by Chris Ritter
2020 dawns with a new reality for The United Methodist Church… a high profile plan of separation with the endorsements needed for passage. Unlike the UMCNext, Bard-Jones and N.E.W. Plan, the Protocol Negotiations were reached at a diverse negotiating table. Unlike the Indianapolis Plan, the group featured top U.S. episcopal leaders, including the incoming and outgoing president of the Council of Bishops. It is the only plan brokered by someone from outside the United States, thereby immunizing it against the charge of the U.S. dictating the fate of our global connection.
Any day when you have the Executive Director of Reconciling Ministries and the President of WCA agree on a plan, it is newsworthy. The Way Forward process did not align commissioners like Pat Miller and Tom Berlin, but the Protocol process did. More significantly, the people in the room represent the political machinery necessary to actually get this plan done.
Time to uncork the champagne? No. The road ahead is fraught with peril.
No one will be completely happy with the Separation Protocol. It is the fruit of a hard-fought negotiation with those with whom we viscerally disagree. It was not clear until the last meeting on December 17 that an accord would even be reached. The fact that only two traditionalists were at the table has not escaped notice. That is not so much a problem of negotiating power. The traditionalists were treated as their own “team” when side-bars were held, giving them equal weight in negotiation. The problem is a matter of representation with the divergencies of UM traditionalism. Almost all the diversity in the UMC is on the Traditionalist side of the table in terms of race, economics, geography, culture, education, and language.
The Separation Protocol calls for Traditionalists (a majority of the global membership) to leave the UMC or become a minority in a much more progressive denomination. This option, not surprisingly, hits differently for some than others.
Who Likes It
There are significant numbers of U.S. churches that just want out. WCA is mostly comprised of churches who are aligned on the topic of Scriptural authority. If you are a U.S. evangelical mega-church, the Separation Protocol gives you millions of dollars in local church properties free and clear. It frees you from the dysfunction of the denomination and puts you in charge of your own pastoral succession (assuming the new Discipline produced by WCA is approved.) You care not a whit for the general program agencies and are happy to lose whatever services they thought they were providing you. You still get access to Wespath for pensions. Win, win, win. “See you later, UMC.”
But there are significant other points of view.
Who’s Nervous
Africans
Africans are already noting that there was only one African in the room (a denominationally-salaried bishop) to represent 5,000,000+ souls and the fasting growing segment of the UMC. Africa is a big continent! The United Methodist name and logo are extremely important to Africans, and the The Indianapolis Plan contained explicit permission for groups breaking away to retain these. The protocol contains no such assurances.
Africans wonder: Are African bishops preparing to sell a regionalized UMC to their people, charting an autonomous course, or planning to join in the new traditional denomination with a minority of the U.S.? Each of these possibilities has huge implications. My experience with Africans are that they are the least financially motivated United Methodists on the planet. They are concerned that the bishops’ salaries are so tied to the U.S. And they notice that almost all the current delivery mechanisms for support and partnership will reside with the Post-Separation UMC (i.e. The General Board of Global Ministries).
Africa may already have a majority of the membership in the UMC and is close to achieving a majority in terms of delegates to General Conference. Some don’t want to abandon that. The urgency in Africa is much softer than it is in the U.S. because disobedience is not running rampant there. Many would happy to wait a couple General Conferences and inherit the whole ballgame. Africans are incredibly patient people. One African delegate commented in a private message that the Separation Protocol abandons all the gains that have been won over the past few years. What have we been fighting for if we just walk away now?
Europeans
Europe is a very mixed bag for United Methodists. France is very divided on the issues at hand. Eastern Europeans are often very traditional and delegates from there were stalwart supporters of the Traditional Plan. There will need to be some sort of new configuration to emerge, but the sparse numbers of European United Methodists will make sustainable ministry difficult. I look forward to learning more about the European context.
Recent indications from the Philippines seem to indicate that they might be willing to participate in a regionalized churches like the one envisioned for the post-separation UMC. (The plan calls for the remaining UMC to be divided into four global regions, each with the power to amend much of the Book of Discipline.) Such an arrangement may be unacceptable to parts of Europe.
Non-WCA Evangelicals
There are a large number of U.S. Evangelical Clergy who have not signed on to the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Pastors (often within a stone’s throw of retirement) are trying to keep their churches together in a time of cultural change. They have delayed hard conversations in their congregations in the interest of harmony. Some Traditionalists are loathe to be labelled in their annual conferences and have come to frame themselves as centrist figures. All of the sudden, a deal has been struck for an exit that will lead ultimately to the profound liberalization of the UMC institution. These are people who cannot stay and have not prepared to go. They are anxious.
I am more interested in ministry than labels, but I consider myself Center-Right in the UMC. I joined WCA because I could see the handwriting on the wall. I saw the necessity of traditionalists getting organized together for the future. And, frankly, I am in a church that is fairly well aligned. This is a reality I inherited and have also worked hard to maintain. Decisions get made by people who show up… so I showed up and got involved. There is an amazing amount of consensus on the WCA Council, but I am sometimes a minority voice. That’s OK. I am very comfortable with the team I have chosen.
There is notable esprit de corps in WCA leadership, borne of a shared battle in which we have all taken arrows. This is good and bad. I want to push against the tendency to say, “You were invited (even begged) to join us in 2016 and you declined. Not getting your way now? Tough luck.” My current admonition to WCA is to fling open the doors and be ready to welcome in new significant voices to help shape the future, including bishops. Jesus told a story about laborers arriving later to the harvest and getting the same pay as the rest. We need to treat those late to the party as co-hosts.
The fact of the matter is that those at the helm of the political apparatus on both sides are on board with the Separation Protocol. There may be some significant dissent coming, but there is no existing group with the organization to build a delegate coalition to stop the train that is already on the tracks. The political machinery on the traditional side is headed toward separation. Center-right folks don’t have to join with WCA or its new denomination, but the UMC in the U.S. will shift to full affirmation in very short order and all the related “stuff” will come with it… full-throated support of abortion, embrace of alternative genders, collapse of celibacy standards, minimum representation guarantees for LGBTQ persons, etc. A line has been drawn and people will need to decide which side of it they will be on.
One option that will undoubtedly be explored is a Traditional expression independent of WCA’s efforts. I know of some bishops who have been considering using their annual conference as the basis for a new denomination. The advantage is that they can frame their decision as somehow above the binary combative choices being offered at GC2020, appealing to their own history, values, and current tenor of ministry. Many of our annual conferences are much older than the UMC and have their own ethos. No one wants to be framed as the “Against the Gays” Church. Some may start their own expression as an interim step, choosing independence for a season and deciding with whom to affiliate later. The risk in this move is missing an opportunity to be at the table when a significant new traditional Methodist denomination is inaugurated. And an independent conference also risks leaking churches and membership from both ends of the spectrum. Better to move together and add your voice to the larger conversation.
Spiritual Refugees
If you are an Evangelical/Conservative United Methodist laity in a moderate to progressive congregation, there is very little for you to like about the Separation Protocol. You will simply have to decide if you want to hold your nose and stay in your church, or seek something new. The first Traditionalist church planting efforts may include these disaffected UM’s.
There is another group with which I hold great sympathy: Traditionalist pastors in progressive or mixed congregations. I know so many gifted young evangelical clergy in this dilemma. The Separation Protocol does not come to them as welcome news. My advice: Stay close to your call and the Caller. Keep your resume sharp. Start thinking in terms of a move during your next appointment change. It is what it is.
What, Me Worry?
A long article about anxiety isn’t very life-giving. Sorry about that. There are so many unanswered questions. I will be watching African response very closely. I am also fascinated to read the reaction of bishops who are just learning about the protocol with the rest of us.
There is currently a spirit of goodwill and Christian charity that we have not seen in some time. I am concerned this will quickly evaporate in the zero-sum-game sorting process that will follow GC2020. A win for one side is a loss for the other. This dynamic soured the last “amicable separation” in 1844 and property disputes were settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. I don’t look for property litigation if the Protocol is adopted, but I do look for the possibility of heightened local conflict in congregations and conferences. Perhaps that is unavoidable.
One last observation: There are so many ways for an institution to engineer the outcomes it desires, and we are giving all that apparatus to the Centrists and Progressives.
I left the Indianapolis Plan negotiations not really caring if the thing passed or not. I am sort of in the same place with the Separation Protocol. I guess that is a sign that a realistic plan has been reached: No one is happy. Everyone is really nervous.
P.S. Here is a thoughtful post from a Traditionalist coming to terms with the fact that we are the ones that are leaving.
People Need Jesus 
very thoughtful and well spoken
So if that many groups have reason to object or be nervous about it won’t that make passage of the legislative version of the Protocol problematic? I shudder to think what GC2020 and its aftermath will be like if there is not an amical seperation plan on the table with a majority consensus to pass it.
It takes machinery to get things passed at GC. All our machinery is now aimed toward this. But GC is absolute chaos. Anything is possible.
How about a dialogue with Timothy Tennent? He understands what just happened, and you deftly descry the perils of the path ahead. Traditionalists waking up to the cold, sour realities discussed here may not be easily consoled.
I am one of the ones who thinks the new plan is wrong. There are various reasons why. Some, and maybe all, you probably have read or heard before. Here are some of my issues and concerns:
1. The traditional side “won” GC2019. I don’t like to use the term won in this context, but ultimately that is what happened. It has won every GC since 1972. Why should the Traditionalists be the one who are leaving?
2. I have heard many say they are tired of the fight; the fight takes money and other resources from real ministry; and it doesn’t do any good to stand for the faith. I am not sure that is a Biblical and faithful response. Understandable, but could be problematic faith wise.
3. While this will be ridiculed and placed in the conspiracy theory camp, is this what the leadership of the Renewal Network actually wanted all along. Just about everything the coalition wanted they got at GC2019. Less than a year later the church is being led into dissolution by the same group who pushed so hard to maintain the status quo on matters of sexuality after saying they would leave if the vote had gone the other way. It makes me wonder if this tactic of winning, but then leaving anyway was a ploy to get out from the trust clause, episcopal appointment power, the processes that have been developed to protect clergy from unjust removal, etc.
4. Is this going to end up being like the deal the Hebrews made with the Gibeonites during the conquest, and then having it found out there was deception involved or it come back to haunt them in the future.
5. What happens to guaranteed appointment? What happens if there are more clergy than pulpits? What guarantees are there for older, minority, women, or other groups to be able to get appointments? I know the WCA says there are protections in place, but at the same time gives the churches an out on minority and female candidates.
I also know many of the leaders and some of the rank and file do not like security of appointment. However, it is often forgotten that every pastor, at least ordained elders, were deemed to be effective at their ordination. I also believe that unless one has had a church antagonist in an appointment; there has been conflict in the church that explodes while you are there; clergy have the audacity to say no to the power people; etc fellow clergy do not believe the situation is as bad as the boots on the ground say it is. While I have had some good DSs I have had some that automatically takes the congregation’s side, or have been told how DSs speak out of both sides of their mouths. In addition if one is called to short term appointments, either intentional or unintentional, institutional memory is lost on why a clergy member has numerous short appointments. In addition, security of appointment protects the clergy in case they ask unwanted questions or their is a personality conflicts with supervising clergy. I know of at least one conference who had or was seriously talking about one of the signs of an effective clergy was supporting the conference’s goals. The unstated part of that expectation was that people would not work against it. Now some would say if the conference voted on it that is the way it should be, but one can support and at the same time work to change or eliminate something. The other thing is many initiatives come from small groups like a connections table or conference staff. These are often passed down as being law.
6. Where is the help for those who are in a state of anxiety? What help will be provided for those who do not receive appointments? What about their families? Has any thought been given to the impact upon the clergy families? What about clergy who are over 45 and especially over 50, how is the new plan going to help them.
There are other questions, but these are a start.
Chris, thanks for your insightful way of touching most of us. I am one of those moderate conservative pastors nearing retirement (maybe, and I hate the label). There are many questions still up in the air such as 1) What happens to pastors who find themselves in a church or conference which does not match their beliefs? 2) What are the traditional delegates supposed to do if this is voted in early at General Conference and we do not know where our church or conference will vote to go? 3) does this bring in a “One Church Plan” feeling about clergy who do not want to follow the rewrite of marriage and ordination standards, or will it be more of a if you cannot fully affirm and accept then you will be moved out? I am sure there are a lot more questions coming, but hopefully we will talk openly now rather than have a group of people meet in secret and then drop a massive news release. Thanks, GC
So many questions from all of us. All I can say in Buckle your Chin Strap and Stay Tuned!
After GC2019 Progressives had one chance to affirm that they were ready to cooperate rather than continue their “nice” coup. They chose to double down on “resistance”
So the good ship UMC rather than having their membership holes plugged and the sinking reversed found the progressives busy making the holes even bigger! Got it.
The ship is going down, nothing is going to stop that now. The progressives, in a monumental expression of delusional obsession, want to claim possession of the deck chairs. Ooookkkay. My main interest (and many others) is keeping my feet dry in the lifeboat (my local UMChurch) so I say let them have the deck chairs!
To my Traditional minded brothers and sisters who want to fight over who has custody of the deck chairs while the water swirls around their ankles I say, “Let the chairs go and get in the lifeboat!!”
Why should those of us who are traditionalists turn over our church to the progressives and so called centrists and their heresy? For $39 million? Which is being used to hide the racism of the Left? This protocol benefits the progressives and centrists only. A number of conservative ethnic clergy in our conference do not support this plan and are justly suspicious.
I’m an evangelical, charismatic, and a UMC pastor in the North Alabama Conference.
l am a moderate on the “issue at hand”. I’m a product of United Theological Seminary. At UTS, I see centrists like Ken Millard and Mike Slaughter, in relationship/fellowship with people like David Watson. I love these people, and have been blessed to be part of what God has done and is doing at UTS. I have enjoyed their honest conversations, and I see their love for Jesus, people, the church, and one another.
I was not raised in the UMC. I have been part of the tribe for around 15 years. I was drawn to the UMC because they were evangelical and mainline. I was drawn to the UMC because it was home to conservatives, moderates, and liberals. I am not theologically liberal, and I have deep theological disagreements with the most “progressive” wing of our church. I am also very nervous about much of what I see from the WCA. The WCA is not monolithic, there are some wonderful center-right people in the WCA. Yet, I can assure you that in more than a few of our small rural churches… which is a large percentage of the UMC… we have MANY folks aligned with the WCA who are not center-right. Some/many are way out there in fundamentalist territory. I can also assure you that there are many moderates, who are beyond frustrated with this entire mess. I was hoping for the OCP, thinking that we could live out our callings locally. Then I was hoping we would divide three ways, with a large number of center-left/center-right folks deciding that they could live together, much like the OCP had called for. I see this plan, and I am impressed that it has broad support. Yet we have to fight don’t we… This is the Methodist way right? This is what we have become. I realize that this is how we are viewed both inside and outside the church. My wife and kids grew sick of this, and worship elsewhere on most Sundays. But the fight must go one right? The fight, which seems to be led by the far left and the far right. I catch a lot of heat from both, and I don’t think they be content with any plan. They LOVE the fight, because it gives them all “victim” status and a sense having been wronged. The fight is also a tremendous money maker for all of the special interest groups involved. Sadly, I am not sure that this plan, or any plan, offered by anyone, will ever pass at GC2020, or any future GC.
Very elaborate article my friend and Brother Chris. You are one voice I do respect greatly. But here are a few points you may need to know about African United Methodists.
To us the name United Methodist Church is not just a form of identification, it is our Brand. It is an asset we have invested in heavily. We can not imagine renaming and rebranding our schools , Colleges Universities and Hospitals overnight. So when we hold fast to the name that is where we are coming from as it clearly it involves change to what we have been legally known to be for over five decades now.
Secondly. We sincerely believe that we were not on the Table of Negotiating, but we see ,as you rightly noted a reversal of what we had been fighting for over the Years. The protocol is for us seeking a reanactment of the infamous One Church Plan with an Exit for American Traditionalists. The 25 million offered is to the American Consrevatives excluding Africans.
The protocol as it stands today assumes Africa will remain with the now very Progressive UMC , unlike in the Indianapolis Plan where the assumption was that Africa will go with Conservatives.
As Africans we seem to be left alone to figure out how we can manoeuvre from here. This may be helpful to you and your readers.
We continue to Pray for God’s Guidance.
Forbes.
I so appreciate this perspective, Forbes. If it is not good for Africa it is not good for the UMC.
Forbes, as a centrist in the U.S. I would want you to know that there is great diversity of thought between progressives and centrists. I do not believe it is accurate to say that the UMC in the U.S. would be “very progressive.”
Chris, what conferences in the US do you think will leave? I think S Georgia, Alabama-W Florida, N Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Memphis, Texas, Northwest Texas, Oklahoma, W Pennsylvania and Susquehanna all have a chance of leaving. Any others you think might?
Indiana has a fighting chance, but it will be uphill. IGRC should but probably won’t. 57% is a rough number.
Dear Chris,
I am not sure what makes you state in your article that “France is very divided on the issues at hand”. This isn’t the case.
If you are speaking only of France (as a country), we very largely hold to a traditional viewpoint on sexuality and mariage. UEEMF (French UMC) however only represents about 20 churches, for about 1500 people in France. French speaking North African (Algerian) UMC is also strongly committed to the traditional views but with a handful only of churches.
The UEEMF belongs to an annual conference (within the CSE area) which also includes approx 150 swiss churches (French and Swiss German speaking). And, it is fair to say that at this level, there is less unity on the issues at hand.
As far as Europe is concerned, there are 4 episcopal regions. The Eurasian area is strongly committed to traditional views. The other three are much more divided : CSE (Central and southern Europe), Germany and NE (Northern and Baltic Europe).
The CSE bishop has published a letter on this subject : https://www.umc-cse.org/download/oJe-4gVytr8/Mediation-Protocol-Comment-SF-EN.pdf
Communication is also available from the NE Bishop here, confirming that Norway and Denmark are moving towards full inclusivity in this area : https://www.umc-ne.org/node/87
In Germany, there are 50 000 believers for approx 500 churches. I am not sure what the consensus is there (if any).
In Christ our Saviour,
Thank you so much. There is so much about the European context I want to know more about. This is very helpful.