by Chris Ritter
NIMBY: “Not In My Back Yard.”
Decisions made at higher levels of government are often met with local resistance. Local pressures scuttle plans for everything from airports, affordable housing, and nuclear waste disposal sites. We all want change… and for things to stay the same for us. This is human nature and it creates “fightings without, and fears within.” According to Corporate Finance Institute, NIMBY rears its head (legitimately or otherwise) due to lack of trust, concern for the loss of culture, or fear of change. The United Methodist ecosystem is currently rife with all three.
As the impact of the Feinberg Separation Protocol is assessed, NIMBY is rearing its ugly head. Peace through separation sounds attractive to a conflicted church… unless it comes home to our annual conference. And it certainly will.
Two examples just in the past 48 hours:
Insurrection in Florida?
Eyebrows raised at the the curious news of three Florida Cabinet members filing paperwork for a new Methodist Church. On its face, this seemed to be some sort of high-level insurrection against the bishop and denomination. Let me offer an alternative narrative based on a non-WCA primary source and also a secondary source:
Bishop Ken Carter of Florida was central to the Feinberg Separation Protocol negotiations. Once the plan of separation was announced, he met with traditionalist members of his cabinet. They expressed a desire to help prepare a landing place for Florida Conference churches they all acknowledged would not be able to stay in a post-separation UMC as described. Significant doubts existed within the minds of these cabinet members as to whether the denomination conceived by WCA would meet their needs. “Wait and see” would not do. The legal corporation for a new denomination must be available or clergy credentials, tax-exempt status, and a host of other issues would be imperiled. These things take time. The bishop was made aware that groundwork was being done prior to the filing.
When copies of the filing for a new Methodist denomination surfaced, the rest of the cabinet got involved. Intense meetings were held. As a way of achieving peace, two of the three cabinet members removed their name from the paperwork and the third one went on leave of absence. It seems to me that prudent planning done transparently was chewed up in the buzz saw of NIMBY angst.
Centrists and Progressives have often celebrated the Feinberg Protocol that will give them control of The UMC ship. Fine. But don’t be shocked when those who are disembarking are readying their life raft. You can’t have it both ways.
Bishops Feathering their Nests?
Stan Copeland, the pastor of Lovers Lane UMC, issued a scathing Facebook post this week against bishops taking actions in light of the Protocol. He calls out episcopal leaders, like Bishop Scott Jones, who are tentatively scheduling special sessions of their annual conference to deal with the decisions that may come through approval of the Protocol. Copeland:
Bishop Jones and several other bishops have secured summer dates for annual Conferences to be called that will no doubt be divisive. Many pastors are saying, “We don’t want to vote! Especially in the summer.” Their case is when we don’t know how everything is shaping up for our denomination if conservative non-compatibilist churches exit the denomination, why make a hasty decision as a UMC Annual Conference. With legislation for a UMC Regional Conference structure coming out of the Central Conferences, a plan for a 21stCentury UMC, new Social Principles proposed, and much more to decide on in May at General Conference, why would Bishops make plans to take a summer vote and worse, why would they be actively working to form a new Church.
Calling a special session of annual conference is not, as Copeland suggests, some sort of conservative maneuvering. Progressive bishops are doing the same thing. The Indiana Conference will hold their special session on October 10 to consider whether to be in a new Traditional Methodist Church or post-separation UMC, even though Bishop Trimble has come out against separation. Iowa has a date scheduled, as does Northern Alabama and several others.
Copeland asks, “What’s the rush?”
With some of our Bishops, where is the integrity and the commitment to the “call to unity?” Why are some Bishops working on plans to divide the church? Why are some Bishops already insisting on votes to “stay or leave” the denomination weeks after General Conference causing great angst?What is the reason for the rush to make such a monumental, even radical decision to leave the denomination?
One wonders: Has Copeland read the Protocol? Everyone is eager to get this nightmare behind us. Until annual conferences vote, there will be an open wound and continued uncertainty. If 20% of the members of an annual conference want to take a vote, there will be a vote. Many bishops realize this 20% threshold clearly exists in their episcopal areas and are making prudent plans. Unless they are in denial, why wouldn’t they? The alternative is to risk a vote in June 2020 which may be too chaotic a timeline for everyone to assess any possible changes made to the Protocol at GC2020.
Managing NIMBY
Some conferences are leaning into the changes coming via the Protocol and are preparing for it. These actions foster trust and lower anxiety. It is unfortunate that the sorting process created by the Feinberg Protocol is a zero sum game. A win for one side is a loss for the other. But it is what it is. The Missouri Annual Conference just released the results of a clergy survey that revealed 200 of their clergy would only serve in a conference with Traditional sexual ethics. 158 would only serve in a conference that is fully inclusive of LGBTQ sexualities. 158 said they could serve in either. Congregational data, of course, is more difficult to attain because our churches have never been asked to vote on these issues. But attempts at understanding based on hard data help everyone prepare.
Our Episcopal and Anglican brothers and sisters are looking on our Protocol with admiration. They wish they had followed such a plan instead of spending untold millions in the courts. The basis of the Protocol is good faith, a commodity that has been missing as decisions made at General Conference has been ignored in the annual conferences. In such a broken system do we have assurances that the Protocol will be followed?
For all the conferences that find themselves fairly unified on one side of the Protocol options, there are many more that will experience significant losses. Many conferences will fall below the threshold of financial viability, or at least be forced to downsize or merge. But downsizing and merging are already happening, fed by the stress of a denomination at odds with itself. This is a time to grid up our loins, grit our teeth, and take the short-term pain that can take us to eventual health. United Methodists are in for a rough couple of years. This is only acceptable when compared to a rough couple of decades.
I call on Traditionalists to act with courage, openness and candor. Centrists will do well to stop clutching their pearls every time organizational efforts arise for a new traditional Methodist Church. The Feinberg Proposal approved by top bishops and denominational leaders has granted permission for United Methodists to openly discuss alternative futures. Let’s give each other space for this… even if its in our own back yard.
People Need Jesus 
Wow! Absolutely masterful. Your grip gets better and better. Please keep up the scroll. Right now misinformation and disinformation aboundeth. The nickering from Jeremy Smith, Stan Copeland, and other elaborators and opportunists and entertainers is magnifying itself like the braying of asses in a carnival of riot. Lent begins soon, time to strip the church of embellishments, trifles, rival narratives, false prophecies, wanton disregard for the truth.
Thanks Chris for your thought provoking article This is the scathing Stan the Demon of Dallas. I do want to address your article and think we may even be close to agreeing on some things. Good news–I’ve read the protocol, actually a few times, I’ve heard several protocol presentations (have made a couple myself) and I will make another protocol presentation on Sunday night at a town hall style meeting at our place. I heard a wonderful presentation on it to our South Central Jurisdiction meeting by Bishop Harvey and Junius Dotson. The summary by Bishop Schnase was over the top. I want to get back to that as I close my remarks.
Know that I am very much FOR the protocol. I have been a strong supporter from before it was released. I have been concerned by Bishops who are leading plans of yet another Traditional expression that is not the WCA denomination. My concern is that we have two, three, five different Traditional expressions all wooing the same group and each against something different–no bishops, some bishops, no apportionments, some apportionments, and all NO on LGBTQ inclusion. I think these extra movements diffuse the WCA plans. Case in point you made, the Florida rogue Methodist Church plan, complete with its own Discipline, seem to catch everyone by surprise. I don’t think WCA celebrated it, I know Bishop Carter was waylaid and even Bishop Jones told what he would have done to the crafters and it was much harsher than they got. Yes, Bishop Jones graciously met with me and six members of our North Texas delegation, which I greatly appreciated. Our discussion was civil, but none of us would say it was comfortable. He confirmed everything that I was concerned about in the post. I’m sorry I used the metaphor “feathered their nest”. His words were much better, “We’re making a place to land” or “making a place where we can faithfully live out our call.” He said his group of Traditional Bishops is 17 not 10 and they are all over the connection, some retired.
My issue not just with Bishop Jones, but several of the Bishops on the list who are working for other traditional expressions on the nickel of the UMC, with few if any boundaries regarding episcopal areas. I hear from many who are asking about the new Methodist Plan that is Traditional but not WCA. Or have you heard about what Bishop Jones and others are doing that is not WCA? He did confirm what I raised that he will be meeting with you and the rest of the WCA brass in March, and I suspect he will have a Discipline plan. My guess is the WCA will be challenged to adopt some discipline and doctrine changes that will make the present plan more “bishop friendly” and “Wesleyan connectional” and then I suspect Bishop Jones will support the protocol. Just a guess. I actually would applaud a more comprehensive approach and maybe y’all can work it out. I can see how concerned Bishop Carter would be over the recent dissension that he seems to have worked through but where did their encouragement come from and who wrote their Discipline. I’ll let you speculate with me, but I really don’t know the answers to those questions they are interesting in these interesting days.
By the way, I know you read my post, but I never mentioned Bishop Mueller at all. Didn’t even think about it. I’d seen his 2×4 Regional Conference plan earlier in the week, which didn’t impress me much. I think you may have influenced some of that work, but its too late in my opinion and its too binary. We have enough binary stuff going on.
Back to Bishop Schnase’s remarks. His advice was that we pray for “two plans” and support one another in the development of “two Churches”. He encouraged us to celebrate the exit and rebirth. He also prompted us to “tap the brakes” and said, “Why are we rushing through such monumental decisions.” He too was discouraging quick voting after GC and prayerfully discerning congregations and conferences in making their choices. Therefore Bishops, traditional or progressive, thinking and planning on voting quickly and securing your future is not well advised in my opinion. Bishop Schnase was inspiring and eloquent, and obviously I agreed with him. He’s my kind of Bishop and has the gift of framing matters in spiritual content. Thanks again. I do have a second post coming that is not nearly as scathing. I’m working on my image. And committing myself to not writing when I feel like that little “orange mad-looking emoji.” Peace.
Thanks for offering this response, Stan. I made that correction about Bishop Mueller. I must have had my wires crossed. Blessings to you.
No problem. Keep writing. You bless many.
Chris,
If you have the time, I would like to share a bit of understanding I have been given related to change theory and transformation. I spent most of my faith journey in the UMC and am frankly blessed to see the changes being proposed. My dad is the Lay Leader of his church and has been a keen instrument of God in helping them see the value of WCA.
Chris, if you have some time, I would like to share Some of what I have learned regarding change theory and transformation. I grew up in the UMC and am frankly glad to see the changes that have been proposed. My dad is the lay leader at his church and has been a keen instrument of God in showing them the value of the WCA.
I do not think kicking the can down the road is such a good option. Many good Methodists (the kind who attend weekly, tithe, and participate) in my Florida circle have been bailing out at an increasing rate. More than I would have anticipated–including 20 somethings with children–are joining a local Catholic church. There is anger among (the few) Methodists paying attention on the *crickets* silence from the Florida’s Bishop’s office on the future. Pastors seemed muzzled. The message seems to be ‘expect more of the muddled confusion and indistinct theology” to continue. Let the ones who seem to care–both Progressives and Traditionalists–make their case, openly plan, and let folks make a choice. It seems Carter and the Florida leadership are hoping that folks will stay in the UMC by inertia and apathy. A very sad situation.
The report of the FL Conference cabinet member working on his own to form an independent conservative Methodist denomination is not going to be blessed. The WCA has worked tirelessly to keep us conservatives together. For it is in unity we will find a way forward to keep the faith once delivered. Bp Carder is well aware of the division of the FL Conference. It may even be possible if folks in FL work together that the whole conference may get the 57% vote to join the new Methodist expression. Wise leaders in FL will work TOGETHER to build momentum to Bring all conservative/traditionalists/evangelicals to act in unison. Roy E. Jacobsen
The convergence of traditionalists is happening. The differences are not theological but related to polity. Good conversations have already been held with Florida and these will continue.
You may be talking among yourselves (we are WCA members BTW) but the word is not getting out. Nada, zilch, nothing and people still leaving. If you promoted more hope more publicly it would be helpful.
The task now is listening to all stakeholders. This account for the pause in making definitive statements about the future. There are important meetings happening over the next two weeks after which I would expect public statements.
Chris. Reading brother Copeland’s piece it 8s apparent he has not read either the protocol or the proposed Book of Doctrine and Discipline which he claims was written before St Louis., which preserves episcopal Methodism with stronger guarantees for true consultation which does not always happen in our current system and continues abuses of pastors being forced out and churches being forced to take a pastor that will not work. You don’t need to have the benefit of Freud to see whose nest is being feathered.
Roy E. Jacobsen
The comment section provides a healthy glimpse of our Methodism melodrama. But it’s true the laity are bemused and spooked and backing up into local defense, apparently watching the “wagging of the tail,” so to speak, rather than the dog’s eyes, which are fixed on the struggle, the costs to be paid, the convictions to be upheld or abandoned, and the prize to be snatched at the end.
>> The comment section provides a healthy glimpse of our Methodism melodrama.
Yes and Amen, Gary!
>> .. the laity are bemused and spooked
Not all of us. Many of us do sense that we’re ignored in all of this, and there is bemusement at our largely dysfunctional episcopacy and largely pension-neurotic clergy as they embrace the delusion that THEY are “working this out” on OUR behalf. Wise and courageous Methodist circuit riders! “Ordained” for the task, you know. 😉
You mentioned the dog’s eyes and tail, Gary — let’s discuss the dog’s ears. In an earlier comment, Chris said “The task now is listening to all the stakeholders”. Chris himself is an important exception, but here’s a big problem with our clergy and episcopacy, as well as our various “associations”, WCA included: they don’t consider laity to BE stakeholders, and they’re making no effort to listen to us as though we ARE stakeholders!
Rather they’re listening *for* us — babes in the next room, asleep while their all knowing elders deliberate their future — “not too loudly, or you’ll wake the baby!”. They’re listening only in the sense of dreading that we’ll wake up and cry… they are on pins and needles, for they know the moment is coming… when we awaken, hopefully not too soon, the plan is to feed us some pablum and a pacifier and take a vote while we’re half asleep.
Now please consider where the laity-as-sleeping-baby metaphor breaks down. We laity don’t consume milk FROM the bishop/clergy — we furnish it TO them. We give them our time and fill the offering plates when they come around. To a depressing number of our episcopacy, the disposition of the income streams and various properties are what matter most.
And they’re vaguely aware that we have a vote too.
While our bishops and other “leaders” bicker and maneuver and pander about “our” (in fact, mostly “their”) future, an alternative that gets precious little consideration from them is the number of us who will, if necessary, vote with our FEET should they drag theirs.
I am in love with Jesus CHRIST, and my heart is also warm to the tactic of imitating John Wesley as he imitated CHRIST. But please hear me — I believe I am “many” — I DO NOT NEED ANY “FLAVOR” OF UNITED METHODISM TO FOLLOW EITHER WESLEY OR CHRIST.
I belong to a mid-sized largely traditional congregation. I love my brothers and sisters dearly. We have a million-dollar-ish property and half a (declining) million in the bank. It would be wonderful to carry that blessing, unencumbered, into a like-minded tribe of those who are friends with GOD rather than friends with the world.
However…
In my town we have a body of believers in the power and gifts of the Spirit of GOD. They love the LORD and call him King and immerse themselves in GOD’s Sacred WORD and live by His standards. Because the WORD is clear on matters of same-sex attraction, they don’t struggle with it; they have transcended the question as they work to make disciples and transform the world rather than conform to it.
A decade or so ago, a dozen or so believers came together as this organ of CHRIST’s Body and called themselves The Remnant. They are now the largest tribe in town, more than twice the size of our UMC. Some remnant, eh?
For various reasons this Remnant is not my tribe. But I deeply long to participate in such a Spirit-led body as this with a more Wesleyan flavor, to the Glory of GOD. And I mean to! Within a traditionalist Wesleyan structure like WCA — if they don’t go all insane on me — or with GOD’s help starting over from seed if need be.
Can you hear me now? 🙂
Blessings!
Jeff
Jeff makes some valid points and that is what I have heard from many Traditional Methodists who take their seriously–exactly the ones one would want to keep. They are looking and weighing their options. It has split our household, half have joined the Catholic Church – and seem pretty happy there despite the long path they put converts through. As a result I have sat through some of these RCIA classes and was quite surprised at the steady drip-drip-drip of young, successful families defecting quietly out of a local Progressive UMC church to this conservative Catholic one. When probed for reasons of leaving (I was hoping for a good theological discussion) there was one common thread expressed–some version of how that UMC church lacked clarity in its beliefs, that discussions on actual issues on day to day leaving was avoided, and they were underwhelmed. So I fear most of the mainstream UMC may be left with the “meh” Methodists who will stay more out of convenience than conviction. But most of the rest, the ones that care (both Progressive and Traditional) will and are voting with their feet. A more open discussion from the pulpit (which my Florida Conference will avoid like the plague) would at least give a few folks hope to hold on a bit longer.
My inlaws have had a similar experience. They keep hearing stuff about the Protocol a little at a time and it seems to get worse and worse (from their perspective). They don’t understand why the progressives/”centrists” are getting to keep the denomination or why the votes require such high majorities to leave. You really have to dig this stuff up yourself on the internet, most of the local clergy is trying to soft-pedal it. My inlaws have basically come to the conclusion that this is about income and retirement for the clergy/administration in the UMC.
Questions for Chris:
1) Why do the progressives get to keep the name/symbols/etc. when the votes seem to always go against them?
2) Why not allow churches/conferences to leave by simple majority (>50%)? Why 2/3 and 57%?
3. Why impose deadlines to leave?
Thanks Jose. 1) They won’t leave and this is the only way to get a fresh start. (2) This was the last thing to be negotiated. Traditionalists wanted simple majority and Centrists wanted 2/3. They split the difference in order to get a deal. (3) The post-separation UMC wants to stop the bleeding and reimpose the trust clause on all who remain.
I know you asked Chris but my two cents:
(1) Because they will not leave and the Bishops will not enforce. It is not fair despite Traditionalists winning the votes. The old house is rickety and the brand is tainted.
(2) That was a hard negotiated compromise. I heard it was a super-majority.
(3) Because you have to call the question and the new organizations need some finality to plan and move forward. The can has been kicked down the road for many years anyway.
Well written, and by my lights, accurate, Jeff.
I was an elder in a conference that, when it came time for its annual meeting, would convene occasionally as laity delegates in one group – clergy in another.
It was called the LAITY session, and the EXECUTIVE session. The EXECUTIVES were, of course, the clergy.
Says it all.
Planning the demise of the UMC has, sadly, become the raison d’etre for its current existence.