GC 2020 – The Protocol’s 100 Local Church Hurdle

Frank Holbrook 3 GC 2020

If one of the goals of the Protocol is to create a simple and quick way to allow votes for separation, one of the areas of the Protocol legislation that appears to frustrate this goal is the mission critical role assigned to Local Churches.  This post examines and analyzes their role and explains why the Protocol’s method for separation, as it employs Local Churches, is tremendously cumbersome, if not downright unworkable.

As an initial matter, Local Churches play an essential role in creating a new Methodist Denomination.  Both ¶2556 2.a) 5., addressing Conditional Qualification and ¶2556 2. c) 5., addressing Qualification include the same essential requirement for creating a new denomination.

Under the Protocol legislation Conditional Qualification requires “(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.” ¶2556 2. a)(5)

Qualification carries a similar requirement: “(4) The New Methodist Denomination must have 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 to change 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.” ¶2556 2. c)(4).

As to Conditional Qualification the 100 local churches must “have voted under this paragraph or otherwise declared their intent to end their connectional relationship”.  The question becomes, how does this Local Church vote or the otherwise declare their intention?

Let me begin with the phrase “otherwise declare their intent”.   How does a Local Church declare their intent without voting?  Does this provision suggest that a group within the local church can make such a determination without a vote?  Where does this authority originate?  It appears that the drafters of the Protocol need to explain how a Local Church, acting under the Book of Discipline, may “otherwise declare their intent to end their connectional relationship with the United Methodist Church” without a vote, otherwise this clause is mere surplusage and is a dead letter.

Analyzing the potential voting process reveals other problems.  As noted in the post concerning the role of the Council of Bishops under the Protocol Legislation, found here, under ¶2556 2 c), Conditional Qualification “provides recognition for voting”.  Thus, the 100 Local Churches that are required for Conditional Qualification must use a non-protocol process to vote to end their connectional relationship with the United Methodist Church.”  If the Process doesn’t appear in the Protocol how might a Local Church vote or otherwise declare its intent?

As far as I am aware, the only current method under the Book of Discipline for a Local Church to take steps to disaffiliate is ¶2553, enacted in 2019 as part of the Traditional Plan.  However, ¶2553 contains significant limitations.  First, and probably most significant, is that the only bases for taking a disaffiliation vote are identified as follows “a local church shall have a limited right, under the provisions of this paragraph, to disaffiliate from the denomination for reasons of conscience regarding [1] a change in the requirements and provisions of the Book of Discipline related to the practice of homosexuality or the ordination or marriage of self-avowed practicing homosexuals as resolved and adopted by the 2019 General Conference, or [2] the actions or inactions of its annual conference related to these issues which follow.” ¶2553 (internal numbering supplied).  I have written extensively on existing ¶2553.  My primary posts exploring the disaffiliation currently availed under the Book of Discipline are Thoughts on Gracious Exit and Gracious Affiliation Part 1 and Thoughts on Gracious Exit and Gracious Affiliation Part 2.

Logically, it would appear to me that Local Churches who wish to form a New Methodist Denomination that supports the current stand of the Book of Discipline cannot avail themselves of a vote under ¶2553 since they agree with the current Book of Discipline.  This hurdle to a vote is compounded by the fact that the Protocol defines a Traditional Methodist Denomination as follows: “Traditionalist Methodist Denomination shall mean a New Methodist Denomination that maintains the current stance of the Book of Discipline regarding the definition of marriage and ordination standards related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer persons.”  So to vote in favor of joining a new traditionalist denomination, a Local Church has to support the current Book of Discipline but under ¶2553 a Local Church in those circumstances can’t take a vote to disaffiliate.

So ¶2556 2.’s requirement of the vote of 100 Local Churches would have to involves 100 Local Churches in an annual conferences  where the annual conference has taken action or inaction inconsistent with the Book of Discipline.  Is there a currently an existing list of those non-compliant annual conferences that will be recognized as authoritative by the Council of Bishops?  Will a Bishop be able to affirm to the Council of Bishops that their annual conference or Episcopal area is non-compliant?  Will they in fact do so?  One should remember, the Protocol legislation gives the Council of Bishops the role of insuring that all the requirements are met for Conditional Qualification.

Once quickly sees that what appears at first glance to be a bright line test of 100 supporting Local Churches becomes a murky area where the Council of Bishops, in their role of insuring compliance with the requirements of new ¶2556 2. will have to determine that the 100 Local churches have voted in compliance with ¶2553 of the Book of Discipline.  It appears to me that the only alternative would be for the Council of Bishops to disregard the requirements of existing ¶2553 of the Book of Discipline and say that any vote taken by a Local Church under any circumstances satisfies the requirements of ¶2556 2.  Here is where the traditionalist’ s call for accountability and consistent enforcement of the Book of Discipline runs into the potential roadblock that if the Book of Discipline is enforced, 100 Local Churches may not be available to meet the requirements of ¶2556 2.  Is everyone confident, that this aspect of the plan doesn’t require compliance with ¶2553? If so, are those same people confident that if failure to require compliance is challenged, that the plan would pass muster with the Judicial Council?  I’m not confident that will occur.

What are the additional hurdles under ¶2553?  Assuming the vote has to comply with the Book of Discipline aside from the limited availability of invoking ¶2553, the vote must comply with the following requirements: “3. Decision Making Process—The church conference shall be conducted in accordance with ¶ 248 and shall be held within one hundred twenty (120) days after the district superintendent calls for the church conference. In addition to the provisions of ¶ 246.8, special attention shall be made to give broad notice to the full professing membership of the local church regarding the time and place of a church conference called for this purpose and to use all means necessary, including electronic communication where possible, to communicate. The decision to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the professing members of the local church present at the church conference.”  Thus additional hurdles necessary for a valid vote are a call for a vote by a District Superintendent, a vote within 120 days after the call, valid notice and a ⅔ majority vote at a church conference.  Bear in mind, that if the analysis above is correct, the District superintendent in charge of scheduling and conducting the vote will be a member of a non-compliant annual conference.  I’m not sure most people will find that to be a comforting set of circumstances.

The looming practical questions concerning the 100 Local Church requirement in the Protocol Legislation appear to me as follows:

First, assuming any entity has 100 Local Churches voting to leave the denomination, how many of those votes were taken in compliance with ¶2553?

Second, if the votes were not taken in compliance with existing ¶2553, is the Council of Bishops able to recognize them as valid?

Third, if the Council of Bishops offer a rationale for disregarding the requirements of ¶2553, will such a rationale pass muster before the Judicial Council?

Fourth, other than voting under ¶2553 of the Book of Discipline, is there in fact a method by which Local Churches May validly “otherwise declare their intent” to leave the United Methodist Church? If so, what is it?

The drafters of the Protocol Legislation had a number of tasks facing them in the short time between announcing the mediated agreement and offering proposed legislation.  The more I get into the weeds of the proposed legislation, I am reluctantly concluding that not enough attention was given to the process of separation.  Yet, separation is the ultimate goal of the Protocol.  A rough comparison shows that approximately 4 pages of the proposed legislation deal with the process of separation (pages 4-8).  On the other hand, Transitional Operation, Section 5, consists of approximately 7 pages, and provisions concerning Clergy Pensions receives 5 pages of attention (pages 17-22).  By pointing out this rough comparison I’m not suggesting that that too much time was spent on transitional and pension issues; however, I do sense that the separation process was not clearly thought through.

Of course, I may have misunderstood the qualification aspect of the separation process set forth in the Protocol.  If so, I’d be happy to have someone explain where I’ve got it wrong.  The optimist in me hopes I’m wrong.

I’ve lived long enough to come to the belief that hope is not a plan.  My life experience leads me to believe that it is an uncontroversial notion that careful planning is more valuable than lofty sentiments.  Of course, with God all things are possible and we should never abandon that truth.  However, I believe that the current level of optimism surrounding the Protocol Legislation, as least as it applies to the process of separation, appears to be built more on hope than the actual content of the plan.

Please continue to pray for GC 2020.

P.S. For new readers of this blog, please be aware that, other than Twitter, I don’t post the blog on social media.  I don’t have a Facebook account so Facebook comments, good or bad, don’t reach me.  If you would like to make a comment and want me to see it, please leave it in the comments section or e-mail me.  If you think the blog posts are valuable, please sign up to receive e-mail notification of new posts. They won’t automatically appear in your Facebook feed.  I don’t share your e-mail address with anyone and the only e-mails you’ll ever receive from this site are the notifications of new posts.  Thanks for reading and may God bless you.