Thoughts on the Protocol, Post Pre-GC2020 Meeting

(Here's another UM-centric post. My apologies to my non-UM-interested friends, you might want to check back in the autumn.)

Having spent a few days last week in Nashville at the Pre-General Conference 2020 Briefing, I wanted to share a few thoughts about my sense of the future of the UMC, in particular the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. I’ve written about the gist of the Protocol elsewhere, my intent here is to offer further reflections based on last week’s meeting. The thoughts below are my own, by the way, so feel free to take them with as many grains of salt as you’d like.

The Protocol is a legitimate proposal that most leaders from throughout the theological spectrum agree is likely our best option to move forward well. I have seen respected leaders from the traditionalist, moderate, and progressive branches hold to their agreement to support this plan. Even so, there are folks from both of the ends of the theological spectrum who are not satisfied. From the far right, “We ‘won’ in St. Louis, why do we have to leave?” From the far left, “There is justice for no one until there is justice for everyone, and to continue to allow some who remain the UMC to deny marriage and ordination to LGBT persons is unjust.” Overall, though, the Protocol seems to be holding, for now.

We don’t trust each other, and that lack of trust may be the thing that endangers the passage of the Protocol in May. We saw that lack of trust in the presentations at the pre-General Conference meeting on the various proposals. Presenters would discuss their plan in some detail for the first 19 minutes of their allotted 20-minute time span. At the very end would be the comment, “Oh, and by the way, we fully support the Protocol.” As one of my tablemates said, “It would have made a much bigger statement if they had simply stood up and said, ‘We support the Protocol’ and sat down.” They could have then ceded the rest of their time to a deeper conversation about the Protocol. Since each side doesn’t trust the other (and this lack of trust is legitimate, based on much past experience), each side continues to make contingency plans in case the Protocol sinks. Similar to the duel at the end of “Hamilton,” (spoiler alert, in case you haven’t seen it or dozed through that part of your American History classes), if we can’t trust what the other will do, (figurative) blood might be shed, even if by accident.

More thought needs to be given to what happens post-Protocol. This comment isn’t a critique, simply an observation. The Protocol is freshly created, and the legislation is being written as I write. There hasn’t been time yet to think about what happens in our Annual Conferences and churches the day after the Protocol is adopted. There are mechanics to consider, such as what would be required for an Annual Conference who might be ready to vote to leave as soon as two weeks after the end of General Conference. Will our district superintendents be prepared to respond when their phones ring on May 16 with churches that are ready to vote to leave?  Where will the churches go who make a different choice about leaving or staying than their Annual Conference has made? Will we who remain in the UMC use this opportunity to create a new denomination that works well for our day and age, or will we simply retain our current church structure?

Strong leadership will be more crucial in this next quadrennium than ever before. If we can manage this separation well, we can all emerge stronger and more equipped to live out our mission than before. If our separating is instead marked by bickering and messiness, then our combined witness will continue to diminish in the eyes of a watching world.

I pray that faith, hope, and love will be our choice, now and in the days to come.  Questions and obstacles to the Protocol exist, yet I believe that this agreement provides us our clearest path forward and will allow us to find renewed faith, hope, and love in this critical moment for the UMC.

A Pastoral Response to the Protocol

In these days of change for our denomination, I believe that it is critical for me to live into my role as pastor by interpreting for my own congregation many of the proposals and possibilities ahead. Looking at this most recent proposal through the lens of congregational care keeps me focused on Jesus' love and compassion, while also keeping a pragmatic eye on the implications for my church and beyond. I shared the following statement in worship yesterday, a service which included the gift of communion, so timely and appropriate and affirming.

STATEMENT ON THE PROTOCOL OF RECONCILIATION AND GRACE THROUGH SEPARATION

SHARED IN WORSHIP AT CENTRAL UMC, KANSAS CITY, MO

JANUARY 5, 2020

It’s not news to you that we have been going back and forth around issues related to sexual orientation for decades. Before that, it was gender. Before that, it was tobacco use and alcohol and dancing and playing cards. Before that, it was race, and before that it was slavery. The church, it turns out, is made up of humans, and we bring our short sightedness as humans to church with us.

Two things happened this past week.

First, on January 1, the harsh penalties of the Traditional Plan were scheduled to go into effect. As a pastor, I could embezzle money from the church, have a sexual relationship with someone to whom I wasn’t married, or preach that we all needed to worship a large purple eggplant, and there would be no mandatory penalties. (I haven’t done any of those things, for the record.) But if I did a wedding for a same-sex couple, I would have a mandatory 1-year suspension, and a second offense would require my ordination to be removed from me. Let me reiterate that there are no other mandatory penalties for any other offenses in United Methodism.

But then on January 3, a document was released, a “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.” The unique thing is that it has been agreed to by 16 of the major players from throughout our theological spectrum, and that it was mediated by Kenneth Feinberg, a Jewish man (religious but with no particular skin in our UM game) who had successfully settled the 9-11 victims compensation suit. One very important note is that this Protocol is simply a proposal to General Conference in May, and that General Conference action is the only way any legislation becomes church law. Nothing is final until then.

My (incomplete) summary is this:

- The moderate and progressive part of UMC will stay, keeping our denominational structure and name. We will remove all negative language and rules related to LGBTQ issues. Any complaints for LGBTQ issues will be “held in abeyance” while the denominational changes are being sorted out.

- The theological conservatives who would like to leave can, taking their assets with them, along with a $25 million settlement. Any others that would like to create another “expression of Methodism” may leave also, and there will be a $2 million fund to assist them. 

- No churches or Annual Conferences will be forced into a vote. Any Annual Conferences that do not vote will remain in the UMC, and any churches that do not vote will be assumed into whatever their Annual Conference has decided. Churches will have until December 31, 2024 to choose to leave to join one of these new expressions of Methodism, and then that window for departure will close and the trust clause will be back in place.

- Some other decisions are included in this protocol, such as voting percentages needed. There is also a commitment of $39 million to assist ethnic minority communities that have been marginalized by the UMC in the past. There are other decisions are still ahead that are not included in this document.

- The signers agree that they will support this plan and no other, and that they will encourage their constituents to support this plan. Early press releases seem to indicate that they are sticking with their agreement thus far. 

One more note: I have been endorsed by the Missouri Conference as a candidate for the episcopacy, not knowing what type of denomination I was offering to serve, but feeling compelled to serve as an advocate for our clergy and churches who were committed to full inclusion. I am so thankful for what appears to be a resolution to allow us to be the church we feel Christ is calling us to be. If I were to be elected bishop in such a time as this, I would be honored to provide leadership through a time of some confusion and chaos as churches and clergy sort themselves out. As we know, God’s very best creation is borne out of chaos. 

Later on in the service, we’ll be sharing in communion. Each time we share in the Lord’s Supper, I say the words, “The body of Christ, broken for you.” I do not rejoice in the breaking of the part of Christ’s body known as the UMC, but I do rejoice in the many ways that Christ works through brokenness. I trust that Christ is at work even in these moments of breaking for our denomination.

We’re going to pause to pray, and then we’re going to pass the peace.

Let us pray: Loving Christ who was broken for us, we acknowledge that your church is broken. We ask forgiveness for every time that we have acted with less than your grace, even as we seek to forgive those who have treated us with less than your grace. We pray in these moments for those persons who will join a different expression of Methodism than us, thanking you for their friendship and collaboration in the past, and asking that you take them, along with us, to places of new joy and faithfulness. As you are working out a new creation within the United Methodist Church, I pray that you use the strength of our legacy and the power of our hopes to do great things for your kingdom. Amen. 

I invite you to pass the peace of Christ with humility and grace, as you see the face of Christ in each person you greet.

**

Here is a link to the Protocol:  https://cdnsc.umc.org/-/media/umc-media/2020/01/03/15/48/Protocol-of-Reconciliation-and-Grace-through-Separation

Here is a link to the FAQs of the Protocol: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/protocol-of-reconciliation-and-grace-through-separation-faq