Bishop Bickerton on the UMC Protocol

I recently asked similar on-the-record questions to every living bishop who was part of the Mediation Team that developed on the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.” That whole effort was devoted to finally stopping the United Methodist Church’s bitter infighting by providing for a relatively amicable division. (After the Protocol was publicly released in early 2020, two Mediation Team members, Bishop John Yambasu of Sierra Leone and the Rev. Junius Dotson tragically died.) I will later report more all of the responses received as well as the wider context. But one response that may be particularly of interest was from New York Bishop Thomas Bickerton, who is now also president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops (COB).

Bickerton informed me, “I have received confirmation from Bishops [Latrelle] Easterling, [Ken] Carter, [Cynthia] Harvey, [Greg] Palmer, [Christian] Alsted, & [Rudy] Juan (signers of the Protocol) that they are signing on as well to the answers I provided” to the questions sent them, and that “These answers represent our mutual agreement on these matters.” I was not entirely sure how much deeper this went than Bickerton’s recent suggestion that he spoke for the entire United Methodist Council of Bishops in his unqualified support for elective abortion. Later, both Bishops Cynthia Harvey and Latrelle Easterling did independently express their support for Bickerton’ answers (in the context of declining to provide their own separate answers for most of my questions).

However, I understand the separate email responses I received from the other bishops on the Protocol Mediation Team to represent more directly what each of them individually thinks, expressing personal nuances that may not have been possible to incorporate into a joint statement.

Bickerton began his response by referring me to an earlier joint statement signed by all seven of these bishops, entitled the “Bishop’s Protocol Response Statement” reportedly released on June 9.

A brief history review is in order.

When the Protocol was released in early 2020, after months of careful, professionally mediated negotiations, its 16 Mediation Team members all publicly signed onto the Protocol Agreement document, with consensus on each of its terms. These terms included all endorsers “agree[ing] to use their best efforts to persuade any groups or organizations with which they are affiliated to support the legislation necessary to implement the Protocol” and to “not participate in or support legislation or other efforts that are inconsistent with the principles and terms of the Protocol and the implementing legislation” (Article I.4), as well as “agree[ing] that each of the provisions of this Protocol is integrated with and integral to the whole and shall not be severable from the remainder of the Protocol” (Article I.5).

But after March 2020, things began to shift. Increasingly, we saw liberal leaders and groups who claimed to support the Protocol exclusively emphasize parts they liked (especially the abeyance on complaints) while ignoring or undermining parts of the packaged deal that were essential for winning traditionalist support in negotiations.

Then on June 7 of this year, every surviving non-bishop, non-traditionalist Protocol Mediation Team member released their “Protocol Response,” declaring that they now oppose the Protocol. Despite all the concessions they had forced into the Protocol for their own benefit during the negotiations, the promises they made, and the fact that nothing has fundamentally changed the need for some comprehensive separation agreement like the Protocol. This statement was also endorsed by several liberal caucuses that had previously endorsed the Protocol as well as a couple who I never recall endorsing the Protocol.

The promise breakers’ statement continued earlier trends by selectively expressing support for “some of its most essential provisions”—while ignoring provisions that were most important for traditionalists. An extended critique from Good News magazine notes, among other things, how the statement’s reasoning raises the question of how much, if anything, these liberal Protocol endorsers actually did in the past year or two to honor the part of the Protocol Agreement about “using their best efforts to persuade” others to support the Protocol.

The Mediation Team members who took part in the Protocol negotiations, pressured traditionalists into making all kinds of unreasonable concessions, and now are openly breaking their promises in apparent hopes of gaining even more advantages for themselves are Virginia pastor Tom Berlin, the Rev. Egmedio “Jun” Equila, Jr. of the Philippines, Reconciling Ministries Network chief Janet Lawrence, West Ohio pastor David Meredith, and liberal caucus activist Randall Miller.

No one should ever again make the mistake of trusting any of these individuals to keep their word, at least not after they see some personal advantage in breaking it.

The Protocol bishops’ much vaguer statement was released two days later, apparently as a sort of response. The bishops “continue to affirm this work” that was done with the Protocol. But the wording does not make clear how much that goes beyond polite appreciation for previous efforts to still really wanting to see this proposal ever adopted, without major amendments. Indeed, the bishops talk in terms of leaving it up to General Conference delegates to address, while conveniently ignoring how the Protocol should have been before delegates earlier this week, but instead was needlessly taken out of their hands. And a hands-off approach now by Protocol sponsors is in stark contrast to both the earlier quoted portions of the Protocol Agreement and how several of these same bishops eagerly did so much to promote their preferred legislative agenda to delegates at the last General Conference, hardly abandoning their persuasion efforts after their plan had been submitted.

The bishops also exclusively single out for affirmation one liberal-favored part of the Protocol (the abeyance on complaint processes), reminiscent of their liberal-caucus allies’ disregard for other key parts of the package deal. And speaking of their liberal allies, the bishops closed their statement by declaring, “we are united in respect for our colleagues who are led to step away from the Protocol”—while expressing no such respect for or even acknowledgement of traditionalist Mediation Team members.

Now more recently, here are Bishop Bickerton’s responses on behalf of the other bishops to my questions about the Protocol:

Question 1.     What specifically, if anything, have you done in 2021 and 2022 to, in the words of the Protocol agreement, “use (your) best efforts to persuade any groups or organizations with which they are affiliated to support the legislation necessary to implement the Protocol?”

Bishop Bickerton: As an original signer of the Protocol, I continue to speak about the value of the Protocol as a piece of legislation that is before the upcoming General Conference.

Some context: This is not true for all United Methodist Protocol bishops. With such vague wording, it is not clear how much Bickerton’s speaking about the Protocol’s value has recently gone beyond the bare minimum. And again, occasional, brief statements from just some of these seven bishops pale in comparison to how much speaking and energy several of these same bishops poured into promoting their preferred liberal agenda throughout the lead-up to the 2019 General Conference.

Question2.    The Protocol Agreement states that it was all negotiated as a package deal. The “Moratorium” section was two paired agreements, including a moratorium on closing churches until after the next General Conference.  Have you remained committed through 2021 and this year to not closing any local church against its will or in circumstances where this was not absolutely and immediately necessary? Do you remain committed to this principle until whenever the next General Conference finally meets, even if this is not until 2024 or later? If so, may I ask how you have fulfilled and are continuing to fulfill this commitment?

Bishop Bickerton: We have established and maintained clear lines of communication with all churches under our care, especial those considering disaffiliating from the denomination. We are committed to processes that are fair and equitable.

Note: There was apparently some misunderstanding between Bickerton and myself on this question. Here I was not intending to ask about congregations necessarily considering disaffiliation, but about the Protocol Agreement’s moratorium on closing small congregations sooner than necessary.

After some further back-and-forth, Bickerton replied, for this line of inquiry: “Your words are accurate: we do not close churches unless there are ‘circumstances where this was not absolutely and immediately necessary.’  It is the posture we have maintained.” Because that reply came only after he told me of receiving endorsements from other bishops of his earlier responses, that last-quoted response two sentences should be taken as Bickerton only speaking for himself. We have observed that this has not been the recent practice of other liberal bishops. 

Question 3.    While details are being sorted, are you willing to agree, at least as a general principle, that as our denomination divides, congregations, campus ministries, and clergy should feel free to discuss relevant issues, shared accurate information, and make their own fair, free, and informed decisions without any bullying, mistreatment, or punitive changes in appointment?

Bishop Bickerton: Congregations and clergy should be engaged with Annual Conference leadership in discerning their best path forward based on accurate information.  There should be no coercion on either side as it relates to issues of disaffiliation.

Some context: The reality is that district superintendents and other annual conference officials generally cannot be trusted to share accurate and unbiased information, and have sometimes actively tried bullying or misleading people into staying United Methodist. Everything they claim should be checked.

The second sentence is better than nothing. But the proof of its sincerity will be seen in examining what, if anything, these Bishop Bickerton and other Protocol Mediation bishops are actually doing to stop the widespread bullying, coercion, and intimidation by institutionalist liberal officials of traditionalist pastors and congregations exploring disaffiliation.

Question4.    You publicly signed the Protocol, which would care for pension liabilities without forcing the sometimes-massive immediate payments required of disaffiliating congregations under ¶2553, let alone some of the additional burdens being imposed in many places.  People would like to trust that our bishops were sincere when they said they were committed to the Protocol and its values.  But then why won’t you, in the spirit of the Protocol, promote allowing congregations in at least your own episcopal area transfer into the Global Methodist Church under terms as close as possible to those of the Protocol, without needlessly large expenses or burdens?  (And please correct me if there is anything I am missing with this question)

Bishop Bickerton: As of today, the Protocol is only legislation to be considered by the delegates to the General Conference. It is aspirational in nature. Until the Protocol is acted upon, we must be governed by what currently exists in The United Methodist Book of Discipline. Paragraph 255[3], approved by the General Conference in 2019, currently provides the only clear pathway for churches to depart.

Some context: Many United Methodist conferences and bishops, including some bishops who were on the Protocol Mediation Team, have been choosing to impose ridiculously punitive and mean-spirited additional burdens on congregations disaffiliating under ¶2553. Yet Bickerton has broadly defended such impositions, being paraphrased by Religion News Service as claiming, “He doesn’t believe any are being punitive.” If the additional costs and other burdens listed here do not count as “punitive,” then nothing does.

Even without the Protocol, there have still been alternative church-law possibilities for letting annual conferences and congregations transfer into the Global Methodist Church on terms similar to those of the Protocol, if bishops were willing. But instead the American officers of the United Methodist Council of Bishops—including Bishops Bickerton and Harvey from the Protocol Mediation Team—have recently taken extraordinary judicial actions to block off such exit ramps, particularly by preventing the ability of annual conferences to withdraw on Protocol-like terms and to prevent congregations from using another longstanding Discipline provision (¶2548.2) to separate without some of the draconian difficulties associated with ¶2553.

Nevertheless, if Bishop Bickerton and other Protocol Mediation Team bishops wanted, they could still seek to use the UMC Discipline’s procedures for church closures (¶2549) to allow congregations to leave the denomination under more Protocol-like terms, without imposing needless difficulties.

But such responses and actions do not suggest any interest in doing so.