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.