How United Methodist ‘Protocol’ Already Became Financially Better for Post-Separation UMC

We at IRD/UMAction continue to see widespread support across the theological spectrum for the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” peace treaty to divide the United Methodist Church. But we have occasionally seen some liberal leaders griping against the United Methodist Protocol’s financial portion, particularly with an overly narrow, out-of-context focus upon the $25 million that it would allow the Global Methodist Church (GMC) to inherit. A review of the bigger picture along with newer data from the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), showing a dramatically improved picture for UMC financial assets, makes such complaints increasingly take seriously.

It cannot be overstressed how, according to the Protocol proposal’s preamble, after the split, the Global Methodist Church will continue maintaining the UMC’s historic and still-official doctrinal and moral standards relevant to marriage and sexual morality, while the post-separation United Methodist Church (psUMC) will liberalize them. 

To most theologically traditionalist United Methodists as well as outside observers, it is difficult to explain why in any split, most of the denomination’s institutions (seminaries, denominational agencies, etc.) and assets would not be inherited by traditionalists, those who support the official positions of the denomination.

But as I have explained, the Protocol actually would have the more liberal faction permanently take over numerous denominational institutions and tons of money, while letting traditionalists (by definition, supporters of historic, official UMC doctrine and morals) keeping only a tiny fraction of our own denomination’s “general” assets. And once again, any of the $25 million that the Global Methodist Church (not WCA or any caucus) actually received would mainly or entirely go to help non-American Methodists suffering from liberal U.S. donors defunding them.

Evidently, not everyone has gotten the memo.

I have recently continued to see undocumented rhetoric from some liberal commentators alleging or suggesting that the United Methodist Protocol’s financial settlement is unfairly “beneficial” to theological traditionalists, that $25 million is a huge portion of the UMC’s denomination-wide assets, that this financial settlement may somehow be financially ruinous for the psUMC, that our denomination does not even have money to afford basic things like necessary General Conference expenses, or that the Covid-19 pandemic has cramped denomination-wide assets to the point where Global Methodists could not fairly expect as much as $25 million.

All of this is demonstrably false.

I understand that at the time the United Methodist Protocol was negotiated in financial detail, the then-latest-available official reports showed that the UMC’s denomination-wide unrestricted net assets, excluding “fixed” assets like buildings, was $118.839 million (as of the end of 2018). The Protocol negotiators basically rounded that up to $120, allotted about one-third for the GMC and two-thirds for the psUMC, then took proportionately from each to support ethnic ministries in America and Africa University in Zimbabwe. The result was that $25 million was allotted for the GMC, $2 million was allotted for a theoretical ultra-progressive denomination (whose emergence now seems unlikely to actually happen), $39 million for the racial-justice fund, and more than $52 million would simply remain for liberals in the psUMC. Furthermore, the Protocol financial terms would have the liberalized psUMC inherit ALL of our currently united denomination’s hundreds of millions of dollars in restricted and fixed assets. Despite their less-liquid nature, these are still massively valuable, and it is difficult to overstate what a huge sacrifice it is for traditionalists to completely surrender 100 percent of them.

Whatever else one thinks of these financial terms, liberals are hardly being cheated!

Furthermore, contrary to what you may have heard, newer official data from GCFA show, the UMC’s denomination-wide assets have actually grown dramatically since what was available when the Protocol was negotiated. In both 2019 and 2020—even with the pandemic!—our denomination saw massive increases of both its total net assets and its unrestricted, non-fixed assets. In this short time period, the latter figure, which formed the basis for the Protocol’s financial terms, has more than doubled, from $118.8 million to $286.6 million—an increase of $167.8 million (141 percent)! Meanwhile, total UMC denomination-wide net assets increased by $219 million (35 percent).

But with the Protocol fixing the GMC’s portion at $25 million, the UMC’s strengthening financial picture means that without any renegotiations of the Protocol, percentage-wise, the GMC’s share of the inheritance is already becoming less and less while the psUMC’s portion is becoming more and more.

If the Protocol had pegged the GMC’s inheritance at a constant 21 percent of unrestricted, unfixed, general-church net assets, then these latest figures would entitle traditionalists to over $60 million instead of just $25 million! 

With the latest-available data (for the end of 2020), liberals would inherit more than 97 percent of our currently shared denomination’s total net UMC-wide assets—taking over $815 million vs. traditionalists’ $25 million.

Liberal United Methodists, do you really need to envy the GMC’s now-less-than-three-percent share?

Recall how in the prophet Nathan’s parable, the rich man with many sheep and cattle was not a hero when he slaughtered the poor man’s only, beloved lamb. 

We could talk again about how the UMC’s denomination-wide assets represent funds always given to an officially theologically traditionalist denomination, by generations of Methodist church members living and dead, the overwhelming majority of whom would likely qualify as theological traditionalists by today’s standards.

We could talk about the objective facts of how our denomination’s most liberal areas have in some ways been net drains on denominational finances, not even paying for their own bishops.

We could talk about how what traditionalists see as liberal “hardball” tactics formed much of the context for the Protocol. 

But the bottom line is that, financially and otherwise, the Protocol offers liberal United Methodists a much better deal than simple fairness. 

To use a South Side of Chicago analogy, the Protocol’s financial settlement is about as “financially beneficial” or “generous” for traditionalist United Methodists as if someone mugged me, took away my wallet, phone, shoes, and new winter coat, but reluctantly agreed to give me back two dollars from my own wallet so that I could at least have bus fare to get home. 

Or to put it a little differently, at the time the Protocol was negotiated and strongly endorsed by liberal bishops and caucus leaders, what we knew about denominational finances indicated that the GMC’s $25 million represented a mere 4.02 percent of our shared denomination’s total general net assets, while the psUMC’s inheritance would be over 95 percent. But a few liberals complained that the psUMC was allegedly getting too little and the GMC was allegedly getting too much.

Then by December 31, 2019, denominational finances were such that the GMC’s inheritance would have fractionally shrunk to 3.55 percent of our denomination’s $704 million of total general net assets. But a few liberals still complained that the psUMC was allegedly getting too little and the GMC was allegedly getting too much. 

Now with the financial figures updated for December 31, 2020, the GMC’s inheritance has further shrunk to 2.97 percent of our denomination’s $840.8 million of total general net assets.

To any liberal friends reading this, with no disrespect intended, can’t you see how in light of these facts, for anyone to still complain that the United Methodist Protocol’s financial settlement is allegedly too much for the GMC and too little for the psUMC begins to look a bit… unreasonable?