Reflections on the Proposed Protocol for Separation (Part III)

In May, 5-15, 2020 the United Methodist Church will be holding a General Conference in Minneapolis which will likely be the time when some agreement will be made to resolve our denominational struggle over historic orthodoxy and issues related to human sexuality. The agreement which is being hailed as the best legislation for resolving our crisis is known as the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation (read it here). This agreement has no official sanction from the church, but it did manage to get a diverse group of 16 leaders to sign on. The Protocol includes 8 shared principles, followed by six articles outlining the terms of the agreement, definition of terms, proposed timeline, financial considerations, and so forth.

The purpose of this article is to set forth plainly the pros and cons of the Protocol. After a careful reading of the document, here is a quick summary of the “good news” in the Protocol for each group.

Good News for the Traditionalists

First, the agreement provides a one-time $25 million allocation of seed money over four years so the traditionalists can start a new denomination.

Second, the Trust Clause will not be exercised, meaning that there will be no legal battles over property and land. Every church which leaves can keep their property and land without any claim from the annual conference.

Third, there will be a clean break from decades of fighting and chaos allowing a vibrant, historically orthodox movement to emerge.

Good News for the Progressives

First, the progressives will gain full control of the United Methodist Church, including the name, the logo, the cross and flame, and all the agencies and considerable assets which currently belong to the United Methodist Church. The agreement is silent about numerous Methodist related ministries such as Wesley Foundations, retirement communities, children’s homes, and so forth who are not afforded any “vote” for re-affiliation. What is clear is that this agreement is not any form of “mutual disassociation” where both wings of the church go their separate ways as equals. The Protocol gives the denomination to the progressives, and the Traditionalists are shown the door. The one request we have had from the African delegations is that the Africans would like to keep the name, United Methodist. Under this agreement, they can only retain the name if they remain with the progressive side of the church.

Second, the United Methodist Church will be the “default” denomination in any of the voting which may take place. Contrast this this with the Indianapolis Plan which had two “default” churches. Under the Indianapolis Plan, churches in North America who do not vote (or do not have sufficient votes to pass) would go, by default, to the progressive United Methodist Church. Likewise, any of the Central Conference churches who do not vote, or fail to have sufficient votes to pass, would, by default, be members of the traditionalist Methodist Church. The Protocol rolls that back and makes progressives the default denomination in all voting, in all places. Any church, annual or central conference which does not explicitly vote to leave the denomination will automatically remain in the United Methodist Church. The threshold to depart the denomination requires that 57% of the Annual Conference vote by July 2, 2021 or they will, by default, remain in the United Methodist Church. Local churches will have until the end of 2024 to vote, but each church can decide whether the threshold for departing is 50% or 2/3. If such a vote does not take place within the allotted time, or cannot make the voting threshold for departure, then those churches will remain in the United Methodist Church. Central Conferences will require a 2/3 vote by the end of 2021 or they will remain, by default, in the United Methodist church.

Third, the Protocol requires that all current charges against progressives who have violated the Discipline be dropped immediately.

Fourth, the United Methodist Church will instantly be free to change the Discipline to conform to the full agenda which they have been unsuccessfully advocating to implement for nearly fifty years. This involves, among other things, the full ordination of practicing homosexuals.

Fifth, the financial settlement disproportionately favors the progressive wing of the church. Although the traditionalists are given $25 million to start a new denomination, the traditionalists will be responsible for giving $13 million back to the United Methodist Church as a part of a larger $39 million package to assist in churches historically marginalized, as well as to the Africa University in Zimbabwe. These funds will be completely controlled and allocated by the United Methodist Church and the traditionalists will have no voice in how or where those funds are invested.

So, there are advantages for both sides. Nobody said this was going to be easy. I think everyone of us should express a word of appreciation to Keith Boyette and Patricia Miller for working so hard to represent traditionalists in the midst of a very diverse group of people. We are all indebted to their sacrifice of time and energy and no one doubts for a single moment that they have not given their heart and soul to help us find a way forward which will help us come to a place of ecclesial flourishing.

Likewise, the Good News movement has as their byline: Leading United Methodists to a more faithful future. Who could argue that they are not seeking to do that? I remain confident that we will arrive at General Conference with a shared vision for our future. Although, in the big picture, the financial seed money is rather modest ($25 million given, $13 million forfeited), the relaxing of the Trust Clause does bring us substantial relief. More importantly, it will keep us from fighting endless legal battles which, by all accounts, would damage our already weakened witness before the eyes of the wider culture. But, to be clear, the concession is only required if we are pursuing a path of exiting the denomination, rather than some form of mutual disassociation. I have already written a previous article on the Trust Clause which you can read here. From the perspective of United Methodist churches across the country, the progressives are giving churches what they already own and have purchased with their own sacrificial tithes and offerings.

One of the ways to judge whether an agreement has achieved equality is to re-read the agreement, but substitute the word “progressive” for “traditionalists” and then substitute “traditionalists” for what the agreement calls the “post-separation United Methodist Church.” When that is done, one has to ask the following question: Is this a just settlement? I invite and welcome your comments.

Read Part I here.
Read Part II here.
Read Part IV here.

Reflections on the Proposed Protocol for Separation (Part II)

Like many United Methodists, I have been reading various reactions to the Protocol for Separation, which is being widely heralded, for the moment, as the leading hope for our future as a way out of the chaos we are in as a denomination. You can read my initial reflections here. I have noticed that some articles have stated that I am in favor of the Protocol, whereas others have stated that I am against it. I hope to clarify my stand by offering several articles on the issue. I do not speak for Asbury Theological Seminary, nor any of our beloved graduates who have been so valiantly fighting for orthodoxy in our denomination. My article only reflects my personal views on the matter.

Undoubtedly, May 5–15, 2020 promises to be one of the most historic General Conferences in the life of the United Methodist Church. The delegates have been chosen and the delegations are even now considering various proposals that will be brought before the General Conference. This is supposed to be a time of honest dialogue and debate as we assess the various plans, particularly the Protocol, and seek to understand the implications of it. This installment of my mini series will state two of the challenges which the traditionalists face as General Conference approaches. Second, a few points of clarification in the current dialogue will be offered.

Challenges Faced by Traditionalists

First, Are There Three Groups or Two?

The traditionalists have suffered in the negotiations because the church has accepted the idea that we have three, not two major factions within the church. It is very common to hear the statement that we have traditionalists, centrists, and progressives. However, Jeff Greenway made a very compelling case in a Wesleyan Covenant Association article that we actually do not have three groups, but rather two groups. The centrists may not be as far along the progressive road as the progressives, but they remain consistently and adamantly opposed to the traditionalists. Therefore, when it comes to negotiating, a three-group format always places the traditionalists in a distinct minority at the negotiating table since there are no public examples of centrists voting with the traditionalists. Just to give this some perspective, the traditionalist view represents slightly more than the majority of all United Methodists. Yet, the Protocol negotiating team had only two or three traditionalists out of sixteen.

Second, Are “Stay and Fight” or “Leave and Start Over” the Only Two Options?

The second problem that has plagued the traditionalists is that we have been caught in a situation where we feel there are only two options. The first option is to stay and keep advocating for orthodoxy within the church. This has been the leading strategy for the last fifty years. This strategy has had incremental success over the years since the church has experienced a slow resurgence of evangelical witness among grassroots Methodism, even though it has faced stiff headwinds (especially among the Council of Bishops and several prominent United Methodist pastors). This, coupled with the explosive growth among African Methodists, has put us in a situation where we were reasonably comfortable that over time we would be able to consistently uphold orthodoxy in the church.

The progressive wing of the church has been doing the math too. By 2013, they realized that they had no clear strategy to defeat the traditionalists because in each General Conference, the progressive wing of the church receives fewer delegates and the African delegations receive more delegates. To be fair, the 2020 General Conference delegation appears to be more progressive, but the overall trajectory of future delegates to General Conference does work against the progressive cause. For example, in the allocation for the 2020 General Conference, the African delegations received 18 additional delegates while the American delegations were reduced by 22. By the time of the 2024 General Conference, the African Methodists will likely outnumber the American Methodists.

By 2013, the progressives realized that they were likely not going to achieve a victory through voting on the floor of the General Conference. Thus, we experienced the birth of the disobedience movement, which called for open defiance of the Discipline and any General Conference decision that was not consistent with the progressive aspirations for the church. This has caused such a crisis and turmoil in the church that many traditionalists have thrown up their hands in frustration. What is the point of following the strategy of “stay and fight for orthodoxy” when whatever is voted on in General Conference can be just ignored? Entire annual conferences have endorsed disobedience. Dozens of same-sex marriages have been performed. Karen Oliveto, the first openly lesbian bishop to be consecrated in the United Methodist Church, remains in her post despite the Discipline, Judicial Council, and the vote of General Conference. Therefore, option one became more discouraging for the traditionalists.

This leads us to option two. The second option is to negotiate some kind of separation. This has been the source of much debate as various plans have been presented. Of the various plans, the Indianapolis Plan and the more recently released, Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation seem to have attracted the most support among traditionalists. There are positive aspects in both of these plans, but there are some serious problems with the Protocol, not the least of which is that it reinforces the perception that the United Methodist Church will be given to the progressives to be redefined and reshaped as the default denomination, whereas the traditionalists would be the ones who are exiting the denomination. The traditionalists will have won thirteen consecutive General Conference votes—and yet the traditionalists will be the ones who are exiting the denomination. The Discipline will be changed approximately five minutes after traditionalists are shown the door.

Clarification

I do not think the Protocol represents a just resolution of our disagreements over the last fifty years. Nevertheless, I do believe that after all is said and done, a new orthodox Wesleyan/Methodist denomination is going to emerge. And yet I still need convincing that the Protocol should be supported as the best way forward for traditionalists. Before we rush to quickly declare that the Protocol is the best way forward, we should ask the following questions:

1. Is it a victory if the Protocol passes General Conference but the majority of traditionalists do not vote in favor of it?
2. Is it a victory if the Protocol passes with an odd coalition of support between the progressives and the USA traditionalists, but the African delegations are not supportive?
3. Is there really no option to make a few simple amendments to the Protocol that would represent a more just resolution? (A future article will suggest possible amendments).

My intention in raising these questions is simply to stimulate a healthy debate among the traditionalists so everyone is clear what is being agreed to. I know that the overwhelming feeling is one of exhaustion and a deep longing to be free from this long and difficult struggle. But we want to look back on these days with no regrets, knowing that we did the best we could. It is in that spirit that I offer my reflections. The next installment will discuss the pros and cons of the Protocol.

Read Part I here.
Read Part III here.

Reflections on the Proposed Protocol for Separation

Quite a stir has rippled out across the country because of reporting by Christianity Today, CNN, New York Times, among others, with headlines like this: “Methodists Agree to Split Denomination” (Christianity Today headline), “United Methodist Church Proposes Historic Split over Gay Marriage and LGBT Clergy” (CNN headline), and “United Methodist Church Announces Plan to Split over Same-Sex Marriage” (New York Times). In case you were wondering, the United Methodist Church has actually not agreed to split, and none of those who met and signed this agreement were authorized to make such a decision. Any possible separation of the UMC cannot be made until May 2020 when the next General Conference of the UMC convenes to consider various petitions, since that body alone has the power to officially represent the denomination.

What the articles were talking about was actually an unofficial agreement on the terms of a proposed denominational separation signed by 16 leaders in the UMC who are regarded as representative of the various “conservative,” “centrist,” and “progressive” wings of the church. The agreement is known as the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation (read it here). It includes eight shared principles, followed by six articles outlining the terms of the agreement, definition of terms, proposed timeline, financial considerations, and so forth. In the UMC, it is newsworthy whenever clergy and laity across such a wide theological divide find agreement, especially with a statement as detailed as this one. I want to commend them for the time and effort it took to create this document (and the stellar work performed by Kenneth Feinberg, esquire who led the mediation). I am confident it was done out of a genuine love for the church and heart for reconciliation. They did what was supposed to be done years earlier by the “Commission on a Way Forward,” which was officially authorized by the 2016 General Conference in Portland to come up with a solution but ran aground by supporting a plan which had already been rejected three times by previous General Conferences. We are now in 2020, and this new “Protocol” has been placed on the table and will probably end up before the General Conference in May of 2020. The “Protocol” carries particular weight because, even though it has not been authorized, the leaders involved have agreed to not support any other legislation which contradicts any portion of this agreement. However, before any actual delegates to the 2020 Conference endorse this plan, we should have a robust conversation about some of the possible implications of this Protocol.

The “Post-Separation United Methodists” Remain the Default United Methodist Church

The Protocol envisions the church separating into two main groups. The first group is referred to as the “Traditional Methodist Church” and represents those who are committed to retaining the current Discipline regarding homosexual practice; namely, that all persons are of infinite worth, but that the practice of homosexual behavior is incompatible with historic Christian faith. The second group is named the “post-separation United Methodist Church.” This group is set forth in the document as the continuance of what remains once the Traditionalists leave the denomination to form the “Traditional Methodist Church.” This default is obvious for several reasons:

First, this is explicitly stated multiple times in the official “Q and A” release about the Protocol when it states, for example, “if a local church or Annual Conference wishes to remain within The United Methodist Church, there are no actions required” or in reference to the church after the split when it says, “the United Methodist Church will be smaller.” We should, therefore, presume that the “post-separation” United Methodist Church will continue to be legally and officially called the United Methodist Church.

Second, if any central conference, annual conference or local church fails to vote to “leave” then they automatically—by default—remain in the “post-separation United Methodist Church.” This is a remarkable concession. In fact, even if 65% of a Central Conference voted to leave the denomination, they would not be permitted to leave, but would remain in the “post-separation UMC” (since the protocol requires a 2/3 vote for Central Conferences). If even 56% of an annual conference voted to leave, they would not be permitted to leave (the protocol requires a 57% vote by annual conferences). Furthermore, there are, of course, thousands of small Methodist churches scattered all across the country who have not been actively engaged in all of these struggles and who will likely not organize any kind of official vote. All of these churches would, by default, find themselves in the “post-separation UMC.” Contrast this, for example, with the Indianapolis Plan which states that if a Central Conference UMC does not vote then they, by default, will belong to the Traditional Methodist Church.

Third, the financial understandings in the Protocol underscore that the “post-separation UMC” is the default main denomination. The separation makes several financial agreements, including 25 million for the Traditionalists to start a new denomination, again underscoring which group is “leaving.” The separation also creates a 39 million dollar fund for supporting groups historically marginalized by racism. However, 13 million of this will be funded by the Traditional UMC Denomination and paid to the post-separation UMC, which the progressives will control and administer. This creates an enormous economic advantage to the progressive UMC, euphemistically named the “post-separation UMC” in the document. Many marginalized groups, including the Africa University in Zimbabwe, are theologically conservative and will feel pressured to not leave the denomination and join the “traditionalists” for fear of losing funding that will be dispersed by the progressive church. For fifty years, orthodoxy has been upheld in United Methodism because of a close coalition between those committed to historic faith in Africa with those with similar convictions in North America. The Protocol, because of the high bar placed on Central Conferences for departure, as well as the financial arrangements, could threaten that alliance. We are very close to the African United Methodists becoming larger in number than all of North American Methodists. This is the time to strengthen the ties between historic orthodox Christians all over the globe.

The Real Root behind Our Separation

This Protocol, if adopted by the 2020 General Conference, seems to be weighted in favor of the “post-separation United Methodist Church” (Perhaps this is understandable since the “progressives” and the “centrists” vote together). I am concerned that the language of the document refers to the traditionalists as the ones who are leaving the denomination, and those who remain as the default United Methodist Church. The progressive Methodists have never been interested in starting and building a new denomination. Instead, they want to follow the pattern of the PC (USA), the ELCA, and the Episcopalians – adopting increasingly progressive theological agendas, further and further away from the parameters of historic faith until a breaking point is finally reached and the conservatives are forced to “leave” the denomination. (This is where newer denominations like the Presbyterian Church of America, the North American Lutheran Church, or the Anglican Church of North America came from.) But, in the case of the United Methodist Church, the traditionalists have not left. Great credit is to be extended to the Good News Movement, the Confessing Movement, and more recently the Wesleyan Covenant Association, for so nobly leading this struggle all these years. They have remained strong under relentless attacks, and orthodoxy has prevailed in vote after vote after vote. The progressives in the United Methodist Church have been exceedingly frustrated that the UMC has not followed the normal pattern of every major mainline denomination in the United States. The 2019 General Conference was the progressives’ “last stand,” and it did not go as they had planned. The church stood firm. Let me repeat, the traditionalist view is not a minority view held by a smaller and smaller margin of United Methodists, but a majority view which has been re-affirmed thirteen times by General Conference votes. Yes, the vote is 13-0. Yet, the entire structure of the Protocol envisions the traditionalists as the ones who are “leaving” the denomination.

Let us be clear about what makes the United Methodist Church different from every other mainline denomination in the US who has struggled over these same issues. The traditionalists in the UMC, unlike other mainline churches which have divided, are not leaving the denomination because the church no longer affirms historic orthodoxy and they find themselves in a church on the wrong side of orthodoxy. Quite the contrary, the votes to support historic orthodoxy have gotten stronger over the last several General Conferences. The traditionalists in the UMC who are part of the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) are, indeed, prepared to start a new Methodist “traditionalist” denomination, but it is only because of the sustained rebellion against the clear and decisive decisions made by the General Conference. This rebellion has been made more difficult because it was led by many of our own episcopal leaders who hold the decisions of both the General Conference and the Judicial Council in contempt. The WCA is considering forming a new denomination because of the unwillingness of the episcopacy to maintain church discipline in the church.

The Protocol, if adopted, would open the door for the current United Methodist Church, which all these years has remained faithful to historic faith, to become the default progressive church, and the traditionalists would be left to start something from scratch. The Protocol calls for the traditionalists to leave and form a new denomination (which is like the one they currently already have, save for the rebellion), while the progressives, after that departure, will finally get the United Methodist Church given back to them on a silver platter to reshape according to all the proposals they have been making without success since the 1972 General Conference.

Moving Forward

I would prefer that we keep holding our ground as we have done for fifty years. However, I understand the good reasons given by the courageous traditional leaders for why a church separation in 2020 may be necessary. There are just too many people’s lives at stake for us to be stuck in an ecclesiastical quicksand for another generation, while United Methodism keeps losing members at such a precipitous rate. So, although it is has not been my first hope, I am prepared to join with those who are leaving and start from scratch and build a whole new denomination. Count me in. I’m ready to get to work.

But I do think that it is important that those interested in the history of the United Methodist Church have a clear narrative about what has actually happened. We may have lost our beloved denomination, but we went out having successfully defended historic orthodoxy each time we were called upon to vote. Our General Conference never let us down. Our story is different from other mainline denominations. In our case, we were defeated by our own leaders. That began long ago and entered yet a new phase on September 3, 2013 when Bishop Melvin Talbert officiated at a gay wedding in Birmingham, Alabama, with no repercussions. That began a rebellion which, while never able to change the UMC doctrinally, still ended up destroying the denomination. So, let us turn the page in 2020 and start afresh, remembering our beloved brothers and sisters throughout the history of the church who have fought their own battles, and found, as we will, that Christ always renews his church and makes good on his sacred promise to build his church.

Read Part II here.
Read Part III here.
Read Part IV here.

Five Offices of Christ: A Reflection for the Year 2020

Regular readers of this blog will know that my wife and I dedicate a certain portion of each day reading and singing the Psalms. We work through other biblical books (for example, we just completed the book of Revelation), but we always focus on one psalm per day.

The psalms are valuable as a daily study for many reasons. One of the most important is that the theology of the entire Bible meets in this ancient prayer book. When reading the Old Testament, have you ever felt that whatever passage you are in seems to be headed somewhere or pointing to something further down the road? Likewise, if you read the New Testament, you cannot help but realize that these texts do not arise out the blue, but came from somewhere and are now being fulfilled. The Psalms, therefore, serve as a kind of “Grand Central Station” where texts from the Law, Prophets, and Writings pass through the Psalms on their way to the New Testament to find their final fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Old Testament texts become songs and prayers and those songs and prayers, in turn, get quoted as texts in the New Testament.

Recently I was struck afresh by the power of Psalm 132. It is not a psalm we normally think of when we reflect on “messianic” psalms, and this particular psalm is never directly quoted in the New Testament (although there are three possible allusions to this psalm in Luke 1:69, Acts 2:30 and Acts 7:46). Yet, this psalm prepares us for five of the offices of Christ which are fulfilled through his birth, life, death, and resurrection.

1. God makes his dwelling with us. During our recent Christmas celebration, we remember that one of the titles of Christ is Immanuel, meaning God with us. Psalm 132 recalls David’s longing to “find a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob” (Ps. 132:5). David, of course, understood this primarily as the Temple which he would prepare for, and which his son Solomon would build. However, we know from the New Testament that ultimately the only fit dwelling place of God among us was in and through the incarnation. Jesus Christ is the place where all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form (Col. 1:19).

2. Ark in Bethlehem. After David became King he brought the ark of God from the house of Abinadab to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:1-12). However, it rested for three months in his hometown of Bethlehem, also known in the prophetic writings as Ephrathah. Psalm 132 recalls this time when people heard that the ark was resting in Bethlehem: “Behold, we heard of it in Ephrathah” (Ps. 132:6). The ark symbolizes the presence and redemptive power of God, as reflected in the stock prayer that the people of God would pray when they went into battle: “Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might” (Ps. 132:8; 2 Chron. 6:41). The prophet Micah prophesied that the messiah, the true sign of God’s presence and power, would come out of Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 said, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me One who is to be ruler is Israel, whose reign is from of old, from ancient days.”

3. The Throne of David. In 2 Samuel 7:16 David was promised that his house and his kingdom would endure forever and that his throne would be established forever. Psalm 132 places this promise into an act of worship when it declares: “The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne (Ps. 132:11). This promise had a messianic fulfillment and is the source of the multiple allusions which are drawn from the promise to David which are understood by the early church to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ (Acts 2:30; 7:46). Jesus Christ sits on the throne of David and fulfills the kingly messianic role.

4. The Anointed One. Psalm 132 also contains a beautiful prayer that God would not “turn away the face of your anointed One” (Ps. 132:10). It was probably originally intended as a prayer for God to listen to the prayers of King David who served in a kind of representative role on behalf of the people. However, one of the leading terms in Hebrew for the Messiah is the word for anoint. The Messiah was the “anointed one.” This is the term which in Greek is christos where the word “Christ” comes from. In a final way, only Jesus “the Christ” is the one who intercedes for us and who stands in the gap on our behalf.

5. The horn of God. In Psalm 132:17 we are told that God will “make a horn to sprout for David” and prepare “a lamp for my anointed.” The messiah is pictured as a “horn.” The word “horn” is frequently used metaphorically in Scripture to refer to “strength” or “power” or even “honor” (See, for example, Ps. 18:2; 89:17; 92:10; 112:9; 132:7; 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:3). This explains why Zechariah prophesies in Luke 1 saying, “Blessed by the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (Lk. 1:69). Jesus is the great “horn” of God who embodies the strength, power, and honor of God in the world as he rescues us from the dominion of darkness and delivers us into His glorious kingdom.

All five of these offices, or titles, which would someday be fulfilled by Christ are embedded in Psalm 132—even though it does not figure prominently in the New Testament. As we go into 2020, let us remember that Christ fulfills our deepest hopes and longings. Christ alone remains the hope of the nations and the source of all redemption and peace. Our hope will not be found in the deliberations of Washington D.C., or any political leader, or the outcome of any church denominational debate. Our hope remains in Christ alone.