The WCA's Jay Therrell actually gives good evidence. Therrell is becoming famous for his unfiltered venting. His predecessor, Keith Boyette, was always measured and under control. Therrell comes across as someone holding a personal grudge. Yet even Therrell could come up with objections to only four of the thirteen bishops elected. The objections to those four are that one is gay (true - and with this we get to the heart of the matter), one made a poorly worded speech at GC2019 (true - my friend Tom Berlin was not the only person who could have chosen their words better during that highly emotional week, but all who know him understand the snippet that is being taken does not reflect his heart), and one didn't speak in an orthodox way of the incarnation (what really happened is she didn't answer a "gotcha" question the way the asker wanted her to and instead gave an on-the-spot answer that was theologically rich). The fourth objection, in my opinion, is potentially a legitimate concern that I would have asked clarifying questions about if the candidate had been in my jurisdiction. It is true that no "traditional incompatibilists" were elected - that is, we did not elect any bishops who believed they could not stay in a "big tent" denomination. 

Finally, we have to consider the nature of the episcopacy. A bishop has two complementary roles - as a member of the Council (and colleges) of Bishops and thus the General Church and as a Resident Bishop. Every bishop serves in both capacities. As one who appreciates the gift of theological diversity, if we were electing bishops only to serve on the Council of Bishops I would have intentionally endorsed candidates from a variety of perspectives. We are stronger when we have a variety of beliefs represented at the table. However, every bishop serves an executive function within a geographic area. We could not elect a bishop who would use that executive function to bring further harm to LGBTQ+ people in the immediate area they serve. It's really that simple. 

This year's jurisdictional conferences were not a rejection of people with a certain theological perspective. They were not a turning point in denominational history. They were the fulfillment of a promise delegates made when they were elected three years ago. 

Complaints about Bishops Are Going to Get Loud

 If all goes well, every bishop elected at our Jurisdictional Conferences the first week of November will be inclusive. You will undoubtedly hear rhetoric from traditionalist leadership that this is evidence traditionalists are not welcome in the United Methodist Church. This is not true.

One problem is how we have defined "traditionalist." If by traditionalist we mean someone who affirms the creeds and the core of United Methodist doctrine then, having looked through the papers and participated in interviews of the seven candidates in the South Central Jurisdiction, I can assure you we will be electing traditionalist bishops. But that's not what is meant by traditionalist anymore.

The common definition of traditionalist now is one who disagrees on whether LGBT+ persons should be ordained and whether we should be allowed to perform same sex weddings. Using this definition, we may or may not elect traditionalists. Honestly, that's not a question we have asked.

The way Good News and WCA will define traditionalist is as someone who will not ordain a person who has gone through the entire candidacy process and been approved by the Board of Ordained Ministry and Clergy Session of the conference and/or will follow through with the abeyance imagined in the Protocol. By that definition, there is a very good reason why no "traditionalist" bishop should be elected.

We are dreaming of a Church where there is freedom for interpretation. This is why, for example, progressives and centrists continue to want churches across the globe to remain United Methodist. We need bishops who share that dream. We are asking questions like, "Will you ordain an LGBT+ person who has been approved for ordination?" not, "What do you personally believe about ordination of LGBT+ persons?" That means:

- bishop candidates are NOT disqualified for having a conservative theology

- bishop candidates are NOT disqualified solely on their personal opinion concerning LGBT+ inclusion. 

- bishop candidates MUST be disqualified if they are not committed to a United Methodist Church that will truly be a big tent. Using the language many of us have become familiar with, that means any candidate who is a "traditional compatibilist" could serve well. Any candidate who is a "traditional incompatibalist" AND any candidate who is progressive but will follow the letter of the law instead of the spirit of where we are moving should not, and likely will not, be elected.

We have a number of outstanding candidates to consider with a wide variety of gifts and experiences. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Spirit moves in and continues to bless our denomination next week.

A Lesson from St. Andrews

In the fast-paced environment of United Methodist news, the decision of St. Andrew's UMC in Plano, Texas to leave the denomination and not join another denomination is now old news. It's also not remarkable for a church to take these actions. Two things about St. Andrew's departure are newsworthy. First, they are leaving by taking advantage of an apparent opening in Texas law that allows a church's leadership to simply remove the trust clause from their bylaws. Second, the leadership has made this decision without a vote of the church. To the best of my knowledge, both of these actions are unique in current times. 

St. Andrew's pastor and executive committee chair stated, "The UMC has offered many services during the decades of our affiliation. However, as one of the largest churches in the system, we realized how independent we are, already providing many of our own services. The fact is we can protect our finances, our property and our pastors by going in a new direction.” This is the single most disappointing statement I have read in relationship to the United Methodist Church this year. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of our connection, whether we are talking about the United Methodist Church or the newly forming Global Methodist Church. We are not independent churches. We never have been. The quote from St. Andrew's leadership could well be translated, "We have used the denomination when it was helpful to us. Now that it isn't helpful to us, we're leaving." It reminds me of a church in the former Kansas West conference that left our denomination abruptly when St. Andrew's senior pastor's father was the bishop. That church's leadership also believed their mission could best be served independent of the UMC structure. But Bishop Jones, and presumably his son, rightly understood that we are more than a collection of individual churches. That is still true today even though the shoe is now on the other foot.

So I'm disappointed, both at how the leadership handled this decision with the church and, more generally, that the disaffiliation happened at all. So it goes. Life has disappointments. More constructively, there is a lesson to be learned.

St. Andrew's leadership was clear that their departure from the denomination is in no way linked to any of the arguments we are having right now. They are not leaving because of (as traditionalists would describe it) doctrinal disputes or (as progressives would describe it) concerns over full inclusion. They are leaving because they think they are better off without the denomination.

Countless churches who are helped by St. Andrew's presence in North Texas will be directly harmed by their departure - another disappointment. More importantly, in our individualistic society, there will be many other St. Andrews in the years ahead unless we who are in denominations can be clear about the "why' for our existence. To put it bluntly, while Rob Renfroe lobs lies at the UMC and people like me reply with accusations like I just did, churches like St. Andrews will increasingly say they don't want to be like either of us. Maybe this is why it is true that while more churches are leaving the UMC than many of thought would leave, fewer are joining the GMC than traditionalist leaders thought would. 

As I've stated many times before, those who plan to leave the denomination need to do so now so that we can all get about the work of being the Church. Those of us who plan to remain in the UMC are not without responsibility either. We must do the hard work of understanding not only what we are against - namely, the GMC perspective - but also what we are for and how we will live into the future God wants for us.

Post-Separation UMC Myths - Changing Doctrine

This is the first in a short series of posts on myths people are sharing about what will happen in the United Methodist Church after the current wave of departures comes to an end. They are not lies or rumors. I think the large majority of people who share these really do believe what they are saying - they just aren't based in reality.

One of the most persistent myths is that as traditionalists leave the denomination, we will inevitably take a great step to the theological left. The logic seems fair - if a number of more conservative people leave the denomination, then what remains will be less conservative. But, as is often the case, the theoretical won't translate into the real world.

Denomination Standards

The first version of this argument was that after traditionalists leave progressives will be free to make changes to our official doctrine. This would happen through the action of General Conference. No doubt the U.S. component of delegates to General Conference will shift somewhat. We will, though, still be a big-tent denomination. There are many people who take very traditional positions on any number of theological questions and also believe in full inclusion for people who identifiy as LGBTQ+. It remains to be seen just how much of a shift there will actually be. Anecdotally, I have not heard any mention of attempting or even a desire to change any of our doctrine.

Second, even if there was a radical shift, it is nearly impossible to change our doctrinal standards. The vote threshold is simply too high - a 2/3 vote of General Conference and a 3/4 aggregate vote of Annual Conference members. Even if there was a desire, and I don't think there is, it simply couldn't be done.

This theory is so easily dismissed that virtually all traditionalist leadership has given up arguing it. They have shifted, instead, to a second approach

Practical Standards

By Practical Standards, I mean the doctrine that is actually taught by our pastors in our churches. The argument is that our pastors will now preach and teach different doctrine regardless of what is in the Book of Discipline. Unlike the first argument, this one is at least theoretically possible. There are three reasons why it shouldn't be a concern.

First, it is inconsistent with what has allegedly led us to the place where we are today. Remember that while most progressives and centrists say that our divide is centered on the question of inclusion, traditionalists like to say the real issue is doctrine and scriptural authority. In other words, the issue is not what will happen in the future, but what has already happened. It is entirely fair for a person to say, "I can't stay in a denomination that believes X." If that is our denomination, then go with God's grace. If that is not our denomination, then stay. Don't leave a denomination that does not yet teach what you don't want it to teach. 

Second, the exact same argument can be turned the other direction. I have shared before my concern for the future of women as pastors in the future Global Methodist Church. The closest denominational parallel we have for our split is the Episcopalian Church. The ACNA, their version of the GMC, gives each regional group (think our annual conferences) the option of whether to ordain women. However, I believe GMC leadership when they say they have every intent of maintaining the ordination of women. Thus, a better parallel may be the Church of the Nazarene. The Church of the Nazarene is in the Methodist tradition, ordains women, and does not have a guaranteed appointment of pastors - just like the GMC. Also, fewer than 10% of their pastors are women. While their official doctrine allows women to be ordained, the practice of the large majority of local churches is to not accept them as pastors. If traditionalist leaders want to assert that our doctrinal practice will not mirror our official practice, they must acknowledge the same for themselves.

Third, and most importantly, our pastors aren't changing. Remember the assertion is that our preaching and teaching will change regardless of what our official doctrinal standards say. Also, remember the accusation is that we are already not being held to the doctrinal standards. If these are both true, then what exactly will change once the separation moves further along? A concrete example: My preaching will not change if the Book of Discipline changes in 2024, just as it didn't change after General Conference in 2016 or 2019. 

The Bottom Line

The statement that our doctrinal standards will change is a classic "slippery slope" argument. These are alluring arguments because they can't be proven false. The future is not yet written, so anyone is free to speculate about what may or may not transpire. But here is what we know for sure.

1. Changing our official doctrine is nearly impossible.
2. Our pastors and teaches are not going to change their teaching

Given these two facts, the idea that our doctrine will either officially or unofficially change seems far-fetched. 

GMC Misrepresentation Continues

The same pattern has emerged through many parts of the country. Global Methodist Church advocates misrepresent what the United Methodist Church is and will be. This means people and churches are leaving the denomination under false pretenses. Today I'm sharing one specific example from Texas.

A church in Texas that is discussing disaffiliation has distributed a document that allegedly compares the "Two Future Methodist Denominations" with 18 different distinctions made. Some are clearly accurate (like the name of the church and how pensions will be handled). Some have a clear bias but aren't outright false (like the UMC having the same board and agency structure with "all their staff/overhead" when it is likely there will need to be reductions vs. the GMC "New, leaner structure" which is true initially but could easily begin to bloat). If I was writing from the perspective of a GMC supporter, I might say the same thing. I have no major concerns with either of these categories of statements.

Of the 18 statements on this particular document, I would categorize seven as clearly accurate. Five others are not entirely accurate but are understandable approximations (among these, are statements like both denominations will be "welcome of LGBTQ+." I understand that we have very different ideas of what "welcome" means. The other six are, at best deceptive. Briefly, using the categories on the original document:

Theology

The Post-Separation UMC will be "Pluralistic: Jesus is one of many ways to be saved." My next planned blog post will specifically address the question of the future theology of the UMC. For the moment, it will suffice to say I don't know of any pastor who preaches that Jesus is one of many ways to be saved. I know pastors who have various understandings of atonement and I know pastors who believe in universalism, that somehow God ultimately saves all people (a belief which, incidentally, you can find in some Church Fathers all the way back to Origen in the second century). I really appreciate this piece from Rev. Jeremy Smith, for example. Jeremy is one of traditionalists favorite people to demean because he comes from a very different theological perspective and moved from the Bible Belt to the West Coast, yet this post would be a great jumping off point for teaching on atonement in any Methodist setting.

Clergy Deployment

The document correctly notes that there will not be guaranteed appointments in the GMC, but it then distinguishes between a UMC where the Bishop, "has the power to move and appoint pastors regardless of church input" and a GMC where "Local churches can select their pastors or request one be appointed. Bishops sign off on choices." This is the most persistent and categorically false description that I still hear.  Keith Boyette himself has clarified how the GMC will deploy clergy. "Paragraph 509.2 of the TBD&D says, 'To strengthen and empower the local church to effectively carry out its mission for Christ in the world, clergy shall be appointed by the bishop, who is empowered to make and fix all appointments in the episcopal area of which the annual conference is a part.'” Functionally, there is no difference in the method the denominations will use to deploy clergy. The differences are entirely semantic. 

Clergy Appointment Length

There is literally no difference in the denominations. The document says UM clergy are appointed one year at a time and GM clergy have "open-ended" appointments. Paragraph 513 in the GMC's Book of Doctrines and Discipline was lifted directly from paragraph 429 of the 2016 Book of Discipline.

Non-celibate gay and transgendered pastors serving in local churches.

This is a simple yes/no question, right? Well, no, for at least two reasons. First, when I'm asked today if a change in the Book of Discipline means, "now we will have pastors who are gay." I always respond, "No, it means that now you are more likely to know that your pastor is gay." Every church I have served has had at least one pastor on its staff at some point in its history who was LGBT. The congregation just didn't know it. Second, the GMC Book of Doctrines and Discipline is silent on people who are transgender. A person who once identified as female and now identifies as male could marry a person who identifies as female and serve as a GMC pastor.

Position on Abortion and Primary church focus

Allegedly, the UMC will now be pro-choice, and its primary focus will be social justice. Regarding abortion, the UMC has always taken a position that this is not a simple "pro-life" or "pro-choice" matter. Similarly, we have always held that social justice and saving souls are two sides of the same coin. They go together. What these two points share in common, and why I grouped them together here, is that they are representative of the either/or thinking that dominates our culture and politics today. 

A Centrist Replies to Rob Renfroe

 Rob Renfroe recently posed "A few hard questions" to centrists that plan to stay in the United Methodist Church. Since I am one of those, I thought I would answer his questions.

"Do centrists actually believe that truth is 'contextual'?"

Renfroe states, "Missiologists stress the importance of using words and images that present the gospel in a way that is understandable in a given culture/context. But they never argue we should change the message of the Bible to be acceptable to a particular culture. But that’s what centrists are championing – the church may proclaim two contradictory truths at the same time – one affirming same-sex behavior, the other condemning it."

This is the crux of the issue. What is the message of the Bible, or more specifically for Christians, what is the message of Jesus the Christ? I have a picture of a person in front of a former Methodist Church protesting desegregation because the Bible does not affirm it. I trust all readers disagree with that statement. I trust virtually all readers agree that the message of the Bible is not that women should not be pastors. Globally, more than 2/3 of Christians today disagree with us (based on denominational membership). Centrists like me believe that for a person to feel compelled to leave a denomination, the issue at hand must truly rise to the level of a central tenet of the faith. Even many traditionalists would agree that banning loving same-sex relationships do not strike at the core of the Gospel. 

Renfroe then notes that we are not to conform to the world, using as an example the apostles preaching the same sexual ethic to the Jews (who could accept it easily) and to the Romans (who could not). Yet we actually have Biblical examples of the apostles "conforming." In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul clearly teaches that women are to be silent in worship. Elsewhere, like in Romans 16, he lists women as leaders of the Church. Likewise, in the famous Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19, James concludes that because God's grace is available to all, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." Specifically in reference to first century sexual practice, there is an open debate about what the apostles were telling the Romans to refrain from. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find early examples of the equivalent of today's same-sex marriages. The practices we are certain they referred to, ritual prostitution and pederasty, for example, progressives, centrists, and traditionalists would all reject.

Is truth contextual? It is true that the Gospel is true beyond all contexts. It is also true that the way we live out and transmit the Gospel does sometimes change based on the context. 

"How can centrists state they are staying within the UM Church because UM theology will be uniquely positioned to reach our current culture after the traditionalists leave?"

We don't. I don't recall anybody stating this as their motive for staying in the UMC.

Renfroe quotes statistics that we have all heard about the decline of mainline denominations. I won't deny any of the stats. Christianity is in numerical decline in virtually all denominations throughout the country. Anybody who believes that there is a simple solution to this, whether progressive or traditionalist, is in denial.

"How can centrists promise the post-separation UM Church will not become predominantly progressive in its teachings?"

I'll answer this question with a question for Rob. How can you promise those leaving the UMC will not become increasingly fundamentalist in their teachings? 

The first pastor in the conference I serve who I know left because of our position on LGBT+ inclusion had, at the moment of his departure, a guest speaker at his church on the evils of evolution. The Northwest Texas Conference will likely be the conference with the largest percentage of churches leaving the denomination. A former lay leader of that conference told me 90% of their churches will not take a woman as a pastor. Backing that up, in 2020 only 15% of ordained elders serving local churches in that conference were women. In Renfroe's own Texas Annual Conference, with a bishop who recently said there is no violation of the Book of Discipline in the conference, the recently departed Faithbridge taught (and continues to teach) that children can be dedicated instead of baptized, baptizes in private homes instead of in public worship, and implies that adults can be rebaptized - all in violation of our basic baptismal doctrine. 

The centrists I know wish our denomination was not splitting because we believe we are at our best when we hold together the tension of different beliefs. Just like the Church has affirmed in canonizing four Gospels that it is good for the story of Jesus to be told in different ways; it is good for us to have different emphases in our telling the story still today.

I hope you will also note Renfroe's inflammatory use of the word "woke." I don't know anybody who would be considered "woke" that actually uses that term. It is a politically pejorative word used to demean a variety of positions. Once something is called "woke" it can be deemed wrong and irrelevant with one massively broad brush. Since its inception, Good News has raised money and popularity through fear. This is a textbook example that is consistent with their stated interest for at least 18 years to damage the denomination if there is a traditionalist exodus. 

As to predicting the future, Renfroe and I can be equally certain of the future of the groups that we are part of. 

Would centrists rather be in a denomination that requires its pastors and bishops to be orthodox but would not marry gay persons? Or would they rather be in a denomination that marries and ordains gay persons but allows its bishops and pastors to deny critical Christian beliefs?

Another trademark of Good News is to use extreme examples from the fringe without context. It's a great rhetorical strategy and a horrible logical approach. That's what Renfroe does in the examples he gives defending this point. I do agree with Renfroe that there are theological questions we will need to resolve in the future UMC - just as there has been for every other denomination in the history of Christianity and just as there will be in the new Global Methodist Church as evidenced by the examples I've shared above. But the first mistake Renfroe makes is assuming this must be an either/or issue. The starting point for most centrists was that our denomination need not divide. I reject the false dichotomy that Renfroe presents, and I will not be compelled to leave our denomination simply because others have chosen to leave. 

You may not agree with or even understand the answers I've given. My hope is that you can at least understand that the perspective I and many others come from has a rationale, both logical and scriptural, behind it. 

The Last Word on the "Gracious Exit"

TLDR - skip to point 4 under "Some History." 

Much has been written about the adoption and implementation of paragraph 2553, the Book of Discipline (BOD) paragraph allowing for disaffiliation of local churches from the United Methodist Church (UMC). As I've shared before both privately and publicly, I believe every conference should allow churches to leave if they follow the minimum requirements of this paragraph. There may be some extraordinary circumstances that necessitate more requirements (the Florida Conference may be one of these), but those should be exceedingly rare. We've gone over the history of how 2553 was put in place before, but there is one more part of the conversation that has not been covered. This is especially important when we learn that some local Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) chapters are suing conferences like the Western North Carolina Conference, that are following the absolute minimum requirements.

Financial Terms

Recall that 2553 requires payment of three pieces:

1. "...any unpaid apportionments for the 12 months prior to disaffiliation...." These are apportionments that are already owed by every local church. It is literally requiring the church to pay what they are already required to pay, only it is now enforced.

2. "...as well as an additional 12 months of apportionments." This is a new amount since it is looking forward in time. 

3. "...its pro rata share of any aggregate unfunded pension obligations...." 

I don't recall anybody arguing against #1, only a small handful argue against # 3, and only a slightly larger handful argue against #2. When we hear people argue that even the minimum disaffiliation terms listed in paragraph 2553 are unfair, they typically point to one other clause: "Payment shall occur prior to the effective date of disaffiliation."

Some History

So how did that clause find its way into 2553? If you read my blog regularly you know some of the answer: A petition submitted by Texas' Leah Taylor (generally regarded as a centrist) proposed a form of disaffiliation, which you can read on page 205 here. Through a regularly used process called a minority report, traditionalists amended the Taylor petition and it passed without further change. Each amendment to the original was made for one of two purposes. Either the amendment was a fix for a constitutional issue raised by the Judicial Council, or it changed something traditionalists wanted that the original petition did not include. 

Here's the new history. What, specifically, was changed from Taylor's original proposal, and why?

1. Eliminate the "Initial Inquiry" process. Taylor included a study to determine whether a church was "viable" outside of the UMC. An unviable church could not disaffiliate. A reasonable argument could be made for either including or excluding this. Excluding it broadens the number of churches who could disaffiliate, including it helps assure that a church will survive rather than quickly close.

2. "Process Following Decision to Disaffiliate..." Taylor placed the responsibility for developing the disaffiliation process with the resident bishop. This fixes a constitutional issue and had to be changed.

3. Payment of grants. Taylor required repayment of all grants from an annual conference to a local church from the last five years. This was removed, making disaffiliation less expensive for some churches.

4. Payment Terms. This is the important one. It is also the most controversial. We've been told that the part of disaffiliation that is not gracious and is truly a burden is that all of these funds must be paid upfront. The traditionalists' amendment to 2553, which is now in effect, reads, "Payment shall occur prior to the effective date of departure." Here is the original from Leah Taylor in full: "The agreement shall specify the terms and conditions of the payment to the annual conference for any sums related to ¶ 2553.5. b, c, and e. The term of payment shall not exceed ten (10) years."

Conclusion

Traditionalists could have changed almost anything they wanted from the original disaffiliation plan. With that wide latitude they perfected their proposal for a plan that traditionalist presenter and WCA leader Rev. Beth Ann Cook called, "literally how I would want to be treated if I were the one hurting..." One of the changes fixed a constitutional problem. Two changes made it easier to disaffiliate. The final change moves from a very manageable 10-year financial arrangement to an upfront payment, which is the single biggest complaint traditionalists have about the entire disaffiliation process.

I can't say enough that I believe it is important for conferences to follow the minimum standards in 2553 and not add additional requirements. At the same time, I can't say enough that in every other conference, which is the majority, the problem of disaffiliation is one of traditionalist leaders' own making. 

Baltimore-Washington WCA Misrepresentation

 The Baltimore-Washington chapter of the WCA has published eight statements that they believe are important to remember. Facts need to be checked. As always, please read the original and let me know if you see an error in my response. I've responded to items 1-4 even though I'm not sure any of the inaccuracies there are relevant, so if you want to skip to what is most important begin with the second half of point 5.

 1. GC2016 narrowly and controversially approved the Commission on the Way Forward. This is true.

2. Immediately following, the Western Jurisdiction elected Karen Oliveto to be a bishop and, "She is still illegally a bishop." The timeline is basically correct (it was in July so one could argue the word "immediately" as a technicality. It is not entirely accurate that she was elected and still serves "illegally." What constitutes (using our current, hopelessly outdated language in the Book of Discipline) a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" has always been a source of contention. Bishop Oliveto did not clearly meet the standard until a Judicial Council ruling in April, 2017. Their decision goes on to read, "Self-avowal does not nullify the consecration and cause removal from episcopal office but is a sufficient declaration to subject the bishop’s ministerial office to review." In other words, Bishop Oliveto could be charged and stand trial, but it is not "illegal" for her to remain a bishop in the meantime. Having said all that, I understand why the WCA would see Bishop Oliveto's election as ecclesial disobedience.

3. The Commission on the Way Forward (CWF) developed three plans but the bishops rejected the Traditional Plan and an ad hoc group had to finish developing it. The CWF did not develop the Traditional Plan at all and had no obligation to do so. The WCA says the Traditional Plan was "restored" only with "much difficulty" by an ad-hoc group. That could be true. We don't know. Because what is definitely true is that the Traditional Plan is the only legislation to find its way to General Conference with completely unknown authors (unofficially we know which bishops were involved in the writing, but none of them have had the courage to come forward).

4. "Convinced that the One Church Plan was a slam dunk to pass, the Council of Bishops threw all their effort, time and energy into selling it..." The second half of this sentence is partially true. Not all bishops supported the One Church Plan, but the majority did and some spent time on it. Those of us leading the charge on the ground were disappointed that there wasn't greater, public support by the bishops. The first half of the sentence is not true. Those of us leading the charge, and I think the bishops as well, believed we had enough votes, but just barely, and there were nervous conversations all the way up to the start of General Conference. The amount of support for the Traditional Plan was a surprise. Evidence that the first half of the sentence is wrong comes from the existence of the second half - leaders don't waste any of their political capital on something that is a slam dunk.

5. "After an extremely ugly debate that awakened the One Church Plan supporters that their plan had no possible way of passing, the Traditional Plan passed. Those who couldn't live with it had the ability to exit via ¶2553, after that narrowly passed.  ¶2553 was not the desired outcome of the Traditional Plan supporters..." The writing was on the wall after the first vote at GC19 before almost any debate had taken place. Regarding 2553, my single most emotional response on the floor of any General Conference came after I spoke in favor of it when a traditionalist told me they were passing it for people like me. Here's the thing - don't give someone a gift they didn't ask for. The idea is that 2553 was passed for progressives when progressives were the ones who were not supportive of it. I truly did support it, and still do, for those churches who feel they can't stay in the denomination. I was in the minority of progressives/centrists at GC19 on that vote. Finally, as I've shared before, 2553 was brought to the floor as a minority report (think substitute motion) by traditionalists. In our rules, a minority report can be vastly different from the resolution it is replacing. It is true that the original resolution was not written by a traditionalist. It is also true that traditionalists could have made the final resolution nearly identical to whatever they would have preferred. 

6. "Instead of abiding by the will of the General Conference, progressive United Methodists (including Bishops) began a massive campaign of disobedience and purposeful spurning of the Discipline." This is blatantly false. It is true that there was a grassroots uprising against what was perceived as a mean-spirited plan passed by General Conference. Lay members of churches who had never been active beyond the local church reached out about how they could help right the wrongs. I remember receiving a text message from a friend while I was on vacation - "XX Conference just elected a full slate of progressive/centrist lay delegates." I literally replied, "You must have misheard. That wouldn't happen." Organizing happened among the moderate middle that had never happened before - and the WCA and friends didn't like it. In no way was there a massive campaign of disobedience.

7. "Traditionalists decided that it was no longer worth fighting the battle to reform the UMC, and accepted the idea that they could leave. In good faith, they negotiated the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace..." I will assume that traditionalists negotiated the Protocol in good faith. Note that traditionalist leaders like Rob Renfroe* have since said that progressives and centrists did not negotiate in good faith. From multiple conversations with nearly all the progressive/centrist signers, I can promise you he is wrong. *I am not able to find a quote from Renfroe specifically saying this. He has implied it in videos like this. 

8. "When it was obvious that the new denomination, the Global Methodist Church, would take a large portion of churches from the UMC (if they were allowed to go freely), progressives and institutionalists who negotiated the Protocol had buyers’ remorse and did everything in their power to either sink the Protocol or postpone General Conference..." There is not even a shred of truth here. First, note that traditionalists who are leaving the denomination gloat when they find a conference with even 15-20% of churches leaving. The vast majority of United Methodist Churches will still be United Methodist Churches in 2024. Second, many, possibly even a majority, of churches that leave are choosing to be independent rather than part of the GMC. We can't say for sure because the GMC has not released any information about churches or pastors who have joined. Third, I was in conversation with the progressive and centrist signers before they pulled their support. What they said in public is exactly what they said in private. The Protocol was no longer a viable path forward. What they did not say (but I wish they had) is that traditionalist leadership had already rejected the Protocol, just not by name.

GMC Misrepresentations Continue to Grow

The truth will set you free. 

I believe in the authority of Scripture, so I believe these words from Jesus are true. I do not wish ill on those who leave the UMC. I do believe it is important for them to be truthful. And I continue to be amazed at the ways some national and global traditionalist leadership twist the truth about the UMC. The latest is this article by John Lomperis. There's so much here that I'm just going to number them as I work through the article. As always, I encourage you to read the article so you know the context and feel free to let me know if I make any factual mistakes.

First, a couple of clear opinion pieces that I need to share. The title - Lawsuit Time: Florida UMC Fight Goes to Court! strikes me as a feeling of excitement, not sorrow. I think we should all be in sackcloth right now. Second, Lomperis' readers need to always be aware of how he demonizes those he disagrees with. For example, Bishop Carter is "aggressively liberal" - whatever that means - and later is simply "Mr. Carter." His protagonists, meanwhile, are the "underdogs" even though traditionalists at the General Conference level have gloated for years about winning every vote, etc. 

Now the factual misrepresentations. Get a snack. This will take a while.

1. "The Protocol preamble makes clear that the [UMC] will liberalize." The preamble does imagine a church (which I hope comes to pass) where discriminatory language against LGBT+ people is removed. In that limited way Lomperis is correct. That is NOT a doctrinal change, despite Lomperis citing his own argument to the contrary. Importantly, the Protocol's preamble also says, "We envision the Post-Separation United Methodist Church will strive to be a place where traditional United Methodists can continue to serve." If one wants to pretend that the progressive-traditionalist theological spectrum is entirely based on approval-disapproval of LGBT+ people then Lomperis may be right. That is not world we actually live in, as I can personally attest to with both my own theology and many laypeople that I have served over 20+ years as a pastor.

2. "For United Methodists who do not want their denomination to keep bishops who openly deny the UMC’s own core doctrine about Jesus Christ, and who want a clear majority of their denomination’s American constituency to not believe that “Jesus committed sins like other people...” I assume this is referring to Bishop Sprague, and Bishop Oliveto. The quote refers to a sermon by Oliveto that is taken out of context and the reference to Sprague is, as best as I can determine, the only instance in the history of our denomination of a bishop denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Taken very literally, Lomperis is correct. It is a clear misrepresentation of what 99% of UM bishops have taught. 

3. "The Florida UMC congregations in this lawsuit...are seeking to simply continue serving God and their community..." No, literally nothing is preventing them from doing that. They are seeking to take millions of dollars of property and avoid payments that they, through their General Conference delegates, agreed to.

4. "Now Carter and his appointees have done so much to “cause pain” that over 100 Florida congregations in this lawsuit have found it necessary to separate from the UMC, so that they can remain faithful to the historic doctrinal and moral standards..." First, no bishop can make a church leave. They are making that choice - as they have the right to do. Second, despite so much misinformation, there is absolutely nothing in proposed changes to the Book of Discipline that would prevent a traditional church or pastor from being both traditional and United Methodist. Nobody will force a pastor to perform a same-sex marriage; nobody will force the people in the pews from recognizing a same-sex marriage. 

5. "[Those who leave] should be people like Carter who do not believe in the UMC’s historic, official historic standards." This is another common misrepresentation that I'll be posting on soon. Lomperis, and the GMC generally, is cherry-picking "historic standards" I have repeatedly offered to share blatant evidence of traditionalist churches who openly violate our doctrinal standards on baptism. Nobody, including Lomperis, has taken me up on it. Note that our statements on baptism actually are doctrinal. 

6. Using "Paragraph 2553 is not nearly as “fair” or “gracious” as Carter suggests." As you have likely heard me say before, paragraph 2553 was brought to the floor of General Conference by a traditionalist leader who literally said, "This is the way I would want to be treated if I were the one leaving." Lomperis then identifies two ways in which 2553 are unfair.

7. "A traditionalist congregation can become permanently taken over for liberalism, and blocked from remaining connected with more orthodox Methodists, by a mere 34-percent minority." It's fair to argue about the best threshold needed for a church to leave. But Lomperis is still objectively wrong. Hypothetically, if a congregation voted to leave with only a 65% majority and thus failed to get to the required 2/3 under paragraph 2553 in no way would that be a "permanent" decision. If that were the case, he should also be outraged that under his preferred 50%+1 rules, a 49% liberal minority could be "permanently" blocked from being United Methodist. These are important decisions, but they aren't permanent decisions. 

8. "Secondly, ¶2553, in the name of supposedly covering unfunded pension liabilities for retired clergy and their spouses, requires massive, immediate exit fees." First, note again Lomperis' extreme bias. I know of nobody who doubts there is indeed an unfunded pension liability. It is not "supposed," it is real. But Lomperis is factually incorrect in two regards here. First, as of 2019, there is no process in the Book of Discipline for a church to leave without paying for their portion of the unfunded liability. A separate petition from Wespath applies regardless of the method of disaffiliation. Second, Lomperis again cites his own work to demonstrate the excessive cost. In this case it's a 2020 article. In 2020 he may have had a point, but every conference treasurer I know has told me the costs have gone down considerably due to general economic conditions. I checked with our conference treasurer on the cost for the church I serve. According to his numbers, our cost would be less than 1/4 of the cost in 2020. It would be less than 5% of the commitments we received for a capital campaign we conducted during the pandemic. 

9. "This Florida UMC lawsuit only comes after several years of his boxing traditionalists into a corner." Lomperis gives several reasons for this, dating back to March 2019. First, he cites the case of Rev. Andy Oliver. A complaint was filed against Oliver in 2019, before the abeyance language in the Protocol had come about, and says nothing was done. Lomperis has been personally involved in complaints, as have I, and I'm sure he knows that even fast-tracked complaints can take months if the accused uses all the tools available to them. The case I was involved with was under a very traditionalist bishop and it still took over a year before the accused agreed to a "just resolution." Because the abeyance is against charges that have already been brought, it would have applied to Oliver's case well before there had been resolution. Lomperis talks extensively about Rev. Jay Therrell's treatment in Florida, which I'm not informed enough to speak to, and then moves to the debacle of the Florida Annual Conference's decision to not ordain their full slate of candidates. First, note that approval of ordination requires a 75% vote. Rephrasing Lomperis' earlier point on churches separating from the denomination, does it seem right that a group of only; 26% could prevent someone from being ordained? Second, the abeyance should have applied in this case. Instead, a group of clergy, most of whom plan on leaving the denomination, chose to cause pain.

10. " the Florida UMC congregations in this lawsuit “tried to settle this matter with the Florida Annual Conference..." This statement comes from an article in the Lehigh Acres Gazette that makes no attempt to share the Conference's point of view and reads like an editorial. I can't say whether this is a factual error; I can say that the Florida Annual Conference tells a very different story.

11. The Florida Conference is demanding, "...an arbitrary, onerous, and often prohibitive sum of money determined in the sole discretion” of annual conference officials." It is not arbitrary - it is based on the decision of GC2019 and the unfunded liability portion is uniformly applied across literally every church in the denomination that chooses to leave for any reason. It is not onerous or prohibitive - the pension amount is 1/4 of what it was two years ago. And it was not made at the "sole discretion" of the conference. Florida is among the large majority of conferences that are requiring the absolute minimum requirements found in paragraph 2553. 

Who Inherits the Methodist Movement?

 One of the primary goals of my blogs over the last several months has been to debunk false claims from Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) and Global Methodist Church (GMC) leadership. There are clear reasons why a person may choose to leave the United Methodist Church for the GMC. If a person or church makes that choice based on a prayerful, thoughtful, informed decision, so be it. But those people and churches do need to have correct information.

One of the false claims you may have seen is that the GMC are the rightful inheritors of the Methodist Movement. You'll see this in questions like, "Why are we the ones leaving the denomination when we have been faithful to the Book of Discipline?" I'll have a direct response soon to the question of faithfulness to the Book of Discipline. Today I want to address only the underlying issue - which group is the "rightful" inheritors of Methodism?

It's a trick question. While those of us who are progressive on LGBT+ inclusion have repeatedly been called "false teachers," you won't hear us pushing that rhetoric on traditionalists. The GMC will be one of many Methodist denominations in the greater Methodist tradition that encompasses dozens of denominations across the world.

I contend that those remaining in the UMC are at least equal inheritors of our tradition. 

First, note that the continuing United Methodist Church is not changing any of our doctrine. Is it true that some United Methodists don't follow that doctrine? Yes. You'll see that in comments like this one that remind us of the prominent case of Bishop Sprague (note that if you have to go back 20 years for your best example of a problem it may not actually be that big of a problem). It is also true that there are churches who refuse women as pastors, pastors that rebaptize and/or do not baptize infants, and churches that teach a strict seven-day creation. Being selective in following our doctrine is not a problem for only one side of our divide. 

The GMC is being formed at least in part so that they can attain doctrinal purity. That is a task that is bound to fail. They will be forced, just as the UMC is, with making decisions about whether to take action based on the inevitable deviation from their stated doctrine. 

Second, while the UMC is not changing our doctrine, the GMC actually is. The official doctrine of the UMC is contained in the Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith, the Standard Sermons of Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (written by Wesley), and the General Rules of the Methodist Church. The GMC adds the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. Theologically, I have no issue with any of these. It's important to note that, while reason is not clear, Wesley explicitly chose not to include the first two in our doctrine - our Articles of Religion come from the Church of England and Wesley chose not to include Article VIII on the creeds. 

What is of ultimate importance here is not the content of the change, but the precedent the GMC is setting. While those of us remaining in the UMC are allegedly changing our official doctrine (which has never been changed), the GMC actually is changing our doctrine at the outset. 

Again, I'm not suggesting that the GMC should not be considered part of the Methodist family. I simply reject the contention that we in the continuing UMC are somehow rejecting our own tradition.

The Protocol: How We Got Here and Where We are Going

 First, take a deep breath.

Emotions are high. Memories are fragile. So let's take a step back.

When progressive and centrist negotiators stepped away from the Protocol last week the response from traditionalist leaders was as swift as it was predictable. I want to talk about that, but first it's important to go all the way back to December 17, 2019. That was the day 16 people signed on to the original protocol language.

I've likened the Protocol to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in U.S. politics. The Declaration came in 1776. The Constitution came eleven years later. The Declaration stated important agreed-upon principles but never had the force of law. The Constitution does have the force of law. Both are foundational. Those of us in the U.S. deeply respect, cite, and hope to abide by both. If the country had scripture, these would be our "sacred texts."

The Protocol is actually two documents. The first, equivalent to the Declaration of Independence, is the agreement signed in 2019. The second, equivalent to the Constitution, is the proposed legislation  These documents are not identical even though we use the word Protocol to mean both. The differences are crucial.

The Agreement

The Protocol agreement of December 17, 2019 has seven articles. Briefly:

Article 1 states that the signatories agree with the protocol, will work together on legislation to enact the provisions, and will work to garner further support from their various organizations and caucuses.

Article 2 defines four terms, all of which you likely are familiar with.

Article 3 names the timeline and process for implementation. Remembering that we anticipated a 2020 General Conference, this article allows for the formation of a new denomination by May 15, 2021, central conference disaffiliations by December 31, 2021, Annual Conference disaffiliations by July 1, 2021, and local church disaffiliations (if they choose differently from their annual conference) by December 31, 2024. 

Article 4 states the financial terms: disaffiliating local churches get to keep their property, conferences retain any of their property, $25 million is paid to what is now the GMC, $2 million is paid to a departing progressive group (at this point, such a group does not exist), and $39 million is designated for "communities historically marginalized by the sin of racism." It also notes support for legislation regarding pensions and the possibility of ecumenical relations between the UMC and now GMC.

Article 5 give us the much-discussed abeyance and an agreement to delay closing churches until after General Conference.

Article 6 names six steps in a process to enable the transition from where we are now through the end of the then anticipated 2020 General Conference and first session of a post-separation United Methodist Church.

Article 7 is simply the signatures.

All signers agreed to all of these terms.

The Legislation

However, only articles 3 and 4 made it into legislation for consideration. There are good reasons for this. Legislation for articles 1, 2 and 7 are obviously unnecessary. Article 5 posits two steps that happen before General Conference, so legislation can't enable those (by the time General Conference happens, these steps will already be complete). Article 6 names the process enabling the agreement, which is inherently not itself legislation.

If the legislation, once enacted, is like the Constitution then you can see that there is a significant difference between the principles guiding our work (Articles 1-7) and what is actually enforceable (Articles 3-4)

But remember the commitment of the signers is to the full agreement - all 7 articles

Why This Matters

Focusing in on articles 3-6, we can see why our conflict is still so heated.

Article 3 allows for disaffiliations. The primary beneficiaries are those wanting to leave - traditionalists. This is written in legislation to be considered by General Conference and, until last week, nobody objected to it.

Article 4 allows for payment of fees. There is no group to receive the $2 million, the $39 million is divided roughly proportionally, and the $25 million is given to the GMC. This is all written in legislation and, on the whole, significantly benefits the traditionalists. Again, there was no resistance to this article prior to last week.

Article 5 is the key pre-General Conference provision. It prevents churches from being closed and the abeyance. Remember that this is not legislative. There are currently charges against multiple clergy in conferences where the bishop has chosen not to follow this guidance. It has also been broken multiple times. First, by those who have brought and pressed charges against clergy. Second, by the entire WCA on May 7th when they changed their mission to include upholding the Book of Discipline, Third, last Thursday when the Florida Annual Conference refused to commission candidates for ministry because they allegedly were "self-avowed homosexuals" (I'm using our official language here and the word allegedly indicates I don't know personally, nor do I know if the Florida clergy know personally is this label applies). These all took place prior to the announcement of progressive and centrist signers last week except for the third, which was organized prior to the announcement. The primary beneficiaries of this are progressives and it has been violated.

Article 6 includes four steps to take prior to General Conference to ensure that legislation can be proposed and is constitutional. This benefits everyone. Then there are two final steps: calling for the first post-separation UMC general conference to "consider matters pertaining to the Regional Conference plan" and calling the same conference to "consider legislation related to changes ...including the repeal of [the] Traditional Plan legislation and all other portions related to LGBTQ persons." This obviously benefits progressives. The article itself is non-legislative. And traditionalist leaders have promised not to abide by it. Instead, they have promised to continue voting at General Conference, even after the Protocol has passed. 

What Are You Supporting?

In response to the progressive and centrist leadership abandoning the Protocol, traditionalist leadership has maintained that they have always supported it and it is still viable in 2024. That's only half true. It is true of the Protocol legislation - legislation, as you see above, that primarily has their interests in mind. It is not true of the non-legislative components - which are still part of the agreement - that primarily benefit progressives and centrists.

For me, this is the issue. As a progressive (on human sexuality and pretty darn traditional on just about everything else), the initial agreement - the one that does not have the force of legislation behind it - is what matters. If we need to agree to the legislative items in order to get the full agreement so be it. I would still sign on to that today. But that ship has already sailed. WCA and GMC national and global leadership has already violated those parts of the agreement repeatedly. 

If you are a traditionalist, I plead that you understand this. Our non-support of the Protocol legislation (at least my non-support) is not because we want anyone held hostage. It is not a denial of our irreparable rift. It is not because of any kind of personal or corporate animosity. It is because, as evidenced again in Florida last week and most importantly in the WCA's global gathering last month, your highest leadership does not support the portion of the Protocol that is non-legislative. 

What's Next?

With the abandonment of the non-legislative portions of the Protocol by the WCA/GMC and the legislative portions by the progressives/centrists, one possible path forward has now been closed. There is another. It has already started.

- Conferences and bishops must not put unnecessary barriers in the way of churches and pastors wanting to depart. The minimum fees in paragraph 2553 should be the only fees required. That would truly be a sign of good faith.

- Those churches and pastors that feel compelled to leave must can do so as soon as possible, following the existing language. Importantly, if you plan to disaffiliate and become an independent church you still would need to pay the terms of 2553 (see petition 12, sections g and i) so the cost to leave now will be no different than in 2024 - actually more because you would need to pay apportionments between now and then anyway. Departing sooner is truly what is best for you so that you can get on with your mission as you see fit.

Please, let's work together to end this nightmare for the sake of the Gospel.

It Doesn't Have to Be This Way

 You've likely heard about the travesty in Florida on Thursday. 

My heart breaks for everyone who is affected by these actions. That number goes far beyond the bounds of the Florida Annual Conference.

It also reminds me of how fortunate I am to be in the Great Plains Conference. We are a "purple" conference in every way imaginable. That means, just like every other conference, we have churches and pastors who either have or are planning to disaffiliate, including a dozen or so churches today or tomorrow. The way this has happened should be a model for other conferences.

- Our district superintendents are having conversations with congregations that have chosen to leave and are doing so now instead of delaying.

- Our trustees are using the minimum terms in paragraph 2553 to facilitate fair and affordable exits.

- Our bishop is earnestly working with both "sides"

While we disagree, I am especially grateful for the way that the departing churches and pastors are handling things. 

- Our WCA chapter is working together with the conference to keep all the discourse civil and constructive.

- They are telling the truth and rejecting the opportunity to advance rhetoric

- In the one instance I'm aware of where a church was taking a strongly adversarial approach, leaders worked together to quickly bring it back into alignment

I'm not personally involved with any of this. My focus has been on my local congregation and the global church. What I see from the outside looking in is a model for how this needed separation can happen quickly, affordably, and helpfully. 

If you're a Great Plains person, I hope you appreciate the way both sides are moving. As members of the Great Plains, we can appreciate and be proud of the way both those leaving and those staying are navigating this path. I believe it truly is grace filled. When you read my posts that criticize the WCA/GMC leadership, please know I'm not talking about our local leaders. They are doing it the right way.

If you're in another conference, I hope you know that you don't have to take your direction from the national and global WCA/GMC leadership. Many are recommending They are leading you down a path of mutually assured destruction. None of us can afford two more years of what happened in Florida yesterday. That's part of why it was time to be honest about the viability of the Protocol. Waiting two more years for a petition that no longer serves its purpose and likely won't pass doesn't help anyone.

Let's resolve it now. The Great Plains is showing us that it's possible to part in a healthy way. It's possible where you are, too.

The Disingenuity of Comity

With Annual Conference season in full swing, several petitions or resolutions have surfaced asking conferences to enter into comity agreements with the Global Methodist Church (GMC). A comity agreement would potentially create an easier path for churches that choose to exit the UMC for the GMC. Many, maybe even a majority, of disaffiliating churches are choosing to remain independent instead of joining the GMC. If the process for joining the GMC becomes easier through a comity agreement, the likely outcome is some churches planning to disaffiliate and remain independent would instead join the new denomination. It shouldn't matter to those staying int the UMC if a departing church chooses to affiliate or not. What does matter, however, is the honesty of those we negotiate with. As has become expected, GMC and Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) leadership has been deceptive about the nature and status of a comity agreement with the UMC.

A First Attempt

Several months ago, a group of UM bishops worked together on a possible comity agreement with the GMC. My understanding, which could be incorrect, is that this was at the request of the then-forming GMC. The GMC reports that this 10-page agreement was, “affirmed by an overwhelming majority” of the Council of Bishops. As recently as June 1, the GMC has lamented the failure to reach an agreement, with GMC senior executive Keith Boyette saying, "“It was an opportunity missed,” and "It makes no sense to me to drag out a bitter conflict that continues to drive down UM membership, worship attendance, and financial support, but that’s the UM bishops’ decision, not mine."

So why is there no agreement? Simple. The GMC refused to sign the proposal. You can see their list of demanded changes here, which WCA leader Chris Ritter has noted are "relatively minor matters." Thus the GMC is holding our bishops responsible for refusing to adopt a comity agreement while simultaneously not approving a proposed comity agreement.

Comity Could Never Happen

It's important to note that the only reasons the GMC would consider signing a comity agreement in the first place are for power and money. An agreement would reduce the cost of disaffiliating (money) and make local churches more likely to join the GMC (power). I'm certain of this because integrity to GMC polity and theology could never allow for a comity agreement.

Polity - A comity agreement is an agreement between two parties, in our case denominations, of mutual cooperation. In their refusal of the draft comity agreement, the GMC says, "The GM Church can only enter a full communion agreement with the UM Church or any other denomination as an act of its General Conference." That is, the GMC leadership acknowledges that they have only a limited ability to recognize other denominations. It is significant that in their Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, the GMC makes no provision for any of the mutual recognition of other denominations or for pastors of other denominations, including the UMC, to serve a GMC church. The point here is that if the GMC lacks the ability to declare full communion (essentially an agreement that each denomination's sacraments and clergy are valid) then they also don't have the ability to sign a comity agreement.

Theology - Further, there is ample evidence that the GMC has no intention of fully recognizing the UMC. Consider:

- as previously reported, in 2004 the Good News caucus identified that they would want the UMC to cease to exist if conservatives left.

- As early as 2018, Good News and WCA leader Tom Lambrecht said those of us supporting full inclusion are "false teachers," which if one takes the Bible literally is the second worst attribute a person could have (after being a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit).

- WCA leader Beth Ann Cook reaffirmed this belief as recently as this spring.

- Another WCA member and former UMC leader called the UMC "apostate" with several likes and no dissent.

- The Africa Initiative, the WCA's affiliate in Africa, just issued a statement saying in part that our bishops are "apostates" and that, "We consider their actions diametrically opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Truth

The truth is those of us who supported the now dead One Church Plan in 2019 proposed what we believed to be true - that at the present time faithful Christians could disagree on the subject of full-inclusion. The action of the General Conference, led by traditionalists in the WCA and now GMC told us we were wrong. We believed we could still take each other's hands as people with the same heart. We were told no. Officially, the GMC apparently can't tell us how they plan to treat us until their convening conference another 12-18 months from now. Unofficially, their leadership is clear. We are not of equal status - unless, of course, it is to the GMC's advantage to claim that we are of equal status for the sake of money and power.

The Day the Protocol Died

 The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation has been on life support since the first time General Conference was delayed. I have no doubt that if we had held General Conference at the originally scheduled time in 2020 it would have passed. Any compromise leaving all people wanting more. It's natural that the longer it takes for a compromise to be approved, the more nits people will pick and the harder it becomes for it to pass.

Over the last few months I've had more conversations with people who aren't sure the Protocol makes sense anymore. Among the reasons:

• It calls for a $25 million payout, which may not make sense given today's economic realities including the UMCs commitment of $30 million to the Boy Scouts of America victim compensation fund (my language may not be precise with this as I'm not familiar with the details).
• Churches and clergy have already begun the denominational sorting process that the Protocol was designed to help.
• The original group was not adequately representative, particularly of central conferences

In every case, I personally have still maintained that the Protocol is the least bad option we have. I no longer think that's the case, and I'm nearly certain that it now has no chance of passing.

On May 7, the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) held their annual Global Legislative Assembly. The WCA is one of many groups commonly associated together as the Reform and Renewal Coalition with the UMC. They also are the group that originally formed and (I think) legally formed the Global Methodist Church (GMC). There is no GMC without the WCA and there is much overlap in leadership for both organizations. One approved proposal revised their mission statement. I'm unable to locate the precise language at the moment, but multiple reports including the WCA themselves say, "It will support efforts to see that the UM Church maintains faithful adherence and accountability to the standards of doctrine and discipline embodied in its current Book of Discipline." 

With that statement, the Protocol is dead.

Words in times like this come with codes. It should be obvious to everyone that maintaining "faithful adherence and accountability" means simply that the WCA disagree with and will not abide by the abeyance on charging LGBT+ pastors and/or clergy who perform same-sex weddings. Over the last 2-plus years of the Protocol's existence, many observers have lost track of what it actually provides for. As written, the legislation simply provides an easy exit and financial resources for traditionalist United Methodists. The legislation does absolutely nothing for progressives and centrists. But there are two very significant benefits for us - just not in the legislation itself.

First, with US traditionalists leaving the denomination, an effort to allow for regionalization becomes much more plausible. The original Protocol plan includes a move to regionalization after passage of the Protocol legislation.

Second, and most significantly, the Protocol asks for bishops and conferences to follow the abeyance. This is not strictly enforceable because of the Book of Discipline has not changed. It is, though, clearly part of the much discussed "spirit of the Protocol." 

Here's the Important Part

Traditionalist leadership has never embraced the full "spirit of the Protocol." Individuals within leadership have promised to continue voting at General Conference against things like regionalization even after the Protocol passes. You will not find a single traditionalist leader at the national or global level say this is not going to happen, even if it is not an official organizational strategy. Some individuals have also publicly said that the abeyance should not be followed but, again, that has not been an organizational statement.

What changed on May 7th is that the WCA has now officially endorsed a position that is counter to the Protocol. Please remember that the Protocol compromise only ever gave progressives and centrists two concessions. They are just concessions of such importance that we would willingly give up much to acquire them. The concession that traditionalists would not stand in the way of regionalization has long been in doubt. The concession of following the abeyance has now been officially and completely abandoned. 

I am confident that between now and 2024 the large majority of our bishops who supported the Protocol will continue to stand behind the abeyance. I am equally confident that the WCA, which also pledged to remain in the UMC at least until 2024 will do their best to push back. I can no longer in good conscious support legislation in 2024 that is no longer a compromise, but a sellout to a group that is clearly not negotiating in good faith.

Buyer Beware: Updated Edition

 You may have read my extensive posts on the GMC's Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD). One of the first comments I shared was that the document is a moving target. The BDD had been updated several times before and could be updated again.

Sure enough, two weeks before officially launching the new denomination, changes were made. So I offer this update to  the original series, going in paragraph order.

Subject to Change - Let me say it again - two weeks before asking you to sign on the line, the rules have changed. Because the BDD gives unlimited authority to the Transitional Leadership Council (TLC) to adapt the BDD as needed, the rules could very well change again without you having any say in it prior to the Convening Conference. Given that you can be kicked out of the denomination if you don't follow the rules, that's a pretty big deal.

Para.349: Smaller Apportionments - One significant change has been made that potentially helps local churches. The previous version capped apportionments after 5 years at 11.5% of local church income (1.5% for general church and 10% for annual conferences). The new version cuts the annual conference portion in half. The good news for local churches is this does likely guarantee that after 5 years a local church's apportionments will be lower than they are today (unless, of course, the rules change again). The downside is that conferences now have only half the money to function on. I'm not sure that's feasible and I would expect pressure from conferences to increase that limit as the five year deadline approaches.

Para 407: Looser Education - Wording has changed from mandating candidates for ministry attend an approved "school for ministry education" to "strongly recommend." This effectively has no meaning since the TLC still has to approve courses for Methodist theology, history, and polity and since Boards of Ordained Ministry can still react however they would like to a candidate's education (see para 409 and 410). For years, conservative candidates have complained that an Asbury degree is viewed as less valuable or makes the candidate suspect. If that's true today, the opposite would certainly be true in the new GMC.

Para 706: Expanding Bureaucracy - This new paragraph creates a Chief Operating Officer (yes, a corporate term) for the denomination and staff, hired and fired at the will of the TLC. In addition to investing even more power in the TLC, this adds to the cost of operation, again making the financial plan questionable. This is particularly interesting, given the reluctance at previous UMC General Conferences to have a president of the Council of Bishops who would not serve an episcopal area, largely citing economic concerns.

Para 902: Pension Wild West - The previous BDD had what I call a "Trust Clause Lite". Churches wanting to disaffiliate from the GMC would have a lien on their property until their unfunded pension is paid - just like the UMC is currently asking. The new version eliminates that. To be clear, I wasn't critical of the GMC for having this clause. It just needed to be pointed out since the Trust Clause is of great concern to some people. By removing it, there is no longer a guarantee that departing churches will cover pensions. Imagine a hypothetical situation where the GMC does not have enough churches to function as a denomination in the long-term. Pastors in that denomination will have nothing backing their pension claims. 

And that's it. Issues like the significantly increased power of bishops, including unilaterally dismissing pastors, and the diminished role of laity, are all still there. As I've said throughout the series, each person will need to make up their own mind. Should you choose the GMC, just go in with your eyes open.

Harder Things

 I always read Rob Renfroe. You should, too. Then you should read someone else so that you have a counterbalanced view. So read this first, then come back here.

Rob is right. There are deeper things that divide the UM Church. To Rob's point:

• I remember hearing a speech on the floor of General Conference in 2008 when a delegate said out loud, "Why are we talking about homosexuality when they are going to hell anyway?"
• I remember the Conference Lay Leader in 2016 who unashamedly told me that 90% of churches in his conference would not take a woman as a pastor.
• I remember our own Annual Conference a year earlier when, debating a resolution related to allowing guns in churches, a laywoman said we must allow guns because they will be needed for Armageddon.
• I remember checking out the calendar of events for a church with a pastor who had just surrendered his credentials and seeing a guest speaker on the evils of evolution.

These are hard things to believe if you have been in 90% of our local churches, but they are true.

I do not doubt that Rob has personal examples of people includes bishops and seminary presidents who are much more theologically liberal than I am. I also do not doubt that there are a roughly equal number of stories of misogynists and fundamentalists. There is an equal chance for either extreme to control their respective denomination. 

Rob goes on to share that General Conference was cancelled because of politics. It's possible. It's also possible that the members from Africa who he says argued for it to go forward were swayed by false reports that 90% of Africans would be able to attend (see the shifting story here). He also notes that the Commission has formed a task force examine a hybrid General Conference in 2024 as evidence that it was possible to do so in 2021 or 2022...ignoring that the same group also had a task force examining precisely that question.

Then he, once again, maligns "progressives" as people who want to force their will upon everyone else. "The progressives have told us who they are," he says, while making generalized claims with absolutely no shred of evidence. So let me remind you both of who progressives are and who traditionalist leaders are:

• Progressives endorsed the "One Church Plan" that explicitly allowed and encouraged theological diversity. It was derailed because traditionalists were clear that they could not live with diversity.
• Progressives at a national and global level have consistently operated within ethical bounds. Traditionalist leaders have, among other things, vowed to continue fighting in a denomination that they no longer believe in example #1 will be Renfroe himself if he does not surrender his credentials on May 1 instead of staying one day longer in a denomination that he implores you to leave).
• Progressive leaders, at least those staying in the UMC, have never had conversations about how to destroy or damage traditionalists or the GMC. Good News has had that exact conversation, as I've shared before.  

Renfroe uses the secular political language of "woke liberals" even as his allies have threatened secular lawsuits and dehumanizing vast swaths of our denomination with the one word "progressives."

To the average traditionalist sitting in the pews: It's time to believe hard things. You've been misled. You are better than your leaders. You don't need to follow them to a place you don't want to go. 

The Ecclesiastical Challenge

One of the frequent challenges to my critiques of the Global Methodist Church (GMC) is that everything about the GMC is still tentative - it could all be changed as early as the Convening Conference, which is likely to happen in 2023 or possibly 2024. It's frustrating - because we have to be able to make comparisons to something - and it's also fair - it is true that significant changes can be made.

The argument works the other way, too. Barring another pandemic, the United Methodist Church (UMC) meets every four years to enact changes. In fact, one of the rare statements that we all can agree with is that the structure of the church needs to change. The way that the two denominations address the need for change may become one of the defining differences between the UMC and GMC.

Command and Control

The Methodist movement in the United States began at the same time the nation was born. Historically, it makes sense that the church grew as the nation grew, experienced conflict when the nation experienced conflict (including today), and is governed in a similar way to how the nation is governed. Our legislative (General, Jurisdictional, and Annual Conferences), executive (bishops), and judicial (Judicial Council) branches have checks and balances just as the nation does. Our system of governance is in crisis - we just point fingers at different sides for who is most responsible for the crisis. That sentence is true both  for our secular and our church governance. We are, perhaps, entering a significant new era in both. 

First, some history. When the United States of America first formed, the emphasis was on the States, not America. Prior to the Civil War, the majority of literature spoke of the country in the plural. In other words, a person might write something like, "The United States of America are negotiating with England." After the Civil War, our national identity developed more. Today, even with all our differences, most of us in the U.S. understand ourselves as Americans first and citizens of our state second. 

Compare this to our structure. "The annual conference is the basic body in the Church..." Paragraph 33 of the Book of Discipline (BOD) has been engrained in my head for years. This is one reason that annual conferences may be able to leave the denomination without General Conference approval. As I understand it, legally there is no United Methodist Church that can, for example, sue or be sued. There is a network of annual conferences that have agreed to follow a set of rules and guidelines contained in the BOD.

But our structure has gradually become more Command and Control. Every new paragraph written for the BOD tightens the screws just a little more on the flexibility of our annual conferences and local churches. Over the decades, the BOD has become more and more comprehensive allowing for less flexibility on nearly every aspect of the church, with the notable exception of committee structures within the local church. It is, well, institutional.

The Road Diverges

Traditionalists often say that the root of our current crisis is in the authority of Scripture. I would argue there is another authority that is being challenged - the authority of our Command and Control structure. As we've seen before, we mirror the nation. Trust in authorities and institutions has been declining for decades. This is why I get annoyed with the complaint, "If they [progressives] just followed the Discipline this wouldn't be happening." I don't know any pastor who follows every letter of the Discipline. In fact, I guarantee that if you read that book from cover to cover every person in the UMC will find at least a couple places where they are not in compliance. So what's the solution to this reality? There are two.

One solution is enforcement. We hear it frequently, again from traditionalist leaders. The Traditional Plan at the 2019 General Conference was an ultimatum of enforcement. Enforcement is doubling down on the Command and Control approach. I encourage you to read my Buyer Beware series, particularly the posts on Bishops and Power. Verbally, we've been told that the GMC will reduce the power of bishops and centralized leadership and empower the local church. That's not the reality. In reality, a bishop can unilaterally remove a pastor or prevent a potential pastor from being ordained. In reality, a church that does not pay its full apportionments can be kicked out of the denomination with no recourse. The issue is that if the identified problem is misbehavior, you have to correct the misbehavior. The correction method that the GMC has chosen is enforcement and you can't enforce it if you don't have controls in place. Even if you disagree, I hope you can hear in this way those of us who are more progressive identify the traditionalist approach as one that focuses on law over grace.

An alternative is decentralizing power. Another key phrase we keep hearing: "In the UMC of the future, pastors will be forced to perform same-sex marriages!" First, I don't know anybody who wants to force a pastor to marry them, regardless of their sexual orientation. Second, there is literally nothing in the legislation that has been prepared that would force anyone to marry anybody. Nor, third, am I aware of any conversations among progressive or centrist leaders about forcing this. What we have consistently asked for is choice. But I understand where the question comes from. From a command and control standpoint, it makes complete sense. Command and control doesn't allow for choice. Everything is "shall" or "shall not." The actual plan is a decentralizing of power. 

This is a key difference in the direction of the two denominations. We are at a fork in the road of power and authority. The change in the GMC is now defined. They will be moving towards more control. The change in the UMC is not yet defined, but we will need to change. It is true that what we are doing right now is not sustainable. For this moment in which we are living, I hope we move towards more localized control, exerting denominational muscle only when it is truly necessary for the essentials of the faith.

Promises, Protocol, and Peace

Promises 

"Bishops and annual conferences have a choice. They can respond to this difficult time with a heart of peace (which they have repeatedly extolled) and allow for an amicable separation of congregations that desire to transfer by following as much as possible the principles of the Protocol. Or they can take a punitive approach and demand heavy payments from churches seeking to transfer. A vindictive spirit does not serve the church or its witness for Jesus Christ well. We had hoped to demonstrate to the world that it is possible to resolve deeply felt differences in a gracious and amicable way. Though continued delay calls the eventual passage of the Protocol into doubt, we call upon bishops and annual conferences to adopt a gracious attitude that can pave the way for future reconciliation, rather than seeking to extract heavy penalties or coerce churches into remaining United Methodist."

- Tom Lambrecht, Vice President of Good News, March 4, 2022 

It's great writing, isn't it? Using the language of our bishops against them, Lambrecht calls for a "heart of peace" from progressives and centrists towards traditionalists. Although later the article promises lawsuits in secular courts (against a Biblical command), those lawsuits will not be the fault not of the plaintiffs, but the bishops and institution that is not "of peace". Rhetorically brilliant. Also a half-truth.

Promise #1

Lambrecht had a different approach in 2004. That is the year he co-authored an internal Good News report laying out alternatives for the future of the United Methodist Church. Titled Options for the Future, the document laid out four options (one with 2 sub-options) to resolve our differences. One option was what become the Traditional Plan - a "forced departure" [emphasis in original] of those who disagree with the traditionalist view. The report posed the question, "Would the victory be worth the cost?" The 2019 General Conference proved the answer is no. The second option was essentially what become the Connectional Conference Plan in 2019. "However, it would put evangelicals in the position of belonging to a group that would allow beliefs and behaviors that are antithetical to the Gospel." A third option, making the UMC a "High Expectation Covenant Community" was not fully developed. Finally, the fourth option was where we are today - "Structural Separation." Here's the A and B options - and they are significant. 

Option A: Amicable Separation, which Lambrecht and his coauthors note would require the hard work of General Conference. This is the Protocol that now is tabled until 2024 and likely will never pass.

Option B: Voluntary Departure, which is leaving the denomination to start a new denomination. This is the Global Methodist Church (GMC). This is where we are, beginning May 1. And this is why it matters that Lambrecht stated as a significant disadvantage to this approach, "It also leaves the United Methodist denomination somewhat intact, with the accumulation of resources to potentially continue for decades on a progressively revisionist track [emphasis mine]."

Using the framework of the book The Anatomy of Peace from which the phrase "heart of peace" comes, it is important to understand that in 2004 Lambrecht promised to bring a "heart of war" if the day that we have now reached ever occurred. How else is one to understand "leaving the denomination somewhat intact" as a disadvantage?

Promise #2

Fast Forward to 2019. Moments before the monster trucks rolled into St. Louis, the last item of business that General Conference dealt with was a petition governing disaffiliation. Rev. Beth Ann  Cook presented it for traditionalists as, "the way I would want to be treated" if she were the one leaving the church. I covered this promise in depth last week. The petition, as amended by the traditionalist majority, passed what is now Paragraph 2553 in the Book of Discipline. As Lambrecht said back in 2004, a voluntary departure is expensive. So now traditionalist leadership doesn't want to follow it because they think they found a cheaper way via Paragraph 2548. So, to be clear, in 2019 when they thought progressives were leaving they promised that 2553 was fair, equitable, and the way people should be treated. Now it's none of those.

Promise #3

This is relevant, of course, only because General Conference is not meeting in 2022 and the Protocol has not passed. But what if we had met? If General Conference met this year, most likely the Protocol legislation would have been the first item on the agenda. Assuming it passed, the path would be clear for the GMC to officially form and for traditionalists who felt called to leave to do so. Surely then the rest of the conference would proceed in an orderly fashion, right? The separation would have happened. We would all move forward. Well, no. Even though they said they would be leaving the denomination, multiple traditionalist leaders and General Conference delegates promised both publicly and privately, to stay and continue voting - in a denomination they had pledged to leave. Those calling on us to have a heart of peace promised to continue voting on budgets, Judicial Council members, opposing regionalization, and presumably even on Bishops at jurisdictional conferences even though none of those would ever affect them again.

Promise #4

Even then, one would hope that following General Conference 2022, or now that it isn't happening sometime shortly after the GMC officially forms on May 1, the separation will be mostly complete. But there's still one more promise to share with you. As part of the announcement of the GMC launch, Rev. Keith Boyette said, "For theologically conservative local churches deciding to remain in the UM Church for a time, we are confident Africa Initiative, Good News, the Confessing Movement, UMAction, and the Wesleyan Covenant Association will continue to vociferously advocate for the ultimate passage of the Protocol.” Please note that there is nothing any of those organizations can do to help "theologically conservative local congregations" by virtue of being part of the United Methodist Church. They can give lots of advice and advocacy regardless of their denominational affiliation. There is no need or benefit to doing anything deliberate within the denomination. And yet they promise to stick around, at least until May 2024.

Protocol

Can we not just proceed with the "spirit of the protocol?" Wouldn't that be the 2022 version of the "amicable separation proposed in 2004? Maybe. Traditionalist leaders like John Lomperis have promised to fight against the abeyance on charges for being LGBT+ or performing weddings for same-sex couples, which is the only immediate benefit of the Protocol for progressives. As already mentioned, they have promised to fight against regionalization, which was not part of the Protocol legislation but was very much part of the initial Protocol agreement and in keeepoing with the "spirit." A resolution has been submitted to the Texas Conference asking to adopt, "the spirit of the Protocol in the handling of any congregational requests for disaffiliation" including a request from a whole annual conference. The resolution does not ask for the spirit of the Protocol to be applied in any other way. Had the Protocol been approved, Annual Conferences could leave the denomination with a 57% vote. Assuming the Judicial Council rules that Annual Conferences can leave, I don't expect traditionalist leaders to call for "the spirit of the Protocol" and move that a vote to disaffiliate be honored only if it reaches that threshold. A vote of 50% +1 will, I'm sure, be sufficient. Nor are they likely to suggest that local churches, following the Protocol, consider a 2/3 vote to disaffiliate if their conference chooses to stay. 

When traditionalist leadership says we should follow "the spirit of the Protocol" they seem to mean progressives and centrists should follow it. Traditionalists should follow it when convenient.

Peace

I really do want a heart of peace. When the first delay of General Conference was announced I argued privately for bishops and conferences to use of 2548 instead of 2553. As recently as last week I promised to support the use of the absolute minimum standards in 2553 instead of also requiring congregations to pay a portion of their property's assessed value or other fees. This has to end. We can do it the hard way or the really, really hard way. There is no easy way. It will be less difficult if we really can do it with a heart of peace. I know of no progressive or centrist leader who wants this quagmire to continue. I doubt any traditionalist does either.

We also must acknowledge that it is difficult to have a heart of peace when by every appearance the WCA and friends really have been out to get us since 2004. It is hard to have a heart of peace when you are told that your beliefs are antithetical to the Gospel (quoted above in the 2004 document) and that you are a false teacher (as recently as last month and repeatedly since 2018). It's hard to have a heart of peace with promises made like the four stated above. It's hard to have a heart of peace when there is no reason to trust those asking it of you. 

It doesn't have to be this hard. 

Go in peace. 

Please.

Go.