by Chris Ritter
In Part One and Part Two, I outlined challenges with the Feinberg Separation Protocol and began to explore possible solutions. If you have not read those posts I would ask that you do so now. Since the release of Part Two, I received some important feedback from Rev. Forbes Matonga, a key clergy delegate from Zimbabwe and candidate for the episcopacy. He agrees with the analogy that Africa is treated like the unfortunate child of divorcing parents. The timeline urgency is a Western concern:
Africa is not in a hurry. We have no timeline worries! While the West loses time, Africa makes time for that which matters to her! We can not be forced to make hasty decisions. We are patient to do what God, the Owner of both Time and the Church has to say!
The frenetic angst of the U.S. Church is being met with the patient ferment of our African brothers and sisters. Is there a way for GC2020 to do right by Africa, give Westerners their overdue separation, and not give up the significant ground that has been gained in the Feinberg negotiations? I believe there is.
Taken on the grand scale, the Protocol is actually two pieces of legislation. One is the carefully negotiated separation document. The other is a regionalization plan for the remaining psUMC. There are several such plans submitted to GC2020, the most prominent by far is the U.S. Regional Conference Plan submitted by the Connectional Table. The plan was drafted well before the Protocol was negotiated and was not designed specifically for the post-separation reality. I suggest GC2020 leave the Protocol as is and do the hard work on a comprehensive structural plan that better defines a workable future.
I reviewed the Connectional Table’s Proposal back in December. It compartmentalizes the United States by adding to the present top-heavy bureaucracy. The U.S. gets an additional layer of conferencing the rest of the world does not get. The US Regional Conference can call itself into session as often as it likes and can build U.S.-only agencies. It anticipates General Conference will be shorter, but significant matters of budget, the scope of customization, and general agency management are left as reserved GC powers. I believe the primary challenges facing the Protocol are with this other legislative package. It is a hurried patch at a time when a completely new design is required.
The U.S. Regional Conference Plan presumes that Africa will stay in a post-separation UMC, accepting oversight by LGBTQ bishops and separation from exiting U.S. Traditionalists of undetermined number. It saddles the psUMC with an unstable jurisdictional system and the financial burden of general agencies that are unsustainable even before the separation. It exposes the psUMC to significant risk of regionalization being defeated during global ratification. Paired with the Protocol, it forces U.S. Traditionalists of all stripes (and there are many) to choose between being part of a thoroughly progressive church or completely starting over.
A Better Solution
Most U.S. traditionalists want to leave now. Africa and the U.S. need to better define their future relationship. GBGM and UMCOR must somehow survive. I wrote my best idea for that and submitted it as GC2020 legislation. (See page 304 of the ADCA, Volume 2, Section 1). It reframes The United Methodist Church as The United Methodist Communion of Churches. The legislation also happens to be highly compatible with the Feinberg Separation Protocol.
Under the plan, the current UMC constitution is replaced with one that creates the United Methodist Communion. Detailed processes allow our various congregations, conferences, etc. to be sorted into new denominations. It is up to the denominations whether they ultimately want to be part of the Communion, but most certainly will. The Feinberg Protocol would be approved as-is and sit alongside The UM Communion legislation. U.S. Traditionalists would leave immediately under the provisions of the Protocol. They can later join the Communion as they determine.
The United Methodist Communion would be led by a Governing Council of 60-100 people that meets annually. General Conference 2020 would be the last. GCFA would have the authority to amend the Discipline (following ratification) in order to enable sorting and facilitate the formation of the Governing Council. The general agencies would continue and serve all the Communion’s member denominations with special emphasis being given to the General Board of Global Ministries. None of the denominations that form under the new Constitution would be The United Methodist Church, but they could be The United Methodist Church of America, The United Methodist Church of Africa, The United Methodist Church of Western Europe, The Covenant Methodist Church, etc. The cross and flame could be adapted and used by each as desired.
I wrote the Communion legislation with Africa in mind. It allows them to keep the United Methodist name and logo and their relationships with GBGM. They aren’t forced to choose sides in a U.S. divorce. We all move together into more spacious relationships. You can also find the legislation here. I take no pride of ownership. It is there for the delegates at GC2020 to hash out, chop up, and reinvent. They may want to add a judiciary, etc. I would rather see us debate the terms of the new constitution than revisit the Protocol. There is time at GC2020 to do so. All groups would be free to caucus on the future United Methodist denominations needed.
Conclusion
The ground gained by the Feinberg Protocol must be retained. Would Traditionalists support The United Methodist Communion legislation with the assurance that they are not forced to be part of it? I think they would… IF Africans expressed a preference for it. A better deal for Africa is a more stable solution for all involved. A future United Methodist Church of Africa would be free to partner with the new traditional Methodist Church in the U.S. in any way it sees fit, whether they joined the UM Communion or not. The psUMC would gain greater control over shaping its own future.
United Methodists have a lot to pray/talk/study about between now and May 15. The Protocol answers some key questions and creates new ones. I think delegates at GC2020 might do well to design a future that makes sense for its largest unified voting bloc located in its fastest growing region.
People Need Jesus 
Chris,
Thank you for your faithful leadership.
Warren Lathem
Thank you, Warren!
Reverend Dr. Chris Ritter, thank you for investing so much of your time, knowledge, and experience providing all of the information in your three posts on Timelines, Tensions, and the Separation Protocol. Unraveling a major denomination and restructuring new denominations from the fallout is quite complicated. You do a great service explaining the process for the layperson and encouraging our disintegrating church to make progress together as we seek to support each other going in different directions. This is a very sad and difficult time for the UMC amidst our struggle to remain faithful to God’s revealed word to us. I am thankful we have fantastic WCA leaders like yourself, Reverends Keith Boyette and Thomas Lambrecht providing much needed encouragement and great leadership as we make our way into a new Wesleyan tradition of faithful Methodism, no matter what name we end up with. Thank you so much.
Chris, I am sure this is way down in the weeds, but what will be the status of the Episcopacy in the “communion” plan? Will there be separate Bishops and cabinets? ow will local churches decide? Thank you for your good work.
Thanks, Glen. Much like other plans, AC’s would vote and congregations would only vote if they disagreed. There would be separate episcopacies that would help comprise a fellowship of bishops at the level of the Communion. Thanks much.
If anyone in the UMC has tried to find a way, it is CHRIS RITTER! Let no one deny that fact! I’d love to have a nickel for every plan you’ve put to paper, and I thank you for your diligence and faithfulness.
The hitch I see in the Communion is the level of distrust in the connection currently.
I don’t see a new traditionalist Methodist denomination having the trust level necessary to effectively sign an agreement to re-connect immediately after finally severing ties. I think it will be much more palatable (and likely) to wash hands and move on without looking back.
That leaves Africa holding the same bag as they hold with just the Protocol. Africa aligns with traditionalists in most theological arenas, but leaving would mean taking some major losses they (rightly) don’t want to absorb. Yet, remaining in the psUMC could be a humongous nightmare for Africa as well. There’s nothing like being a (WIDE) majority, yet still disrespected as the children in the family.
Prayers for Forbes and crew!
Chris, do you have a sense of whether the Bard-Jones or Indy Plans might be more acceptable at this point? We’ve put a lot of effort into this mediation, but not all parties were at the table it seems. Or maybe we need to revisit it with a broader group? It seems to be very Anglo-centric.
Bard-Jones has constitutional problems. The Indy Plan allows use of the name in Africa but there is no real way to stop that anyway. I would rather build on the Protocol.
Chris,
Well, there you go, thinking again! And I mean that in the nicest, most respectful way. 🙂 We’re blessed to have you and others like you (e.g. Dr. Tennent) shining light into the dark corners of the Protocol. Much appreciated!
A couple comments on the “Communion”:
>> The United Methodist Communion would be led by a Governing Council of 60-100 people that meets annually… GCFA would have the authority to amend the Discipline… to … facilitate the formation of the Governing Council.
And there’s the rub. Who will comprise that governing council? With history as a guide… 50% clergy, 90% of which are “seminary universalist” progressive, and the rest lay people packed with progressives using every trick up the sleeve of our delightful episcopacy? Deja vu all over again?
>> It is up to the denominations whether they ultimately want to be part of the Communion, but most certainly will.
Not sure I WANT to commune with universalists — because slouching towards universalism and “friendship with the world” is the REAL problem with the progressives. The same-sex shiny object is just a presenting symptom. I am dismayed by the degree to which “sound doctrine” Methodists have bought into the lie of the enemy that the progressive church is “just an alternate expression reaching out to a different mission field”. Progressivism is not a new flavor, it’s an entirely different religion! And it does not abide in Christ.
Thanks again for listening to the Spirit and sharing the light. Prayers for continued strength and clarity of voice and vision in your watchman’s calling!
Abundant blessings in Christ,
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff. We are already in full communion agreements with TEC, ELCA and others who are quite progressive. The Governing Council would be populated proportional to membership, so Africa would have a significant voice. This is really just a way of managing shared assets while we all form different denominations. It is a modicum of unity. Some don’t want even a modicum… and I understand that. I appreciate the comments. I am trying to keep the UMC name for Africa and their connection with GBGM without forcing them to accept bishops, etc. with whom they strongly disagree.
Jeff,
Many progressives tout that they want to be about making disciples of Jesus just like we do, but this ‘presenting issue’ stands in the way. A separation means we wouldn’t have to be yoked together at all if we don’t choose to be. That effectively puts the pudding on the table so it can be tested (“the proof of the pudding is in the tasting”). As long as the conflict persists, there is an excuse for not making disciples (a pitiful one, but an excuse nonetheless). In a formal separation, both the traditionalists and the progressive/centrists will be ‘tasted’ to see if the pudding is authentic or not.