The airwaves and blogosphere are full of reactions to the January 3 release of a Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace through Separation. The plan will be presented to the 2020 United Methodist General Conference (GC2020) in hopes of ending decades of painful arguments and standoffs over the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons. Following the 2019 General Conference‘s passage of the highly restrictive Traditional Plan, the church’s division only deepened.
Bishop John Yambasu of the Sierra Leone Episcopal Area felt called by God to gather United Methodists of different perspectives to seek a way to address those irreconcilable differences. Leaders representing conservative, progressive, and centrist groups along with bishops from each jurisdiction and the central conferences gathered several times to conceive of some way for the church to move forward. Renowned mediator Kenneth Feinberg volunteered his time and expertise to help broker a compromise.
The result is a plan of separation between the existing UMC and a traditional denomination, with the possibility of other splinter groups within a set timeframe. Others have analyzed the plan’s details and what it means for the future of Methodism (see for example, Jeremy Smith’s explanation on Hacking Christianity). Here are my initial thoughts on the power dynamics around this development.
Central Conferences 1
As discussed in my last post, other proposals for dealing with this impasse were designed by US leaders, who either left out the Central Conferences altogether or consulted them, but made no special provisions for their concerns. That this protocol was initiated by a leader from Africa indicates the influence of African Methodism, which now comprises about one-third of the UMC’s membership.
If the separation is approved, the membership of the resulting traditional denomination would likely include many Africans, perhaps outnumbering membership in the north. US conservatives appear to have driven the agenda to this point and have now achieved their goal of a church committed to traditional theology. Going forward, African leaders could steer that denomination toward other issues of concern to the African church, which have been largely overlooked with the church’s fixation on homosexuality.
The protocol also calls for the formation of Regional Conferences, including one for the US, as proposed by the Connectional Table. This would free all Central Conferences from US-centric polity and allow them to craft guidelines that best serve their own settings.
Conservatives
To some it appears that conservatives, led by the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), would get the best end of this deal. They would be able to leave the UMC with no penalty, retain their property, and receive $25 million over the next four years to establish a new denomination. The negotiators knew that conservatives likely have enough votes to add further restrictions on LGBTQ inclusion at GC2020, if not allowed to exit under their terms. While described as a means of dividing the assets of the denomination, the $25 million feels to some like ransom, but it may be the cost of putting this 48-year ordeal behind us.
Progressives
What progressives, and especially LGBTQ persons, could gain in this arrangement is the end of harmful language and policies that have grown more punitive since they first entered the UMC Book of Discipline in 1972. In the short term, the Traditional Plan, which took effect January 1, will be put on hold. Although charges can be filed against openly gay clergy or those who perform same-sex marriages, bishops agree to hold those charges in abeyance until after General Conference in May. This offers such pastors a measure of safety in the coming months and removes the threat of being defrocked.
There was not an official representative of the Queer Clergy Caucus at the table, and some LGBTQ persons, who have often been peripheral to UMC discussions about them, have expressed distrust of a plan crafted without that group’s direct input. 2 The New Expressions Worldwide Plan offered by UMForward calls for a Liberationist Methodist Church that is free of the larger church’s colonial past and centers on affirming queer and trans persons and persons of color. That group might use funds available for the formation of additional denominations to form such a liberationist church.
The protocol also provides funds to strengthen ministries by and for historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups, to make sure they are not further marginalized in this transition.
Mainstream UMC
While it does carry baggage, The United Methodist Church has global recognization and relationships that could remain intact rather than the church splintering into several bodies or dissolving altogether. It would be a smaller church with less theological diversity, but the UMC would be free of the internal struggle that has been draining resources and can more effectively address the complex of issues facing the world. The formation of Regional Conferences would allow each region to craft policy to most effectively minister in their context, allowing for more vital ministry across the board.
Some Unknowns
As many have pointed out, this is far from a “done deal.” The first step is for the United Methodist Judicial Council to determine whether the protocol is constitutional, or whether any of the changes proposed would require ratification by Annual Conferences.
If it is allowed to go to GC2020, the 862 GC delegates would have the opportunity to amend the legislation. This is a highly polarized body using a decision-making process based on majority vote, rather than the mediated consultation that produced the protocol. It is possible that some delegates will try to use their majority to sweeten the deal for their side. Only a few members of the group producing the protocol are voting delegates to GC2020, so 99.99% of that body has made no commitment to the plan.
If approved, the plan would likely usher in a period of restructuring. As Annual Conferences decide whether to leave or remain with the UMC, congregations that dissent from that decision might align with another Annual Conference. Congregational decisions must be made by the end of 2024, at which time new boundaries could be drawn with resulting denominations overlapping in some areas.
The protocol allows for clergy to retain their pension, regardless of which body they join, but the process for their transition was not made clear, nor did it address the process or timeline for bishops who might desire to join other denominations.
Reason for Hope
The plan looks good on paper, but so did the plans from the Commission on a Way Forward (COWF) However, in that case, conservatives did not like plans that allowed for one body with different practices related to sexuality, so they insisted that the Traditional Plan be added as an option. Freed from the COWF’s goal of remaining one denomination, the conservative leaders who were part of crafting this protocol were able to negotiate an exit without penalty.
While things could still go awry, this seems to offer the best chance to end decades of hurtful, divisive General Conferences, and allow separate branches to do ministry as they feel called. Methodism has survived division in the past, and it would survive this.
The introduction of this protocol will not put an end to political maneuvering, but we have to trust that the leaders who signed it will encourage their members to support it, and that enough people want this painful division to be over that they will resist efforts to thwart its passage. Having failed to remain united, we have a path to reconciliation and grace through amicable separation. I pray that enough delegates will see that to vote it through.
Awesome post! Keep up the great work! 🙂