Dear
Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
In
November I wrote about the fact that the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA)
had released a draft of a new Book of Discipline which was the next immediate
step for WCA churches to break away from the United Methodist Church to form a
new denomination. This was to go along with some of the proposed legislation
for the upcoming General Conference, which is the worldwide gathering of the
UMC where official decisions for the church are made.
While
there are thousands of petitions that will come before General Conference this
year, the ones most people are concerned about are those relating to how the
church will deal with the LGBTQ community and how we can live together (or
not). I had been intending to write a summary of the major proposals that had
been put forward, but then last week came news that has sort of changed all the
dynamics of what could happen.
Sixteen
leaders representing the spread of opinions from traditional, centrist to progressive,
as well as Africa, Asia and the United States, had spent months in
conversation, under the guidance of a professional mediator who donated his
time. The purpose was to come up with a proposal that all sides could agree to
and be presented to the General Conference. That proposal, called the "Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace ThroughSeparation" was released last week.
So
a couple of caveats before we cover the details. The first is that these 16
people were not elected or appointed to this group, they came together of their
own accord. Second, even though the Council of Bishops released the
information, and there were several bishops in the group, this is not being
endorsed or supported by the Council of Bishops, or at least not at the moment.
The third is that this is just a proposal at this point, and it will need to be
written as legislation to be presented to the General Conference.
So
with that information as background, what this Protocol calls for is for
allowing conservative churches to break off from the United Methodist Church to
form a new denomination, and to be allowed to take their property and other
assets with them without any penalty. As part of this separation, the United Methodist
Church would provide this new denomination with $25 million paid out over four
years, and the new denomination would then relinquish any other claims to UMC
assets, including the general boards and agencies. Another $2 million would be
set into escrow that could be requested by other churches seeking to form
another denomination(s).
Additionally,
$39 million would be set aside over 8 years to help assist and strengthen Asian, Black, Hispanic-Latino, Native American and
Pacific Islander ministries and churches, which have faced historic
discrimination from the Methodist church. $13 million of this will come from
the new “traditionalist” denomination, although how this happens is not clear
to me.
The money issue has been one of the areas that has received the
most conversation in what I have seen and people wondering where this money
will come from as well as the amount. But, as someone who has studied
schismatic movements in the Methodist Church, we could, and probably would,
easily spend $25 million in attorney and court fees if we were to start
fighting over who controls assets. This proposal takes away most of those
arguments.
After the separation, the United Methodist Church would then
remove the restrictive language in the Book of Discipline around homosexuality,
and the United States would become a central, or regional, conference like the
rest of the world. This would allow the US church to make decisions that apply
only to the US, which the rest of the world has already been able to do. This
would actually probably make the church more “united” then it has ever been in
the past.
Now there are lots of logistics for how this would happen at the
General Conference level, which I am going to ignore for the moment rather than
bog you down in details. But, if this
proposal was to pass at the General Conference, every Annual Conference could
then decide if they wanted to remain in the UMC or to go with the new
denomination. It would require 20% of the delegates to any annual conference to
support taking a vote for potential separation, and then a majority of more
than 57% would be required for the annual conference to actually separate.
Annual Conferences would have to take this vote by July 31, 2021, and many of
them may take that vote at the next annual conferences in June.
Local churches would only be required to vote if they disagreed
with what had happened at the annual conference level. And the vote needed to
decide to stay or separate would be either simple majority or 2/3 as decided
upon by the local church. But, most local churches probably will not be
required to vote on this issue. If a vote is needed, it must be done by
December 31, 2024.
As I said, the protocol still needs to be drafted into
legislation and there is some argument about whether it can be even proposed as
the deadline for legislation has already passed. But, the signatories have
agreed to only support this legislation, and to withdraw any legislation they
have proposed. So, that would remove most of the other major proposals. And if
the groups these leaders represent also agree to support only this legislation,
it would almost certainly pass, without most of the continued acrimony we have
experienced for the past 47 years. Additionally, the signers have pledged not
to challenge the constitutionality of the protocol or its implementation, and
to stand as one in defending any challenges before the Judicial Council.
There
are obviously lots of things that have to happen before General Conference
begins to even get this proposal to the floor of the conference, but, if those
pieces fall into place, in my opinion it has the greatest opportunity for
passing with a large majority of support. And if it does pass, it has the
greatest opportunity for a gracious exit with the smallest amount of fighting
of any of the proposals that have been presented, and there is much to be said
for that.
The
UMC has been operating from a win/lose perspective, as well as the idea that a
simple majority gets to “win”, for far too long. You don’t run a church on a
50%+1 vote, unless you want to have constant argument and dissension, which is
certainly what the UMC has been experiencing.
This
has also not represented the “holy conferencing” to which John Wesley called us
to participate. But, from what I have heard from this group, they did indeed
have holy conferencing in truly listening and learning to compromise so that
everyone gets something and loses something. In addition, I know some of the people who
participated, including one of the bishops who was my TA in a preaching class,
and I trust them and their ideas and their decisions.
I
have not felt that separation has been the right decision in the past, but as I
said in my last letter on this topic, a friend who is a member of the WCA told
me he was done and just wanted out, and that has been the WCA’s direction and
desire all along. You can’t keep someone in a relationship they don’t want to
be in, or at least not if you want health and wholeness to be possible. So I am
at the point where I am in agreement that an amicable separation is probably
the best way to go.
Now,
if I had to make a guess, if this was to pass the General Conference, the New
Mexico Annual Conference would vote to stay a part of the United Methodist
Church. It would be close, and some churches would definitely leave, but most
churches just want to stop fighting and keep doing ministry. That would also
mean that we would never have to take a vote here, or at least I don’t think we
would. But, if we did, it would require a decision by 2/3rds of the
congregation.
There
is lots more information available, and I will try to keep you up-to-date on
what is happening as we get closer to General Conference. But, in the meantime,
if you have questions or concerns, please come and speak with me.
Blessings,
John
