A delicate sequence
At the bare minimum, three things need to happen at the 2020 General Conference:
- The Wesleyan Covenant Association needs the Protocol to be passed to allow them to exit United Methodism and create their own expression with $25 million dollars of support.
- The UMC needs to let go of part of the colonialistic errors of the 20th century and embrace a church with more equal footing twenty years into the 21st century by passing a robust Regionalization plan (either the Connectional Table plan or the Christmas Covenant plan)
- The UMC needs to remove the anti-LGBTQ language in the Book of Discipline (at the bare minimum) as the moratorium in the Protocol is insufficient and continues the harm of 2019.
There’s a few others things (passing the 2012-2020 revision to the Social Principles, the Jurisdictional Study legislation, a ton of other good legislative tweaks, etc) but the above is the bare minimum for life together and apart, in my opinion.
But GC is unlikely to pass the above as a package deal (more on that later). So they would need to be voted on in sequence. Does it matter which vote is first? Actually, yes, a lot!
Take a read of the scenarios and sound off in the comments which sounds like the path of most reconciliation and least harm.
The Complication: A lack of trust
The reason for this question stems from the 2010 study commissioned by The United Methodist Church. During the Call To Action process from 2010-2012 in the United Methodist Church, one of the commissioned reports by Towers-Watson talked repeatedly about a lack of trust in the denomination.
From top to bottom, we are a denomination that doesn’t trust each other. It’s from the bottom-up as laity don’t trust where their apportionment dollars go. It’s institutional as jurisdictions keep the south from getting an untrustworthy northern (or–egads–western) bishop. From the caucus groups sowing discontent to the average Methodist middle, trust is a currency that is not being used as often as it should.
So it is this lack of trust that keeps us from just saying “Oh yeah, let’s pass these three, no problem.”
Any solution to the sequence question needs to address BOTH the UMC delegate’s lack of trust AND not be so watered down with safeguards as to not effect the change we need.
Let’s explore the two best options.
Sequence 1: The WCA Egg before the UMC Chicken
The first sequence is passing the plans in this order:
- The Protocol
- Robust Regionalization
- Removal of anti-LGBTQ language
Let’s imagine the 2020 General Conference passes the Protocol first. The WCA gets their $25 million dollar golden egg, and they can go sit on it as soon as the 2020 General Conference closes, because the legislation reads they will be able to start recruiting May 15, 2020.
While it would seem this would satisfy the Traditionalists and they could abstain from the other two votes out of conscience, that would be a mistaken assumption. As Dr. Chris Ritter wrote on Facebook:
Traditionalists have long stood opposed to [regionalization] because it is a backdoor effort to change church teachings. Will that matter to those headed out the door? Delegates will need to examine their hearts and consciences. We should pray for them.
At the 2019 General Conference, Rev. Tom Berlin appealed to African delegates to abstain from voting on the One Church Plan, so as to keep themselves from “voting for sin.” There was a minimum vote difference between the voting down of the OCP and the voting up of the Traditional Plan, so that approach clearly didn’t work for a lot of people.
This approach holds a lot of concern for the UMC going forward because there is no guarantee (and no revotes) that the WCA won’t try to kneecap United Methodism as they leave. As the timeline shows, the longer the UMC is in the murky middle, the better marketing it is for the WCA.
This approach seems to create the most distrust. I’d be interested in Traditionalist perspectives if they feel this sequence creates more trust for them.
There’s another way.
Sequence 2: The UMC Chicken before the WCA Egg
Let’s imagine this sequence:
- Robust Regionalization
- Removal of anti-LGBTQ language
- The Protocol
In this sequence, the necessary components for The UMC (the post-separation UMC, in the Protocol language) will be voted in first, and then the Protocol for separation, because the WCA will refuse to continue to participate in the type of church above.
However, the complication is that it requires the WCA to vote for (or abstain from voting on) two things that are anathema to them first. I personally have a lack of trust that hardcore conservatives will sit on their hands and allow sin to be voted into an ecclesial body even with $25 million dollars coming later.
Additionally, I’ve heard on Twitter some concerns from WCA Traditionalists that if they pass Regionalization first, then the UMC machine will bite them and not pass the Protocol. Valid and possible. But I don’t think this will happen because there’s enough frustration over how the WCA broke The United Methodist Church in 2019 with their promotion of the Traditional Plan that many power players in The UMC are ready for them to leave.
So this approach has some WCA concerns at being last in the sequence, and UMC concerns at good behavior before the payout, but far less than the first scenario. Again, I’d appreciate Traditionalist comments if that’s not the case.
A Potential Bad Omelette either way.
The reality is that distrust will continue even if all three pieces are voted in because we’ve been here before and the antigay caucus groups ruined Methodism for everyone…twice in the last 10 years.
The key polity issue is that a robust Regionalization plan would need constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments are two stages: first they pass by a supermajority of General Conference delegates, then they have to be voted on by a supermajority of annual conference delegates. Annual conferences have nullified the actions of General Conference before, in recent memory as a result of antigay caucus group opposition.
Back in 2008, the General Conference passed a series of constitutional amendments allowing for a central conference in America. It would have solved the conciliar authority problem and presciently would have set us on the right course. It passed General Conference. It was supported by a supermajority of worldwide delegates. It was chaired by Bishop Scott Jones, a Traditionalist darling. All was well.
But then Rev. Maxie Dunnam got on YouTube and made scare videos about the amendment, Rev. Eddie Fox rallied the central conference connections, and…the amendments were shot down by the annual conference votes.
More recently in 2017, the rhetoric and organizing by the antigay caucus groups caused the demise of a 2016 amendment to add gender to the list of non-discrimination values.
This isn’t merely to point to history and name bad behavior. It is to name that it could easily happen again (and the lack of audited voting means some annual conferences reported 100% votes against gender equality, which is highly suspect). Without proper voting audits and scare tactics on broadband channels, it is easy to see Regionalization get voted down again.
Remember: No annual conference has to vote on the WCA getting $25 million dollars. That happens without AC approval. So the WCA can turn their full fire on the Regionalization amendments without fear of retaliation, and again: a hobbled UMC is a marketing boon for the WCA.
The Way Forward
While the Protocol legislation has been released, their strategy for passing it at the 2020 General Conference has not. I’m hopeful the mediation team has a good plan for us soon.
Meanwhile, a method has to be found to overcome these concerns, increase trust in each other, and find a path towards grace together. I’m the embodiment of the 2010 Towers-Watson study in that I don’t trust the actors or the processes to yield that future.
But I’m hoping to be proven wrong.
Your Turn
Which sounds like the path of most reconciliation and least harm? Sound off in the comments below or on social media.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Unlike Chris Ritter, in this piece you make no attempt to address the importance of African delegates in the equation. Ultimately they will have a huge voting block influence on whatever happens. Contrary to popular belief, statements from African bishops regarding how their delegates will vote didn’t carry much weight at GC2019. One could say that it is all conjecture but we have heard from African delegates, not bishops, two things: they want the church’s traditional teaching on human sexuality to stand, and they want unity. The Protocol legislation gives them neither of these things, even if the Regionalization Conference plan passes because they will be unequally yoked.
Now Chris does offer a way out through the Communion structure. But that would also require allowing the African churches to retain some form of the United Methodist name and the symbol of the cross and flame, regardless of the decisions they make. This would be similar to what was delineated in the Indianapolis Plan. Perhaps a Communion would allow them both the needed separation and unity simultaneously. It seems extremely manipulative to hold the African churches hostage by threatening to not allow them to use both some form of the name and some form of the cross and flame as several other international churches have done.
Also, it’s disingenuous to act like $25 million dollars is a lot of money, given that every dollar within the UMC structure (at least since 1972) was given under the current teaching and doctrine on human sexuality. I understand how they arrived at that figure as a percentage of unrestricted assets, but let’s not act like it was some amazingly generous amount of money.
My hope would be the regional plan(s) would come first, especially if the one coming from the Central Conferences is strong. While that legislation has not yet been released, I am hopeful that it will address the lack of parity and offer ways out of colonialist patterns. (That is a big ask – but maybe there will at least be some steps outlined for us to begin that work). If we pass that legislation that may have strong CC support, it feels like it might make the Protocol more acceptable to those delegates. I suspect there will also need to be some assurances about the funding for the additional Bishops across Africa that will then have to happen before any vote on the Separation plan occurs. Lastly, I am not ready to give up on trying to remove all the harmful language and punitive legislation concerning our LGBTQ siblings at this GC. There is solid legislation to be considered that will do that through All Belong. I also think there needs to be some linkage with the ratification of a regional plan by the ACs before any monies are released to the Traditional versions of Methodism starts.
This has been my concern since the Protocol was announced. Would it be possible to make the implementation of the Protocol contingent on AC ratification of a regional conference plan?
No.
First, I want to point out to Ben that the rules have changed over the past 40 years from zero restrictions to punishment so giving has not been consistently done under the same set of rules. Small but nit picky detail we keep forgetting.
Jeremy, FWIW, I think the traditionalists will be happy ham-stringing the liberationists and have managed to do so by keeping them out of the conversation and by making the 100 church threshold. After all, they are the only possible new denomination self declaring as led by queer folks. They can make a deep strike at “self avowed practicing homosexuals” this way and the progressives let it happen.
As to order, I would remove the language, vote the protocol, then regionalize. They have to put their money where their mouth is.
I agree with that logic – if you don’t remove the language, then there’s no need for the Protocol. Regionalizing would be the last of the pieces.
I do see the other side, though. If the WCA has no trust that there will be agreement on the Protocol vote, why would they vote for either of the others?
JR, I have to agree with you. This will not work unless the Protocol is passed first. Remember the traditionalists hold a thin majority of delegates. They are voluntarily giving up power. That is their sign that they are seeking peace. However I agree that once the protocol is passed then those who are traditionalists (I am one) would be satisfied with abstaining from any more votes. Those in the US would be wise to allow the Africans to align themselves with traditionalists but maintain the UMC label. If not the progressives in the US will soon be outnumbered by the African delegates who will be able to change the rules at will and may not allow the regional conference plan to pass.The current problem may change from a US vs US conflict to a US vs Africa conflict. Keeping the UMC label for progressives may come at a much heavier price than they expected.
Hi Scott,
I don’t see any problem with the label (UMC) for the African contingent, no matter how they align. From what I’ve read, there’s more value in that label in Africa than there is in the US.
From my reading though, I don’t know that the Africans will align with the Traditionalists. They seem more intent on unity – I guess that’s the battle for them here, is the unity of the UMC (post-sep) more important than the alignment?
There are a lot of moving parts here.
JR you are correct! There are a lot of moving parts and there will be unintended consequences. Everybody buckle up your seat belts and return your tray tables to their locked positions. Turbulance is never visible until you hit it!!!!!!
The Protocol must be approved first. Until there is a clear exit path for traditionalists, what reasonable choice do they have but to continue to exert their clout within the existing structure of the church? Once the way is clear for the formation of a new Wesleyan denomination true to Scriptural primacy, surely some delegates will be willing to sit out later votes as having nothing to do with their future. For the one-quarter to one-third of U. S. delegates who will be voting as traditionalists, only a relative handful of abstentions should be enough to allow the progressive caucus to carry the day on further legislation. In fact, as a “marketing boon,” letting the rump UMC rush headlong into their desired worldly remake of the church will be the best marketing tool for the nascent traditionalist denomination and lead to a rush to the WCA exit for traditionalists. It would be too much to expect the central conference delegates to abstain, as it is less than clear where their future will be within larger Methodism. And if the current standards do happen to remain in effect, what difference would it make after the traditionalists leave? If the Discipline were being upheld, we would not be at this impasse to begin with. The progressive wing of the church has for years now demonstrated its utter contempt for adhering to the doctrine and order of the church, so continued flagrant violation of the Discipline would be expected until the desired changes were made at the next general conference.
As for the trust issue, the prior sentence needs little elaboration. Trust is built upon integrity. A sizable minority of bishops and clergy have quite brazenly violated their solemn oaths to uphold the doctrines, order and discipline of the church, so how could they be trusted with implementation of or support for the Protocol after they get their way on the issues most dear to them?
I am confused by this post as the Regionalization plan will require constitutional amendments. So even if passed by GC, it won’t take effect until ACs vote on it presumably in 2021, but I wonder is there a way to fast track that into this year’s ACs? Let’s assume the protocol goes first and is adopted. Paragraph 2556.5.e & f should take immediate effect where lay and clergy resign from the UMC GC 2020 so they can’t vote on matters that effect the future of the UMC they no longer want to be a part of. This may mean closing GC 2020 after that vote and reorganizing as a different body as you suggested in another post. The other way to get around this may take some creativity in Robert Rules of Order or creating special rules where these votes are somehow taken as one vote, but that is messy. There must be way to vote on things conditionally as well. The mess I could foresee is that we end up in a Constitutional mess where GC passes legislation, but ACs vote it short of the 2/3rds vote. The only way out of that might be dissolution.
I am a Traditionalist GC delegate. My conscience would not allow me to abstain on votes for Regionalization or for removing incompatibility language unless the Protocol was passed first. In that case, I could either abstain or leave the floor allowing a progressive alternate to come in for a vote on those issues. I have talked to other Traditionalists delegates about this. Many, but not nearly all, agree with that approach.
Mike–thank you for your comment.
After the global UMC partnered with American traditionalists for decades, you’d now be willing to simply walk away from the GC you were elected to serve and let others overturn the UMC’s current view on marriage while the global UMC watches?
Do you not feel like you’d be abandoning the traditionalists who are going to stay?
Hi TJ –
Why are Traditionalists going to stay? There’s a peaceful option on the table to allow for both sides to get some needed space.
According to Bishop Yambasu, many traditional central/annual conferences around the world plan to stay part of the UMC since they can already contextualize their BOD to retain traditional marriage regardless of what a new US regional conference decides to do.
According to Adam Hamilton and other centrist groups endorsing the protocol, they expect & hope that many American traditional pastors/churches will stay as well. This is why they keep emphasizing that local churches won’t have to host same-sex weddings and that consultation will be done if they’re not ready for a LGBTQ+ pastor who is not celibate. (See “Within the US” https://www.gracethroughseparation.com/faqs-legislation). The hope is that the protocol will allow “compatibilist traditionalists” enough room to remain.
Lastly, I’ll point you to this article by Thomas Oden, who helped found the Confessing Movement: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/04/do-not-rashly-tear-asunder
Just as many progressives have sought to be faithful for many years in transforming the UMC’s teachings on sexuality, many traditionalists will stay and seek to be faithful in transforming the UMC’s teachings on sexuality back if they ever change.
Gotcha, thanks. I wasn’t thinking through the OCP-variant US setup, where we’d be open to allowing differentiation with ACs or individual churches.
I’m open to that – I don’t want to force anyone to take on a pastor they wouldn’t agree to have (as that just leads people to walk away), and I wouldn’t want to force a pastor to marry anyone that they personally didn’t want to – resources should be available to help a couple find a good fit.
I wonder where Oden would stand today.
“Meanwhile, a method has to be found to overcome these concerns, increase trust in each other, and find a path towards grace together. ”
So let’s use phrases like:
“WCA won’t try to kneecap…”
“…there’s enough frustration over how the WCA broke The United Methodist Church in 2019”
“…the antigay caucus groups ruined Methodism for everyone…twice in the last 10 years.”
“…Bishop Scott Jones, a Traditionalist darling. ”
“…Rev. Maxie Dunnam got on YouTube and made scare videos about the amendment…”
“…organizing by the antigay caucus groups..”
“…a hobbled UMC is a marketing boon for the WCA.”
Certainly, this is the kind of hyperbolic language that builds trust. It shows everyone that while Jeremy may not agree with traditionalists’ position, he shows them nothing but respect.
Jeremy, it is people like you (on both sides) that are killing trust.
From everything I’m hearing the regionalization plan is dead in the water for GC2020. It’s by no means a quid pro quo for the Protocol legislation. Traditionalists and many African delegates will not look the other way. A 2/3 super majority is not realistic to achieve. In that case, the timetable is stretched out significantly because then another special General Conference would have to be called with no guarantee it would pass there then another 18 months at least for all the annual conferences to vote on the legislation, requiring in aggregate a 2/3 majority.
Something like what Chris Ritter is proposing may allow a quicker pathway, but would also require greater recognition of the desires and needs of many African delegations and delegates, rather than just their bishops. This would include allowing them to use the cross and flame symbol and some form of the name “United Methodist” regardless of which denominational expression they unite with plus it would likely necessitate lowering some of the voting thresholds to choose to unite with a different denomination. Absent something like this, we’re looking at more muck and mire for at least a few more years, perhaps longer.