by Bob Phillips
Recently Kenneth Feinberg, mediator of the 2020 General Conference Protocol for Separation with Reconciliation and Grace, sat down for a Zoom chat with Jeffrey Rickman, a Global Methodist pastor a blogger. The 45-minute chat was an eloquent witness to Feinberg’s professionalism, grace and, well, downright class. Consider these insights from the chat.
First, Feinberg maintained and exemplified a balanced and gracious approach. Jeffrey did an overall good job in his questions but the occasional rhetoric question with a spin favoring traditionalists was presented. Feinberg kept his poise and balance and threw no one from left or right or center under the bus labeled “Fault.” He was clear that the process involving those who gathered to be part of the negotiation reflected integrity and a willingness to listen, not simply demand. All signed in good conscience and with great hopes for a win-win outcome that would avoid the hostility and legal battles fought by Episcopalians, Presbyterians and others.
Second, Feinberg retains mastery of facts and still uses them as a candle for light rather than a club for clobber. All ‘sides’ had merit, legitimate claims, and in-house issues to resolve. In a perspective that secular politicians seem to have suppressed, mediation that leads to progress toward win-win outcomes is only possible when “All or nothing” outcomes are rejected and all bargaining is in good faith. He also is clear that negotiation is upended if one side believes it holds all the cards and/or sees no need to strike an agreement…striking the “other guy” can suffice!
Third, Feinberg has not renounced hope. IF (a big “if”) all stakeholders can commit to seeking a win-win outcome, GC24 could yet produce an approach that moves beyond seeing those on the right as rebellious bigots and those on the left as unbiblical institutionalists. The good faith of the initial process can live again, even after the separations of 2022-23. A great witness to the secular world remains doable.
Fourth, Feinberg, a man of Jewish faith, models how faithful Christians can act and should act. He refuses to psychoanalyze those who renounced the Protocol or pursued a different course of action. “Blame” is a word not permitted entry into his living room. “I win” is not in his vocabulary, but “WE win” definitely is. His passion was and remains assisting the church, which is part of a faith he does not share, to present a positive witness that hastens inner healing within the church and a distinct example of grace at work for a larger world.
Fifth, Feinberg was and remains the seasoned adult in the room. This is not to “diss” the bishops, lobbyists and others who were part of the initial Protocol discussions or subsequent events. It is to say that, if there remains any desire to negotiate a graceful conclusion to this upheaval, amateur hour is not the answer. Feinberg, when asked how he got involved with the United Methodist food fight, remarked simply that a life-long UM named Hilary Clinton asked this world-class negotiator if he would be willing to help the church. I recall mentioning to a bishop prior to GC2016 that having a professional parliamentarian sitting next to the presiding bishop would be wise and was told that was unnecessary since all active bishops had plenty of experience from running their annual conference. After an embarrassing parliamentary goat-rope with erratic and contradictory guidance from the various presiding bishops, a professional was prominent at GC2019. This holy hubris is not new.Years earlier I recall one of the most senior officers in the US military, a lifetime United Methodist responsible for oversight of the US nuclear weapons program, express frustration when his denomination issued a major statement on nuclear weapons filled with well-intentioned non-starters and non sequiturs, with no one involved bothering to ask him for insights or fact check.
My take-away from this informative discussion is threefold. First, the UMC is well-advised to find a meaningful way to reconnect with Feinberg as part of the UMC moving cleanly and decisively into the future. Second, do not slam the door on a gracious disaffiliation process for churches who heeded the “wait and see through ‘23” call of numerous bishops and may find conscience contravened if GC24 actions cross their moral line. Here also Feinberg could be invaluable to shepherd a wise and productive process. This truly can free the UMC to move into the future as it needs to do. Third, commit to win-win at GC24. The Feinberg interview is focused on a realistic but positive course that is clear and refreshing. All players must knock off dinging and demonizing, blithe denials of the shadow sides of their position and equal denial of good and healthy aspects of the ‘opposing’ points of view.
Kenneth Feinberg is a gift to the UMC, and to non-UMC Wesleyans that can keep on giving, if only we will acknowledge what once was, what now is, and what yet could be for a renewed Wesleyan way. His words and attitude can point the way, if only we dare to listen.
People Need Jesus 
Thank you for sharing this. I admired Mr. Feinberg so much in the last go-round and was sorely disappointed when the Protocol initiative fell apart. Since then, I hadn’t dared to think that he might still be available to the UMC for his continuing assistance. This is the most hopeful I’ve felt in a long time.