GC 2020 – The Council of Bishop’s Role under the Protocol

Frank Holbrook 2 GC 2020

In this post I discussed some of the potential pitfalls in the Protocol’s plan for “Conditional Qualification” of new denominations by the Council of Bishops found in the protocol at proposed ¶2556 2.  Since the Plain Grace Plan also proposes to use the Council of Bishops as part of the process of creating new denominations I thought it might be helpful to highlight some of the differences and the underlying rationale for choices made in the Plain Grace legislation.  Hopefully by comparing the two approaches, General Conference delegates considering the Protocol legislation will have a better understanding of the policy choices made by the group that negotiated the Protocol.

Before making the comparison, I’ll add several observations.

First, many have criticized the Plain Grace Plan charging that is too long, too detailed and rather confusing.  Comparing the two approaches to the role of the Council of Bishops under each plan  illustrates why detail is needed.  Everyone should understand that when detail is established and agreed to in legislation, it avoids later fights that resulting from the ambiguity created by a lack of detail.

Second, many have criticized the Plain Grace Plan for “taking too long”.  As people review various plans, including the Protocol,  I believe the reality is setting in that any orderly separation will not be something that occurs in the months immediately following the adjournment of General Conference.  The Protocol suggests a pretty aggressive timeline for separation but for that aggressive timeline to work there can’t be unexpected delays in the process.  The Protocol’s role given to the Council of Bishops certainly creates the risk of delay that will derail the Protocol’s separation effort.

Third, two foundational premises of the Plain Grace Plan are (1) new denominations should be formed before annual conferences or local churches are asked to join and (2) the United Methodist Church should not attempt to “rule from the grave” (an explanation of which may be found in my initial blog post dated July 25, 2019 which is found here).  The Protocol legislation does neither of these things.  As to point (1), ¶2556 allows central conferences, annual conferences and local churches to vote to join a new denomination before the New Denomination is fully formed, (i.e. a vote may be taken when a new denomination is conditionally qualified) but requires the new denomination to be qualified by the Council of Bishops before the new denomination (and presumably a Central Conferences, Annual Conferences or local churches) may enter into separation or ecumenical agreements with the United Methodist Church.  Essentially, under the Protocol, entities may be asked to vote on the promise of a better thing to come. As to point (2), ¶2556 c) makes the Council of Bishops the institutional arm of the United Methodist Church that will approve a new denomination and sets certain criteria that have to be met.

Comparing the Approach to the Role of the Council of Bishops under the Plain Grace Plan and the Protocol

The Plain Grace Plan envisions an eight year transition period for the United Methodist Church and uses three agreements, (1) a Full Communion Agreement, (2) a Gracious Affiliation Agreement and (c) a Dispute Resolution Agreement to govern the eight year transition period.  The Protocol chose of path of quicker total separation and employs lump sum payments as a substitute for the Plain Grace approach.  Using lump sum payments certainly simplifies the separation process and offers an approach that may reduce the complexity of separation.  These various approaches merit discussion but such discussion is beyond the scope of this post so they will not be discussed here.

The Plain Grace Plan created a simplified role for the Council of Bishops.  I have often described the role as a ministerial act and contrasted it with an adjudicatory role.   A ministerial act is an action performed according to established procedures or instructions from a superior, without exercising any individual judgment.  It can be any act a functionary or bureaucrat performs in a prescribed manner, without exercising any individual judgment or discretion.  Under the Plain Grace Plan, the Council of Bishops performs the ministerial acts established by the General Conference.  On the other hand, a judicatory act is is one where an official or a body makes discretionary decisions.  This is the role given to the Council of Bishops under the Protocol.

Under the Plain Grace Plan the Council of Bishops was not empowered to decide whether a new denomination’s polity of ecclesiastical structure was adequate as an initial matter before the new denomination formed. The Council of Bishops merely confirmed that it was the intent of the denomination that was to be formed to meet certain requirements once it was formed.  Paragraph ¶431B 2. of the Plain Grace Plan states as follows: “The Petition of Intent shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Council of Bishops either in person, by mail or by electronic means and shall be received no later than May 29, 2021 at 5:00 P.M. local time at the Executive Secretary’s resident office. Unless within 30 days of receipt of the petition by the Executive Secretary, the Council of Bishops determines and states, in writing, based solely upon the face of the Petition of Intent, that the petition is deficient by its failure to meet one or more of the forgoing requirements then the petition shall be deemed approved.” (Emphasis supplied).  The Council of Bishops was required to perform the ministerial act of verifying that certain content appeared in the petition of intent.

Paragraph ¶431B 1. Made clear that the petition of intent to form a new denomination did not have to meet any artificial form requirements that the Council of Bishops might attempt to create after General Conference.  After establishing the basic requirement that the petition of intent required the signatures of 50 ordained clergy or one Bishop from anywhere across the connection ¶431B 1, provided: “The Petition of Intent shall not be required to conform to any particular form but it shall establish that the proposed New Expression, if formed, shall meet the following minimum qualifications required of a Full Communion Expression”. There followed four requirements: 1) intent to adopt a Common Core of Beliefs, and intent to enter into (2) a Full Communion Agreement, (3) a Gracious Affiliation Agreement and (4) a Dispute Resolution Agreement. Paragraph 431B.1. further limited the ability of the Council of Bishops to impose additional requirements with the express language: “No additional requirements shall be required in any Petition of Intent.”  Once the Petition of Intent is received and determined to meet these minimum requirements the new denomination could begin organizing using a process set for in the remainder of the Plan.  The main purpose of this requirement was to insure that new denominations that might ask central conferences, annual conferences and local churches to join here at their core Wesleyan.

On the other hand, under the Protocol legislation the first action required the Council of Bishops is found at ¶2556 2.a) and reads as follows:

Conditional Qualification—The United Methodist Council of Bishops shall conditionally recognize as a New Methodist Denomination, with which local churches and annual conferences may opt (by vote or default) to align, any proposed association of local churches, annual conferences, or central conferences that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The leadership group forming the new denomination must register their intent to form a New Methodist Denomination with the Secretary of the Council of Bishops by May 15, 2021.

(2) The New Methodist Denomination must propose a distinct legal existence, reflecting its polity, through incorporation of the New Methodist Denomination or incorporation of an administrative entity that is recognized under the applicable laws where it is organized.

(3) The New Methodist Denomination must propose to follow doctrinal standards consistent with the Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church, the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, and the General Rules of the Methodist Church, as set out in ¶ 104 of the Book of Discipline.

(4) The New Methodist Denomination must propose a definite and distinct ecclesiastical governance structure.

(5) The New Methodist Denomination must have written expressions of intent to align from a minimum of 100 United Methodist local churches, regardless of jurisdiction or geography, inside or outside the United States, that have voted under this paragraph or otherwise declared their intent to end their connectional relationship with The United Methodist Church to form or join together with others to form a New Methodist Denomination. It may also include new local churches formed by members who have left United Methodist local churches.

Comparing ¶25562.a) with the approach under the Plain Grace Plan reveals these significant differences:

First, under the Protocol approach the Council of Bishops may conditionally recognize a new denomination only after it determines that a new denomination meets all of the listed criteria.  This suggests that the Council of Bishops must perform an investigative adjudicatory act.  It is charged with the duty of determining that the criteria have been met.  Moreover, the body making that determination is the Council of Bishops.  Presumably they have complete discretion as to how they choose to implement the review process; they could delegate the role to a sub-group or choose to act as a Committee of the Whole.  In addition, there is no time limit for the Council of Bishops to act.  Annual Conferences are currently scheduling special sessions for 2020; but what occurs if the Council of Bishops hasn’t conditionally approved a new denomination by the time of the session? Under ¶2556 2 c) the annual conference can’t vote to join a new denomination because it hasn’t been conditionally qualified.

The Plain Grace Plan made the process ministerial, identified the form of the petition, identified to whom it would be submitted, provided a 30 day deadline for the Council of Bishops to act and established that a failure of the Council of Bishops to act resulted in the petition being deemed approved.  I recognize that is a lot of detail but I also suggest that such detail provides a great deal of certainty in the process.

Under the Protocol legislation the Council of Bishop is required to determine that “The New Methodist Denomination must propose a distinct legal existence, reflecting its polity, through incorporation of the New Methodist Denomination or incorporation of an administrative entity that is recognized under the applicable laws where it is organized.’  This would appear to impose upon the Council of Bishops an additional duty of insuring that new denomination is legally formed.  Does the Council of Bishops have the legal expertise to make this determination?  If not, what will they rely upon, an opinion of legal counsel?  How long will that take to obtain such an opinion?  Who will be writing the opinion? Who will pay for the opinion?  In a similar vein, what is meant by requiring the Council of Bishops to insure that the denomination submits information “reflecting its polity”?  The Judicial Council has stated “Impartiality and independence of decision-making bodies are the hallmarks of due process and bedrock principles of procedural justice in our constitutional polity.” Do the documents creating the new denomination’s legal existence require such statements concerning “polity”?  Finally, although it is not highlighted, this sub-paragraph of the Protocol legislation is requiring a new denomination to be incorporated in a single state.  A current Bishop once shared with me the following observation: “there is no corporate entity called ‘The United Methodist Church’. Instead, it is a connection of corporate entities bound together by a commitment to follow the Book of Discipline.”  The Protocol requires that a new denomination cannot follow the model of the United Methodist Church, the denomination itself must be incorporated.  This could be good or bad, but it would seem to me that this would be a decision for the new denomination, not a decision that should be forced on the new denomination by the United Methodist Church.  I’m not attributing ill motive to the drafters on this point, it is probably the law of unintended consequences at work.

As to requirement 3, as I have noted elsewhere, the Plain Grace Plan’s Common Core of Beliefs was chosen using the common core identified in the Report of the Commission on the Way Forward.  However, it was always understood and expected that the Common Core would be established by the General Conference.  The Common Core required by the Plain Grace Plan is “Adopt a Common Core of Beliefs, set forth in the New Expression’s Book of Discipline, that shall include the following: The Apostles’ Creed, the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith, the General Rules, the Wesley Hymns and a Connectional Way of Life that includes Superintendency, Itineracy, and Conferencing.  However, Superintendency, Itineracy, and Conferencing shall not be required to comply with the standards set forth in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline; a New Expression shall have the right to modify each of those Wesleyan systems by adoption of its own standards.”¶431B 1.a. On the other hand, Sub-Paragraph 3 of the Protocol legislation also uses a Common Core but limits it to the following: “The New Methodist Denomination must propose to follow doctrinal standards consistent with the Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church, the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, and the General Rules of the Methodist Church, as set out in ¶ 104 of the Book of Discipline.”  I think the scope of the required common core is a proper decision for the General Conference and either plan offers a reasonable starting point for deliberation by the General Conference.  I belive this is proper because I believe that the UMC has an obligation to insure that new denominations have at their heart the Wesleyan approach that is the United Methodist Church’s DNA. Interestingly, a debate on the issue of our Common Core might reveal how much, or how little we have truly in common and just how far some aspects of our “unity” extends.

The Protocol also requires the Council of Bishops to insure that “The New Methodist Denomination must propose a definite and distinct ecclesiastical governance structure.”  I suspect it possible that the Bishops may disagree over what constitutes a “definite and distinct ecclesiastical structure”.  The Plain Grace Plan handled this issue by requiring “a Connectional Way of Life that includes Superintendency, Itineracy, and Conferencing”.   But the Plain Grace Plan made it clear that a new denomination had freedom to structure its connection without oversight by the existing United Methodist Church:  “However, Superintendency, Itineracy, and Conferencing shall not be required to comply with the standards set forth in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline; a New Expression shall have the right to modify each of those Wesleyan systems by adoption of its own standards.”  I suggest that the Plain Grace plan is a much better approach on this issue.

Finally, it appears to me that sub-paragraph 5 of the Protocol legislation creates the ultimate “Catch 22”: (5) The New Methodist Denomination must have written expressions of intent to align from a minimum of 100 United Methodist local churches, regardless of jurisdiction or geography, inside or outside the United States, that have voted under this paragraph or otherwise declared their intent to end their connectional relationship with The United Methodist Church to form or join together with others to form a New Methodist Denomination. It may also include new local churches formed by members who have left United Methodist local churches.”  The Catch 22 results from the fact that under ¶2556 c), no local church can vote to join a new denomiation until the Council of Bishops have determined the denomination is qualified.  Essentially, Conditional Qualification may only occur when 100 local churches have voted to join together with others to join a new Methodist denomination.  Quite frankly, I’m not sure how to make sense of the muddle created by ¶2556 2 a)(5), ¶2556 2 b) and ¶2556 c); but I’m sure someone will clearly explain how all of these interconnected parts work in an elegantly simple manner to allow new denominations to form.  I’m confident its like the Texas two-step, its so simple it plumb evades me.

I am not trying to suggest that the Protocol shouldn’t be considered.  However, the signers of the Protocol have placed the process in a precarious position.  By pledging not to support any changes to the Protocol it suggests that the process is either take it or leave it.  Without amendments that is not an easy decision for me to make.  The coalition supporting the Protocol is fragile and it has been suggested that any tinkering with the proposed legislation will cause the Protocol to collapse.  Apparently, “straight is the path and narrow the gate” is one scriptural concept upon which all of the Coalition proponents have agreed.

In thinking about the Council of Bishop’s role under the Protocol legislation I am reminded of a quote from Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”  In the context of GC 2020 I would rephrase the quote: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your Protocol legislation.”

Thanks for reading and reflecting.  Come Holy Spirit.