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 What constitutes (using our current, hopelessly outdated language in the Book of Discipline) a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" has always been a source of contention.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.