What Happens After the 2020 General Conference?
The Protocol’s biggest gift to the WCA is not $25 million dollars. It is a broken timeline for The United Methodist Church to fix itself while the WCA has free reign to prey on vulnerable churches and conferences.
Let’s assume the Protocol passes as written in its proposal (legislation forthcoming). There are three timelines that work against each other…and I’m sad to say the WCA comes out far ahead of the other two.
WCA Denomination ready by May 2020
The first timeline is for the Wesleyan Covenant Association to have their new denomination up and running and ready for annual conferences and local churches to be able to join it. This timeline is the clearest and most documented.
The Good News Magazine sent an email that included the claim that they anticipate conferences or churches to be able to join the new WCA denomination immediately after the 2020 General Conference. Quote:
In order to be eligible for annual conferences and local churches to vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination, a leadership group that is promoting such a denomination must register with the Council of Bishops prior to May 15, 2021. The leaders of a New Traditionalist Methodist Denomination will be ready to register on the day General Conference adjourns (May 15, 2020), so that annual conferences and local churches can consider aligning with that traditionalist denomination very soon.
Since the Good News VP Rev. Thomas Lambrecht is advising the writing team for the Protocol, I assume that he is well informed on its contents (which are not released publicly as of February 3, 2020).
What this means is that the WCA will be ready to receive annual conferences and local churches that want to disaffiliate with the UMC and reaffiliate with the WCA in May of 2020. Yes, that quickly!
Post-Separation Methodism Fully Inclusive by September 2022? 2023? 2024?
The second timeline is for the repairs done to the United Methodist Church, which is referred to as the Post Separation Methodist Church. By most accounts, United Methodism will be better off when it has more consistent regional authority across the globe and has removed the antigay language (from at least the United States region, if not globally).
However, according to the Protocol, provisions for regional conferences and removal of the antigay language are not set for the 2020 General Conference. Instead, the language reads:
The Council of Bishops will call the first session of the General Conference of the postseparation United Methodist Church to organize itself and, if such legislation has not been passed, consider matters pertaining to the Regional Conference plan.
The Council of Bishops will call the first session of the United States Regional Conference to consider legislation related to changes in the adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline including the repeal of Traditional Plan legislation and all other portions related to LGBTQ persons.
Note that there’s no timeline. As we talked about when the Protocol was first released, trying to get all three conferences done in one week (an ecclesial turducken!) is nigh impossible within our polity.
The reason the votes on Regional governance and removal of antigay language are not part of the 2020 General Conference strategy of the Protocol is that the WCA would likely refuse to sit passively by while those votes are taken. Even though they are leaving, to sit by while “sin” is voted in would be anathema to them, even with $25 million waiting for them. Hence the need for another conference after they’ve sealed the deal and started their own denomination.
So if the regional conference legislation is not passed at the 2020 General Conference, then it will be voted on by a called Special Session of General Conference. That may be the same week as the 2020 GC, or it may be later in the year. The fastest timeline (that it happens during the 2020 GC week) would still require constitutional amendments to be processed. That takes 18 months. So the earliest the UMC would have regional authority would be January 2022.
Then the regional conferences would be able to be called, and the earliest the USA could call it with proper Disciplinary timelines (if they match the General Conference) would be September 2022. Thus, the earliest possible date for full inclusion and regional governance of The Post-Separation Methodist Church is likely mid-2022. But more likely, it would be 2023 or even 2024, given how slow our mechanisms and processes are. Sigh.
Progressive Denominations ready by…May 2021?
The third timeline is for any potential new progressive or centrist denomination that comes about as part of the Protocol and lays claim to the $2 million dollars set aside for such efforts. This one is the iffiest, but there’s a clue in the Good News email…look again at the first line:
In order to be eligible for annual conferences and local churches to vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination, a leadership group that is promoting such a denomination must register with the Council of Bishops prior to May 15, 2021.
That seems doable for a progressive expression: both a progressive annual conference that might want to leave and UM Forward have identified leadership. They could both be ready on May 15, 2020, just like the WCA.
However, I have it on good authority that there will be a minimum number of churches that will be required for a “new denomination” to meet the criteria, much like the Indianapolis Plan and the original Traditionalist Plan.
If that’s the case, then it is unlikely that either group would be ready to receive new members by the 2020 annual conference season:
- Liberationists like UM Forward may not have the minimum number of churches to qualify at this point. Unlike the WCA, I don’t think they are incorporated in every state and could document and claim a minimum number of churches affiliated like the WCA. I could be wrong.
- Annual Conferences may be willing to join a progressive new expression in May 2020, but the likelihood that they will have done the work to create a new expression themselves in the next 100 days is unlikely.
So for both potential groups, May 2020 is very likely off the table. May 2021 is certainly possible, so that means the earliest date for a progressive denomination would be May 2021.
What the Timelines mean
So, with some variety given how many polity lines could change in May 2020, those are my best-informed guesses as to the timelines. In a nutshell:
- For conservatives, the Wesleyan Covenant Association will have free reign for two years to be the choice between them and a still-broken, in-between United Methodist Church. Given their prowess at marketing, that gives them a better position to peel off local churches and annual conferences that might otherwise stay if they were in a church with a more settled way forward. And the slower Methodism moves, the longer the WCA can work their charms.
- For progressives, the first year after the 2020 General Conference is a gross in-between time where they know change is coming but it isn’t realized yet. A few months in, a potential Liberationist option could rise up for people to choose a new expression, which promises instant full inclusion (with unknown polity, as of yet), rather than waiting until September 2022 for it. While this may be okay anyway, a faster timeline would make the choice between two expressions that are more settled, rather than one that is still waiting for full inclusion.
Neither of these options is great for the Post-Separation Methodist Church, which will see churches and potentially entire annual conferences leave for known entities rather than sitting and waiting for change to come.
Luckily there are two possible fixes.
Fixing the Timeline
The Protocol or the 2020 General Conference will need to come up with a way to speed up the timeline so the WCA, Post-Separation Methodist Church, and any progressive/liberationist expressions are more-or-less constituted around the same time. That way, annual conferences and local churches could be choosing among equals.
Two options
- Allow annual conferences and local churches to begin affiliation after May 15, 2021, not 2020. That removes the year gap above and allows time to organize for each annual conference and district. This is a simple decision by the 2020 General Conference delegates. (OR)
- Allow the passage for the regional conference and removal of antigay language at the 2020 General Conference. Central Conferences can already add the antigay language back in (most of it) if that’s important to them. Regional authority has to wait no matter what, but removing the antigay language now keeps the playing field equal. This would require the WCA to allow for it.
As you can see, if the WCA wants to start their new denomination immediately, then they should support #2. If not, then I think #1 will keep the pain and tension more equal rather than letting the WCA escape scot-free.
Your Turn
If the WCA really wants separation to be about “reconciliation and grace” then that requires them to not stand in the way of votes on regionalization and on the removal of anti-gay language. But if they are only interested in craven manipulation to benefit their denomination at the expense of others, then we should remove “reconciliation and grace” from the Protocol’s name to be more accurate.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
The WCA has been working for a while now to accomplish what they want to happen, not to mention withholding their apportionments from the conference so they will have funds for when that happens. The rest of “us” have been trying to play nice, stay tighter, take care of retired clergy, UMCOR and such, and have paid the price for it. We need to stand firm that we move our timeline forward whether they want to sit for that or not. It’s not okay to have up wait till 2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024 to make things right, it just continues the harm that’s already been done.
Anyone else see a problem with the world wide church allowing GBLTI folk to remain. The WCA will probably remain and Liberals will need to form a new church.
And they should leave, it was voted on to remain traditional but they continue trying to get their way. They need to leave or conform to the book of Discipline.
What about using the $2M progressive denomination mechanism in an interim way? We can go there with current polity, minus the prohibitions, and enjoy full inclusion until the UMC gets through the regional governance timeline. Then come right back
I commend you as a problem solver, not a basher! Thank you!
Hate to say it, but the post-schism UMC may not be able to reorganize itself fast enough to be responsive to the changes proposed in the Protocol, even if the WCA/African delegates buy into removing the incompatibility language @ GC2020. Which they probably won’t, even with prompting, arm-twisting, and lever-pulling.
Problem is that the theoretical form of a Liberationist Methodism has not yet jelled into any structure that any annual conferences could vote to join. So at best it’s just a ‘good idea’ for those who can’t stand the long wait for some measure of justice.
Only suggestion I can imagine working would be for the ENTIRE Western Jurisdiction to secede by vote of each annual conference. After the ‘new’ Western Methodist Church meets as the former Western Jurisdiction, the road would be clear of parliamentary garbage to allow immediate implementation of a new Discipline that eliminates the ‘incompatible’ language.
Other annual conferences that don’t want to wait could vote to leave and align with the Western Methodist Church.
And it could be organized by a special called session of the Western Jurisdictional delegates immediately after CG 2020.
So, Jeremy, what is it that you recommend?
Basically what I wrote above Based on what Chris Ritter said on Twitter, the WCA would be better off too if the UMC removed the antigay language. So keep that on the table and everyone wins. Maybe. It doesn’t need to be part of the protocol but it does take public statements.
What if there are 2 or more ‘traditionalist’ denominations that come out of this? Do they split the $25 million?
The Protocol seems to assume that “there can be only one” – I see nothing so far that would limit another traditionalist group [one not beholden to the WCA] to decide to claim a piece of that pie.
We don’t have the actual legislation yet (hoping it will be released publicly this week) but in the Protocol it states that in the event of multiple traditionalist denominations, they would have to negotiate the split of the $25 million. So that is the total regardless of anything else.
Interesting. Without a definition of what would constitute a ‘traditionalist’ denomination, there would be more money in the pot for a Progressive splinter to claim to be traditionalist (thinking that if they can claim even 10% of the $25 mil, they come out ahead) than to call themselves Progressive and get (max) $2 mil.
[I’m not advocating that, just talking through the process]
Bottom line, if people read their bibles and believed the word of God, we would not be having this discussion. What a sick world we live in.
Are you a biblical literalist, Sharon? I love chatting with literalists…
Me, too. I wonder how she feels about women in leadership positions or about divorced people. Not even going to ask her how she feels about putting a disobedient child to death.
Amen, Sharon Riddle.
Amen Sharon also…. I believe those people and many of the churches have made up their mind on this subject. For those who believe and wish to follow the bible and God’s teachings, they are ready to leave now and are just waiting for the opportunity to join a godly denomination and to exit this confused and sometimes ungodly denomination.
It’s “free rein” not “free reign.” Free rein means the horse can go its own way, not be controlled by the rider. The WCA will certainly go its own way. Thanks for your analysis. It’s food for thought.
While I have some different opinions on the issues at hand, I feel like no one is discussing some of the obvious problems you’re bringing light to. My (likely flawed) solution is as follows:
A motion at some point adds a Regional Conference plan to the Protocol. Assuming the passage of those two pieces together, GC could adjourn early to allow the new regional conferences to meet. At that point the US Regional Conference could adjust the BOD to their liking around issues of sexuality, (or whatever else they want). This would bring a lense of clarity to those across the spectrum about what to expect moving forward.
If I had to guess the problem with this is that regional conference plan would require approval from ACs. I wonder then if the RC bodies could then at least meet and provide aspirational changes pending the support of the ACs, with aspirational vote totals as an olive branch to say “we have 80% support” and that will certainly get close to 100% when the traditionalists leave.
For better or worse, our polity makes it hard to make big changes quickly, even when differing parties agree on the changes.
To wait to 2021 only adds pain and anger to this 21st Century Titanic called the UMC. The past 8 years has been FUBAR. It’s time to shake hands and say our fond farewells and wish all sides well as they seek God’s will.
The key portion of the protocol is section 14. It officializes, on day one, a protection for queer clergy and those performing weddings. No, it’s not removal of the language.
But I hope everyone would note that, by official action of the General Conference, if the Protocol passes, it would provide the first official protection of queer clergy and those performing weddings.
Again…and I say this quickly…it’s not enough or a permanent solution.
But I find a great deal of hope in this “day one” change to the New UMC.
And I hope others will too.
But….to me it means that Section 14 is the true “deal breaker” for the Protocol.
Thanks for the article UMJeremy. Everyone remember this is not going to be easy from anyone. Christ was very clear, love is a must. Treat everyone with kindness.
I don’t think the timelines will have anything to do with the outcome. It’s as if you seem to think that Local Churches aren’t already making plans for their choice based purely on the congregations position on the driving subject. I know our church admin counsel is already making plans as to what we will do. If it were up to us, this would all happen yesterday, so we could get on with allowing the congregation to make its choice.