by Chris Ritter

Jeffrey Rickman conjured a voice from United Methodism’s past by securing an interview with Kenneth Feinberg, the attorney who oversaw the negotiation of the Protocol of Grace and Reconciliation through Separation. Centrists and Progressives in the UMC left the Protocol behind, Feinberg with it, once they realized that U.S. conservatives would leave without it. Traditionalists, lately occupied with disaffiliation and starting new expressions of Methodism, rarely mention the Protocol either. Rickman’s interview, which revealed Senator Hillary Clinton was involved with securing Feinberg’s pro bono services, reminded us of a remarkable moment when Methodists agreed to separate peacefully and amicably for the good for all.

For Traditionalists, the Protocol was a refreshing abeyance of institutional gaslighting that maintained there was no problem except those who said there was a problem. “Top Brass” went on record in the Protocol deal that two incompatible compass headings existed in the UMC after all. Money and resources were dedicated to multiplying Methodism into new expressions. Whole annual conferences, if they could muster “57%” support, were equipped to join a denominational spin-off. The people at the table represented the votes to get the deal done. COVID, and then COVID-related opportunism, scuttled the most coherent vision for the future of the UMC to date. 

UM institutionalists will long analyze the decision by UM bishops to facilitate the exit of U.S. traditionalists under the rubrics of Disaffiliation Paragraph 2553. What they gained by using a process they controlled was offset by the fact that, unlike the Protocol, disaffiliation enabled property transfers to local churches. This accounts, I think, for the fact that UM separation total was 25% while its counterparts in other U.S. Mainlines were only 10%. As in the Protocol, Presbyterians allowed only exits to denominations of similar polity… that is, a trust clause. Conversely, disaffiliation was, first and foremost, an escape from the trust clause… a way for the local church to control its most valuable asset. Only once a church was independent was it free to join the Global Methodist Church, a network, or other denomination. Something approaching half the congregations who left the UMC have yet to choose a denomination. None (that know about) have again submitted to a denominational trust clause.

PeopleNeedJesus.net was pleased to publish two reactions to the Feinberg interview. Bob Phillips praised Feinberg as a rarefied grown-up in the room who, though not a Christian, modeled Christian grace. David Donnan, a GMC pastor from South Georgia, offered that the failure of the Protocol may have been God’s providential hand at work for the good in that it spared the GMC from onboarding a great deal of denominational baggage. 

Me? I think the UMC needs the Protocol now more than ever. While disaffiliation facilitated the exit of most in the U.S. who wanted to leave, the separation coming in Africa will dwarf the conflict we have seen to date. I have friends who reported to me from last week’s Liberia Annual Conference in West Africa. A “Way Forward” group surfaced three possibilities for the future of Liberian Methodism: A regionalized UMC, joining the Global Methodist Church, or launching its own Methodist denomination. The bishop supported the first option, reversing earlier indications that he might lead Liberia into the GMC. This option, according to initial reports, was soundly rejected by the body. (I hope to report more and in greater detail on this vote soon.) One conference leader in Liberia predicts a three-way split involving all the options in play. The sort of bitter fracturing happening in Nigeria could be coming to all African conferences.

My fear all along has been that United Methodism would find a way to burn its most fruitful fields. This is precisely the path we are on. Extending disaffiliation to Africa, while fair, is not the best solution. The Protocol is superior in that it requires Methodists act together toward a unified future. Annual conferences have the option of remaining whole. My trips to Liberia have taught me that the UMC is just about the best, most stable thing there. Being part of a multi-national denomination with established rules and referees prevents the church from buckling to political forces.

My hope is that the church in Africa can move together into a united future. This will not happen under either the disaffiliation or regionalization legislation. United Methodists leaders, with their habit betting on the wrong legislative horse, may be deluding themselves that the African church can be pacified to accept regionalization, gay bishops, and all the rest. The UMC should “pivot” to the goal of keeping the church in Africa mostly together under a flag of its own choosing.

I am now a Global Methodist clergy. If I have a legacy in United Methodist history, it was helping develop legislation that would allow for separation without constitutional amendments. This mechanism was the basis of Par. 2801 (See here, p. 19) of the Traditional Plan. Though never approved, it was affirmed by the Judicial Council as constitutional and became the basis for the peace envisioned by the Feinberg Protocol. The UMC can allow new and separate bodies to form without amending its constitution. An African Protocol is possible and urgently needed. This would allow GC2024 to secure a future without a shaky two-year cycle of ratification votes. The UMC could move aggressively to establish concordat relationships with new African body(ies) so that vital mission work can continue. (The Board of Global Ministries holds hundreds of millions of dollars in investments under donor restrictions for missions.)

With all due respect with Kenneth Feinberg, it was an African, the late Bishop Yambasu of Sierra Leone, who initiated the Protocol of Grace and Reconciliation through Separation. It is time to honor his memory by applying the Protocol to the UM Central Conferences. Africa needs the Protocol more than the U.S. ever did.

Photo Credit