GC2020 – Initial thoughts on the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation

Frank Holbrook 3 GC 2020

It’s been several months since I’ve posted here.  I decided to hold off posting about proposed plans until the negotiating group formed by Bishop Yambusa had been given an opportunity to complete their work.  At the initial stages, there was no assurance that their work would bear fruit; it was certainly possible that the negotiations would lead to another dead end.  As widely reported yesterday, the work has produced some fruit.  Today’s post is an initial reaction to that fruit: the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation” (“Protocol”).

Anyone reading the post should understand exactly what the Protocol is and and what it isn’t.  The dictionary definition of protocol is: “a preliminary memorandum often formulated and signed by diplomatic negotiators as a basis for a final convention or treaty.”  In short, the Protocol is not a plan a separation.  It sets the parameters for additional work that is to follow. Here are a few of my initial takeaways.

Takeaway #1 – Solving the GC2020 Puzzle

The Protocol recognizes the need for GC2020 to prioritize work on a plan of separation.  I agree with this approach and outlined its importance in the post entitled The GC2020 Puzzle: Finding a Starting Point.  In that post I stated:

No one wants to repeat GC 2019 at GC 2020. But in defense of GC 2019 it’s hard to argue that the process that allowed the 2019 conference to determine priorities as an initial matter, was wrong. No matter where one stands on the doctrinal, missional and institutional divides, the reality is that GC 2019 actually reached a decision on a difficult and divisive issue. The fact that some were hurt or upset with the decision is an implicit recognition that they understood that an actual decision was made. The point of this statement is not to inflame passions or take sides in the ongoing doctrinal debate; rather the point is to ask participants to ask themselves whether the process of GC 2019 worked. The passions and feelings resulting from GC2019 were not the result of the process used to prioritize work, they were caused by the deeply felt convictions accompanying the difficult issues being considered.

So what should GC 2020 learn from 2019? If an issue as big as multiplication by creating new expressions is to be taken seriously, the General Conference should decide early on – in the first few days of the conference – whether it will prioritize the issue with minimal attention to other matters.

Logically, if the church is moving towards new expressions, GC 2020 should spend its limited time prioritizing its work to BOD changes that allow those new expressions to flourish. On the other hand, if GC 2020 determines its priority is to continue the debate that occurred in 2019 then it should perform its work as it has in the past; by moving to Committee work that will deal with the contentious provisions of the BOD as it currently exists and will exist in the immediate future.

The potential downside is that the Protocol potentially usurps GC 2020’s right to decide which Plan it wants to prioritize.  If the decision to prioritize is rolled into a decision to prioritize the plan emerging from the Protocol then GC2020 will effectively be offered a single option.  Given that the Plan may be amended the single option may not truly be one take it or leave it option.  The signatories have agreed to ensure that the fundamental objectives to which they have agreed are met; however, they have not agreed to the process for meeting those objectives.

On the whole, I favor having one plan for GC 2020 to work on.  If that plan emerges as the result of the Protocol that will not necessarily be a bad thing.

Takeaway #2 – The Protocol is Not a Plan

The Protocol makes clear that it is not a plan of separation.  The Protocol is an outline of a negotiated settlement.  It provides important guidance on a number of the main issues to be incorporated into legislation creating an actual plan of separation.  Consequently, any plan of separation emerging from the Protocol will be guided by these broad principles.  A non-exhaustive list of issues resolved by the Protocol, set forth here in no particular order, include the following:

A moratorium on human sexuality issues, foreshadowing a permanent change to the Book of Discipline on these issues.

Continued existence of the United Methodist Church.Presumably, changes, if any, to the church’s Commissions, Boards and Agencies will be addressed, if at all, by future General Conferences and not be part of a plan of separation.

The initial number of new expressions will be one (since the UMC will not technically be a new expression).

Division of assets – there will be two lump sums set aside – $25 million for Traditional expressions and $2 million for other potential new expressions

Pensions for clergy

The default option for Annual Conferences – they will remain in the United Methodist Church unless affirmative action is taken, by a 57% majority, to affiliate with a new expression.  Article III c.

Establishing a $39 million fund to address the “historical role of the Methodist movement in systems of systematic racial violence, exploitation and discrimination . . .”

Local churches departing will keep their property and be liable only for loans owed to the Annual Conference.

Essentially, the Protocol is a signpost pointing the way to something that lies ahead.  The road in front of the United Methodist Church is clouded in fog, but the Protocol is a sign saying “This way to the future”.

Takeaway #3 – There is still a lot of work to be done

Although the Protocol gives a broad outline, it requires an Annual Conference to adopt legislation and submit it to General Conference.  Without such legislation, the Protocol in Shakespeare’s words “is full of sound and fury and signifying nothing”.

How effectively someone works through the details will ultimately determine whether (1) a plan of separation passes GC2020 and (2) if the plan of separation works after it is adopted.

Here’s an example of the difficulty of working out the details.  There was, and continues to be, a division of opinion on whether a simple or two thirds majority should be required for local church disaffiliation.  Apparently as a compromise on the disaffiliation threshold for local churches the Protocol adopts this language: “If such a vote [i.e. disaffiliation] occurs, the church council shall determine a voting threshold of either a simple majority or two-thirds of those present and voting at a duly called church conference in order for the motion opting for a different affiliation to be adopted.” Article III d.  Although it appears to be a Solomonesque approach to allow local churches to decide their own threshold, will the motion to set the threshold require a simple majority or a two thirds majority to pass?  I assume the proposed plan will either decide this or run silent on the issue and create the potential for discord.

As one thinks through a plan of separation there are myriad details that need to be considered.  The plan drafter will have to resolve those issues while always keeping the spirit of the Protocol in mind.  I suspect it will be a challenging task and may result in multiple plans of separation to implement the Protocol absent an unpublicized agreement to cooperate and draft a single plan.

Takeaway #4 – No one wins everything

Years ago I was trying to settle a case and I asked my client what would be an acceptable compromise.  He replied: “Everything I’ve asked for.”  I told him that he wasn’t seeking compromise, he was seeking capitulation.

No one at the negotiating table received everything they wanted.  On the other hand, no one demanded capitulation and labeled it as compromise.  Various constituencies will bemoan the fact that they didn’t achieve this or that.

Matthew 5:25-26 reveals these red letter words: “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.”

I think the Protocol is a good faith effort to live into Jesus’ words.