(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.
