Support for UMC Protocol Continues across Geographic, Theological Divides

John Lomperis on May 7, 2021

In early 2020, the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation,” a professionally negotiated peace-treaty proposal to divide the United Methodist Church, was released with great fanfare. Support for this UMC “Protocol” soon poured in from all major segments of our denomination.

I have been strongly critical of several specific aspects of this Protocol. But the reality of the negotiations and compromises were such that no one was thrilled with the final product.

After decades of worsening theological and geographic tensions and mistrust, I cannot over-emphasize how remarkable it was to see such widespread support for the UMC Protocol from across all of our major divisions. The 16-member Mediation Team that negotiated and committed to supporting the Protocol included leaders from the Council of Bishops, liberal and evangelical U.S.-based caucuses, the general-agency bureaucracy, and all four of the central-conference regions outside of America (though inexcusably, it did not include any non-American who identified as a strong theological traditionalist).

Broad expressions of support for the Protocol soon came from across the UMC. Within days, Bishop Patrick Streiff, an influential, liberal European Bishop, declared, among other things, “I support the mediation protocol….” Endorsements came from various General Conference delegations. Most of the 2020 delegation chairs and co-chairs from the Southeastern Jurisdiction released a statement supporting the Protocol for the UMC’s future and asking that “the Protocol be among the first legislative items considered by General Conference 2020.” (Signatories were evenly split between those who are more traditionalist and those who are more liberal in their values). The Filipino College of Bishops declared their support for the UMC Protocol, particularly expressing appreciation for how under the Protocol, “the voice of every church, annual conference, central conference will be respected and honored.”

 By early February, the leadership of major traditionalist, progressive, and self-described “centrist” caucuses—the Confessing Movement, Good News, Mainstream UMC, the Reconciling Ministries Network, Uniting Methodists, UMC Next, and the Wesleyan Covenant Association—announced that they all formally endorsed the Protocol.

A key legal breakthrough came when an annual conference in the Philippines unanimously voted to endorse the Protocol and also submit its implementing legislation to General Conference. The Sierra Leone Annual Conference in West Africa voted unanimously to do the same.

There was powerful momentum going into May 2020.

But then… the COVID-19 pandemic hit, dramatically disrupting everything. Dates for General Conference have already been changed three times, and it is now scheduled for 2022.

Does this somehow fundamentally change the need for the separation Protocol?

I do not see anyone seriously arguing that our fundamental theological differences (on sexual morality as well as such basic questions as who Jesus Christ is or what is the primary point is of having a church) are now suddenly possible to reconcile. Nor do I see that the internal tensions (which United Methodists on different sides liken to being married to a persistently abusive or unfaithful spouse) are no longer deeply painful. Nor have I seen anyone making a clear, informed argument or that there has been some dramatic new turn away from our denomination’s long historical trajectory leading to this impending split.

But has the extended time and the realities of the pandemic nevertheless, somehow, led to the key players in the UMC backing away from supporting the Protocol?

Millions of United Methodists around the world have a great many different opinions. I have not counted and classified every random comment by all individual United Methodists on the Protocol.

But even well into the pandemic, I have seen several key public statements expressing continued support for the UMC Protocol, from a geographically and theologically diverse range of recognized United Methodist leaders.

Last fall, the extremely liberal bishops and some other leaders of the U.S. Western Jurisdiction launched a campaign they described as “promoting the Protocol” and offering their vision for the post-separation UMC (psUMC).

Now in 2021, several prominent public statements from other liberal American leaders addressed a range of issues but also re-affirmed support for the UMC Protocol.

On February 25, the LGBTQ-focused Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) – which has long been the UMC’s chief liberal caucus – declared, “RMN supports both the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.”

Then on March 2, the liberal UMC Next caucus declared, “UMC Next continues to support the Protocol and its legislation….” UMC Next’s Convening Team includes such liberal luminaries as North Texas Bishop Mike McKee (president of the General Council on Finance and Administration), Cynthia Weems (a top deputy of Florida Bishop Ken Carter), celebrity megachurch pastor Adam Hamilton, Tom Berlin (lead submitter of the “One Church Plan”), and lesbian activist Karen Prudente (chair of the militant Methodists in New Directions caucus).

Then on March 16, the overwhelmingly liberal Michigan delegation, co-chaired by Connectional Table administrator and likely bishop candidate Kennetha Bigham-Tsai, “affirm[ed] its original support for The Protocol….”

Then last month, North Georgia’s aggressively liberal Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson, together with her very liberal cabinet, declared, “We support the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace….”

Meanwhile, on February 16, an international group of theologically traditionalist bishops, caucus leaders, and prominent pastors released our own statement strongly “support[ing] the passage of the Protocol’s implementing legislation that would allow for an amicable separation of the UM Church into two or more new churches.” This same group (which included myself, IRD President Mark Tooley, and UMAction Steering Committee chair Martin Nicholas) met in Atlanta last year to set the vision for the more traditionalist of the denominations to emerge from the coming separation.

A more mixed group is my own Indiana Conference delegation, elected in 2019. On the presenting controversies around same-sex unions, roughly two-thirds of Indiana delegates are liberal and one-third are conservative. But in a straw poll of delegates present and voting at our March 6 meeting, 92 percent supported the Protocol. I do not expect us to ever get 92 percent agreement on anything else of substance.

Preparations for the coming separation continue around the globe. In February, leaders from all four UMC annual conferences in Nigeria affirmed the Protocol as well as traditional biblical values. On March 16, United Methodist leaders from across the Philippines released a statement indicating their expectation of the ultimate adoption of the Protocol and declaring their desire to continue into the Global Methodist Church. Similar statements have come from United Methodist leaders in parts of Africa.

Then last week, the Global Legislative Assembly of the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) overwhelmingly voted, by 248 to 7, to adopt a resolution officially endorsing the Protocol.

These recently expressed commitments of continued support for the UMC Protocol are a big deal, coming from such prominent leaders from such a broad geographic and theological range.

Yes, there are still some leaders who have never supported the Protocol. Yes, many bishops have been making indefensibly bad choices, of commission and omission, that have worsened mistrust in this interim period.  Yes, even though getting even 92 percent agreement is significant, I realize that it is–by definition–not  unanimous.

But beyond a few stray individuals, I have not seen any clear, consistent, organized, and public opposition to the Protocol from any widely recognized, long-established official or unofficial United Methodist group.

Furthermore, I am not seeing traction for any serious alternative to the Protocol that makes a serious, honest effort to actually addresses the realities of our unsustainable conflicts and irreconcilable differences. The main possible alternative plans that had previously gotten significant support—from the Traditional Plan 2.0 to the UMC Next Plan—were much more “partisan” plans, which have since been abandoned by their sponsors in favor of the Protocol.

I am as frustrated as anyone by the delays and related uncertainties. But one year after the “2020” General Conference was originally scheduled to meet, there is plenty of evidence that support for the Protocol remains strong across our major divides, even after pandemic-driven delays and disruptions.

  1. Comment by Tom on May 7, 2021 at 5:31 pm

    “no one was thrilled with the final product.”

    When I was doing budgets and forecasts in my career, that was the usual gauge of success.

  2. Comment by Reynolds on May 7, 2021 at 5:58 pm

    The liberals are thrilled because the vote percentages to leave the UMC is in their favor. They are already try to oust orthodox leaders form churches. Look at Mt Bethel. The y get a whole year of creating chaos to tip the scales in their favor. I think you will be shocked how fewer churches will leave. I would like someone from the WCA to give an estimate of how many US churches will join GMC. I will take the under.

  3. Comment by Pat on May 7, 2021 at 7:44 pm

    The liberals are using the delays to remove traditional pastors from churches to load the deck, regardless of the official vote for the protocol. Church members are not stupid and are leaving the church in droves because leadership in the USA UMC is liberal and they want all the power, money and property.
    The new GMC would have a real chance if the local churches were given operational authority to handle the local church, property, etc. Following the same management format for the GMC will not work, as local members have no more say in the local church than they do now.

  4. Comment by Gary Bebop on May 8, 2021 at 3:16 pm

    John, your taxonomy is notable, but there’s no guarantee of the Protocol ever reaching delegates of a General Conference. The comment box tells us there are many nervous traditionalists Instinctive fear that liberal bishops and acquiescent trads in the episcopal cohort will throw impediments in the path to separation (because they don’t want it to happen) may be justified. Chris Ritter says an “institutionalist traditionist” is the rarest of birds. I take that to mean there’s little chance of episcopal support for a reasonable path to separation.

  5. Comment by td on May 8, 2021 at 8:44 pm

    It does not surprise me that there are no leaders against this agreement. It was devised to protect clergy around an issue that is largely concerns clergy behavior.

    But i am not convinced that many local churches will actually be able to leave the UMC to join those committed to the apostolic faith. The 57% thresholds are just too high. And very few annual conferences will vote to leave.

    Amen. So be it. The laity aren’t in charge.

  6. Comment by Claude on May 9, 2021 at 11:18 am

    The Protocol was designed to be implemented reasonably quickly. During the delay, liberals have been using their institutional control to make it more difficult for churches and conferences to leave. I would like the choice to join a nearby traditionalist Methodist church. I’m concerned that the odds of having that choice keep going down.

  7. Comment by Jeff on May 11, 2021 at 1:44 am

    td nailed it.

    And not only are the laity not in charge, many of us are questioning the very credentials of our supposed “betters” in the clergy and in the episcopacy.

    The UMC hierarchy is lost, but the GMC better clue in! They are so thoroughly invested in their investments that they are oblivious to the fact that we poor unwashed sheep (at least those of us who actually READ our Bibles!) can vote with our little hooves and LEAVE the quasi-Methodist church in droves (or flocks, you choose).

    Enough said. You clued-in clergy (the bishops are hopeless!) already SEE this happening every time your finance chair presents the financials at your church board meetings. How long will you remain silent from your pulpits?

    “Upon this Rock I will build my Church and

  8. Comment by Jeff on May 11, 2021 at 1:47 am

    … the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!
    This is a promise we can trust!
    But the UMC has withdrawn itself from the LORD’s Church. I pray for its return.

  9. Comment by Diane on May 19, 2021 at 2:11 pm

    Meanwhile, ordinary folks in small-town, moderate-leaning UMC churches are being offered more opportunities to get to know on a personal level – and interact with – lgbtq folks. I’m not a United Methodist, but during the pandemic , I’ve regularly watched the live-streamed worship services at one medium-size UMC congregation in my community. Now that they’ve gone back to in-person worship, they continue to live-stream as part of their faithful witness to homebound folks and others. This past Sunday, an adorable infant child was baptized in this church. The parents standing beside the pastor were a same-sex couple, members of the church. Family members (grandparents, aunts, uncles) stood near, their faces beaming. As the pastor cradled the newly-baptized child and strolled down the center aisle to introduce this precious little-one to the congregation, I noticed all the smiles of those in the pews. A long established congregation, there was no shortage of graying seniors in those pews. They, too, were all smiles.

    It’s lived opportunities like this baptism that will ultimately help influence which direction a congregation will choose in regard to the Protocol. There are those on the outside like myself looking in and waiting anxiously – wondering if the UMC has room for not only lgbtq folk, but for those of us who affirm the sacred goodness and worth of our lgbtq family and friends, longing to see their full inclusion in the church.

  10. Comment by Diane on May 20, 2021 at 12:03 pm

    By the way, the UMC church where the baptism was held is not a Reconciling Congregation. Just a church with lots of diversity, including lgbtq individuals, lgbtq civil-married couples and their family members.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.