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.