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.