by Steve | Feb 17, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
United Methodist Central Conferences Around the Globe.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Now that the enabling legislation for the “Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” has been publicly released, I am at liberty to share more fully the details of what it proposes. I previously wrote about how the process of separation would work for U.S. churches. This week, I want to hone in on the impact of a Protocol separation on the Central Conferences outside the United States. There are many intricacies involved in the various Central Conferences. This is not my area of expertise, and I would not presume to speak for them. However, I have spent extensive time over the past several years meeting with African leaders, as well as conversing with European and Filipino leaders. Based on what I have learned and what they have shared with me and others over the past six weeks, I can delve into some of the impacts of separation on the Central Conferences.
The United Methodist Church is a global denomination, with three Central Conferences in Africa, three in Europe, and one in the Philippines. About 40 percent of the church’s membership is in Africa, with an additional five percent split between Europe and the Philippines.
Process of Separation in the Central Conferences
The process of separation in the Central Conferences under the Protocol would be different from that in the U.S. at the request of the two bishops representing the Central Conferences on the mediation panel.
Unlike in the U.S., where jurisdictions have no role in voting on alignment, the Central Conference meetings could take a vote on whether to align with a new traditional Methodist denomination. By a two-thirds vote, a Central Conference could decide to align with a new Methodist denomination. A Central Conference that fails to reach the two-thirds threshold or does not vote by December 31, 2021, would remain in the post-separation UM Church. All the annual conferences in each Central Conference would automatically align with whichever denomination the Central Conference chooses.
Once a Central Conference has voted or the deadline date has passed, any annual conference in that Central Conference may vote to align differently by a 57 percent majority. For example, if the Central Conference votes to align with a new traditional Methodist denomination, an annual conference by a 57 percent vote could decide to remain part of the post-separation UM Church. On the other hand, if the Central Conference remained part of the post-separation UM Church, an annual conference could vote by 57 percent to align with a new traditional Methodist denomination. Any annual conference that fails to reach the 57 percent threshold or does not vote by July 1, 2022, would remain in the alignment of its Central Conference. All the local churches in each annual conference would automatically align with whichever denomination the annual conference chooses.
Once an annual conference has voted or the deadline date has passed, a local church could vote to align differently than its annual conference. The church council or equivalent leadership group in the congregation would have to decide whether to require a simple majority vote or a two-thirds vote to change the church’s alignment. At a church conference, all the members of the church present and voting could make that decision to align differently from their annual conference.
Unlike the process in the U.S., churches in the Central Conferences could not act early before their superior entity has acted. Central Conferences must act first, then annual conferences, and finally local churches. (Note that the failure to decide by the deadline is a decision.)
Property Considerations
Any property owned by a Central Conference would continue to be owned by that Central Conference in whichever denomination it aligns. Any property owned by an annual conference would continue to be owned by that annual conference in whichever denomination it aligns. Any property owned by a local church would continue to be owned by that local church in whichever denomination it aligns. There are no pension liabilities to worry about with the Central Conference Pension Plans, so that would not be an issue. Wespath would continue to administer the pension program for the Central Conferences in whichever denomination they align.
However, in a number of annual conferences outside the U.S., the annual conference owns the local church property. Where the annual conference owns and holds title to a local church property, the local church could not take its building and property with it if the local church decided to align differently from its annual conference. In such a case, the congregation could separate, but they would have to find a new place to worship.
Realistically, this means that in annual conferences that own the local church property, very few local churches will decide to align differently from their annual conference. For the most part, the annual conference will make the decision for all of its churches.
Unique Central Conference Concerns
One concern particular to many Central Conferences is the use of the name “United Methodist” and the cross-and-flame logo. The Indianapolis Plan and the Next Generation UMC Plan both allowed any new denominations that formed to use the name and logo with suitable modification to distinguish it from the post-separation UM Church. That is not the case with the Protocol. Any conference or church that aligns with a new Methodist denomination would have six months to change signage and remove the “United Methodist” name and logo from its material (excluding permanent or semi-permanent uses like building cornerstones).
Some parts of Europe already do not use the United Methodist name, but most do use the logo. The name and logo are widely used in Africa and the Philippines. Central Conference delegates who value the name and logo might attempt to amend the Protocol legislation to allow for continued use with modification. Alternatively, they may decide that, once the name and logo become connected with a U.S. church that affirms same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians, the name might become a liability rather than an asset. Nevertheless, Central Conferences will need to wrestle with this issue.
Of even greater concern to the Central Conferences is the flow of money to provide for the church’s structure, ministry, and mission. Most of that money comes from the U.S. part of the church, while some comes from churches in Western Europe. Several million dollars a year help pay for bishop salaries, annual conference expenses, and even pastor salaries in some places. Millions more are given to support hospitals, schools, colleges, seminaries, and other mission work. How will the church and its institutions and mission be supported following separation?
The Protocol provides for ongoing support for Africa University. Other than that, it leaves the denominations in existence after the separation to resolve these issues of support.
If some Central Conferences align with a new traditional Methodist denomination, that denomination would need to plan to pick up the infrastructure costs of the church, like staff salaries, office expenses, and annual conference operating expenses where needed. Mission support could come through the building of partnerships between annual conferences in the U.S. with annual conferences outside the U.S. Long-term relationships could be built, mutual learning could take place, and support could flow to projects via these partnerships.
The post-separation UM Church is looking at a budget cut of 18 percent even before any churches separate. Financial support could decline by at least ten percent and maybe by as much as one-third. In that environment, either the post-separation UM Church would need to shift priorities in order to maintain support for Central Conferences, or it would need to reduce that support if the money is not there to sustain it.
For Central Conference churches that align with a new denomination, it is important to know that the Protocol provides that the new denomination can contract for services from post-separation UM Church agencies, such as General Board of Global Ministries and General Board of Higher Education and Ministry. Individuals and churches in the post-separation UM Church could continue to support mission projects in the Central Conferences, even if they are no longer in the same denomination. The same is true of individuals and churches in a new traditional denomination being able to support mission projects in Central Conferences belonging to the post-separation UM Church.
An additional concern is how financial support can continue uninterrupted during the transition. The Protocol provides that apportionments should be paid to The United Methodist Church through the end of 2020 in order to maintain that continuous support. The new denomination(s) that form will need to build systems of accountability and secure handling of funds in order to incorporate churches in the Central Conferences. They will have a bit longer to do so, since it is probable that most Central Conferences that align with a new traditional denomination will not do so until several months into 2021 at the earliest. In the meantime, it would also be possible to contract with GBGM to act as a funding conduit where needed.
Incorporating the Central Conferences into a global church reality presents a challenge with many details to figure out. However, the benefit of a global church far outweighs the challenges. In the years ahead, may we truly live into a global partnership of equals, supporting and encouraging each other, no matter which denomination we end up in.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Feb 10, 2020 | In the News
Members of a diverse group of bishops and other United Methodist leaders gather for a group photo in Washington after reaching agreement on a proposal that would maintain The United Methodist Church but allow traditionalist congregations to separate into a new denomination. Photo courtesy of the Mediation Team.
The governing boards of advocacy groups who often are referred to as traditionalist, centrist, or progressive today announced their endorsement and support of the Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation. The following organizations join in this announcement:
The Confessing Movement within The United Methodist Church
Good News
Mainstream UMC
Reconciling Ministries Network
Uniting Methodists
UMC Next
Wesleyan Covenant Association
For additional information, contact Keith Boyette (540-538-3202) or any of the leaders of the enumerated groups.
by Steve | Feb 7, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Dr. David W. Scott-
Today’s guest post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. It originally was posted on UM & Global (umglobal.org) and is reprinted here by permission. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott’s own and do not reflect the official positions of Global Ministries nor Good News. Dr. Scott is neither a lawyer nor an accountant, and thus the following should not be interpreted as legal advice.
As previously discussed here, here, here, and here, The United Methodist Church as a whole is not a legal entity capable of owning property or financial assets. Local church property (real or personal, tangible or intangible) is owned by local legal entities and held in trust for the denomination as a whole.
This trust clause applies to the property of all parts of The United Methodist Church, but local churches are in a unique position with regard to the trust clause for several reasons: ¶2503 of the Book of Discipline explicitly names the annual conference, which generally is a legal person capable of owning property, as having authority over local church property. Several other places in the Discipline also give the annual conference explicit powers regarding the sale or transfer of local church property or its release from the trust clause. ¶2509.2 gives annual conferences the authority to bring lawsuits to enforce the trust clause. All of these provisions add up to clear enforcement of the trust clause on local churches by annual conferences.
Thus, the trust clause as applied to local church property has generally stood the test in secular courts. While in some instances departing congregations have negotiated with their annual conferences to take assets, when the trust clause has ended up in court, annual conferences have almost always won ownership of the property of departing congregations. Incidentally, that’s true not just for the UM Church, but also for the Episcopal Church and other bodies that also have a trust clause in their church law.
As cut and dried as the trust clause may appear, there are facets to keep in mind when thinking through the sorts of conflicts and potential lawsuits that might arise over ownership of local church property.
First, while most people assume that the trust clause means that the annual conference owns local church property, that’s not technically true. The annual conference has authority over local church property, and local church property reverts to the annual conference if it ceases to be owned by a local UM congregation, but the annual conference is not the legal person who owns the church property.
Who technically owns local church property depends on whether a congregation is incorporated. Most sizable congregations are incorporated as 501(c)3 organizations, but many small congregations are not. This means that for incorporated congregations, the property is owned by the local congregation as a corporate entity. For unincorporated congregations, the property is technically owned by the trustees, who as humans are legal persons. In either case, property ownership is exercised in trust for The United Methodist Church. The owner(s) of local church property can’t do whatever they want with it; they must abide by the stipulations of the Book of Discipline.
One problem here is that most bankers, investment brokers, and real estate agents are not familiar with the intricacies of the Discipline. While it would violate the Discipline, it might be possible for local leaders to work with bankers, brokers, or real estate agents unfamiliar with the trust clause to sell or otherwise dispose of local church property without annual conference consent. Such action would violate the Book of Discipline and thus expose the local church and its leaders to lawsuits from the annual conference, but it might be harder for the annual conference to recover property that was already disposed of.
Of course, the exit provision passed by General Conference 2019 and any future exit provisions passed by General Conference 2020 reduce the chances for lawsuits between local congregations and annual conferences over control of property.
Second, it’s important to remember that local church property includes more than just buildings. The trust clause applies to all other property that a local church owns, from its hymnals to its choir robes to its sound equipment to its vans to its tableware. It also applies to all financial assets owned by a local church. Thus, the question of property ownership goes beyond whether departing congregations can continue to worship in their same building. Any or all of these items could be a point of conflict between a departing church and the annual conference.
Certainly, the church building itself (and perhaps a parsonage) would likely be the biggest point of contention, since that generally represents the largest chunk of a local church’s assets. After that, who cares who keeps the Sunday school books, right? Maybe, but maybe not.
Especially when it comes to financial property, local congregations may have significant assets beyond their building over which annual conferences may want to assert their ownership. And larger churches may have a non-negligible amount of property in the form of vehicles, equipment, books, supplies, etc. Annual conferences have an incentive to assert their right to this property, even if just to give themselves better leverage in bargaining with a departing congregation.
Again, exit provisions reduce the chances for lawsuits between local congregations and annual conferences over control of buildings, equipment, and any other property. It is therefore worthwhile to keep in mind the scope of assets that could be at stake in such lawsuits.
Third, it is worth noting the variety of local church financial decision-makers established by the Discipline. This array of decision-makers increases the chances for conflict over assets within the local church itself.
The Book of Discipline outlines property-related responsibilities for the charge conference, the board of trustees, the financial secretary, the treasurer, the finance committee as a whole, and, in cases where they exist, the permanent endowment committee and the directors of the local church foundation. Moreover, in multiple-point charges, there may be both local church trustees for the property of each congregation and a board of trustees for property owned by the charge as a whole.
The authority to make all decisions regarding property, both real and personal, is vested in the charge conference. Yet, to carry out its property and financial decisions, the charge conference relies upon the work of the board of trustees, the treasurer, the finance committee, and (if they exist) the permanent endowment committee and directors of the local church foundation. These individuals have access to and oversight of the property of a church. Thus, they might be able to direct this property to another church body (either another denomination or the annual conference) in defiance of or in absence of a charge conference decision, especially since charge conferences usually meet rarely.
Again, such action would violate the Book of Discipline and ultimately lead to lawsuits, but in an instance in which there is a lot of internal conflict within a church about that church’s continued relationship with the UM Church, there is the possibility for factions within the church to use control of church property as a means to achieve their preferred outcome.
Since this type of conflict would occur within a church, an exit plan would not necessarily mitigate it. Control of property within a highly divided congregation may actually become more contentious with the existence of an exit plan. Such a plan could make local property a prize to be fought for between local “leave” and “stay” factions, with each group seeking control of the property. Nonetheless, an exit plan that sets or allows a congregation to set a relatively high standard of agreement for exiting is likely to reduce internal conflict around that decision.
by Steve | Feb 3, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
General Conference 2019. Photo by Kathleen Barry, UMNS.
By Tom Lambrecht –
The legislation that would implement the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation has been completed. It has been sent for formatting and will be forwarded to several annual conferences that are supposed to have special sessions in order to adopt the legislation and submit it to General Conference. Those sessions need to occur before the middle of March, so that the legislation can be submitted before the 45-day deadline prior to General Conference.
As the legislation is released publicly, probably within the next week, more details will be available as to how separation would work under the Protocol. Future articles will address various aspects of the Protocol plan in coming weeks. This article will look at how separation might affect churches in the United States. Note that nothing has been decided or will become final until General Conference takes action on these proposals in May. The delegates may choose to change some provisions of the Protocol Plan (although the mediation team hopes that it remains relatively intact as it is).
Annual Conference Action
The first decision regarding how churches will align, whether with a New Methodist Denomination or with the continuing United Methodist Church, will be made in some annual conferences. The Protocol requires a 57 percent vote by an annual conference in order to align with a New Methodist Denomination. If the conference does not vote (a vote is not required) or does not achieve 57 percent, it will remain in the post-separation United Methodist Church.
In order to be eligible for annual conferences and local churches to vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination, a leadership group that is promoting such a denomination must register with the Council of Bishops prior to May 15, 2021. The leaders of a New Traditionalist Methodist Denomination will be ready to register on the day General Conference adjourns (May 15, 2020), so that annual conferences and local churches can consider aligning with that traditionalist denomination very soon.
There is a reasonable chance that up to a dozen U.S. annual conferences could achieve a 57 percent vote to align with a New Traditionalist Methodist Denomination. There might be a few annual conferences that could achieve a 57 percent vote to align with a New Progressive Methodist Denomination, but that is less likely. A number of annual conferences have already tentatively scheduled special one-day sessions of annual conference to consider a vote on alignment. Since nearly all U.S. annual conferences meet within six weeks of the adjournment of General Conference, it would be wise to postpone the annual conference’s decision on this important matter until later in the summer or fall, in order to give members a chance to learn about the options and carefully consider their decision.
An annual conference must take a vote where a motion to take such a vote receives the support of at least 20 percent of the annual conference members. Alternatively, an annual conference can decide to take a vote by its own normal processes. Where an annual conference is clearly not going to achieve a 57 percent vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination, it does not make sense to push for a vote of the annual conference. That would only foster divisiveness and hard feelings to no purpose. Annual conferences in the U.S. have until June 30, 2021, to take a vote. Otherwise, they will remain in the post-separation United Methodist Church.
All annual conference property, assets, and liabilities would go with that annual conference into the new denomination. This includes all local churches within that annual conference, unless a church votes to remain in the post-separation United Methodist Church or align with a different New Methodist Denomination. The only local churches that would need to vote are those that disagree with the alignment decision (whether by vote or by default) of their annual conference.
Local Church Action
Local churches in the U.S. can begin voting on alignment by late summer of this year. They do not have to wait until their annual conference has voted. Where an annual conference will likely remain part of the post-separation United Methodist Church, a local church in that conference need not wait until the June 30, 2021, deadline has passed in order to take a vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination. Where an annual conference has a reasonable chance of achieving the 57 percent margin to align with a New Methodist Denomination, local churches ought to wait until after the annual conference has voted before they take a local vote. If the annual conference aligns the way the local church would, the local church then would not need to take a vote. And that local church’s representatives at annual conference would be needed to reach the 57 percent.
The local church decision would be made by a meeting of the church conference, which includes all professing members present and voting (no absentee ballots). The district superintendent must call such a church conference within 60 days of a request by the pastor or the church council (or equivalent leadership body). The church council would need to decide ahead of time whether the margin for a decision to align differently from the annual conference would require a simple majority or a two-thirds vote, based on that local church’s context. If the highest value in that local church is unity, it might choose a two-thirds vote. If the highest value is honoring the convictions of the majority of the congregation, it might choose a simple majority vote.
If a local church votes to align with a New Methodist Denomination, it would take its property, assets, and liabilities with it into the new denomination. The local church’s share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liabilities would be transferred to the new denomination. The local church would not need to make any payments in order to align with a new denomination. Representatives of the local church and the annual conference would need to negotiate and sign a Separation Agreement that cares for the legal details, including the release of the trust clause. Terms of such an agreement would be strictly limited to impose no financial or other barrier to realignment.
Under the Protocol Plan, the earliest an annual conference or local church could effectively move into the new denomination would be January 1, 2021. Until then, local churches are expected to continue paying their apportionments and other obligations (pension, health benefits, etc.) to their current annual conference. As a matter of integrity, such payments should continue, since there would no longer be a need to use apportionments as a tool to leverage a desired outcome (for either side). On the agreed Separation Date, the local church would no longer pay apportionments to their UM annual conference and would begin paying apportionments at the level set by their new denomination.
Local churches would have until December 31, 2024, to take a vote on aligning with a New Methodist Denomination.
Churches that Become Independent
The Protocol Plan also contains provisions allowing local churches to withdraw from The United Methodist Church and become independent, not aligning with any New Methodist Denomination. These provisions are necessary because ¶ 2553 passed by the St. Louis General Conference last February is being challenged due to voting irregularities.
The provisions for churches to become independent are similar to what was passed in ¶ 2553. Such a decision would require a two-thirds vote of the church conference (all professing members present and voting). The local church would keep its property, assets, and liabilities. The local church would have to be current on the previous 12 months’ apportionments and pay an additional 12 months’ apportionments. It would also have to pay its share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liabilities, an amount that can run anywhere from roughly three to six times their annual apportionment. Pension provisions adopted in St. Louis provide for the possibility of a payment plan for these liabilities.
Obviously, it is better financially for churches to align with a New Methodist Denomination than to become independent. However, churches should not believe that they could align with a new denomination and then change to become independent without paying anything. The new denominations will have provisions requiring at least the recovery of the church’s share of unfunded pension liabilities before allowing a church to exit and become independent.
Local churches would have until December 31, 2024, to vote to become independent.
Questions?
This article gives the basics of what the separation process would be in the U.S. There may well be additional questions that are not answered here. I invite you to send your questions via reply email, and I will try to address them in a future article.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jan 27, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Chappell Temple –
He’s not exactly a theologian, but we could perhaps call him a prophet of sorts. Six years before the United Methodist Church was even formed, Neil Sedaka got it right in his signature song of 1962: “Breaking Up is Hard to Do.” And that is so not only because there are numerous challenges as to how to divide the property and navigate all the relationships, but more so because if the marriage — or the church — was ever any good at all, there should indeed be deep grief when a separation becomes necessary.
Unfortunately, such is where we are as United Methodists. For it is now rather inescapably obvious that even if we might still have warm feelings for one another, we cannot all live in the same house any longer. I had hoped we would not come to this point. Forty-five years ago, I joined the Texas Annual Conference as a pastor and for thirty of those years I have had the chance to serve as a member of the Texas Annual Conference delegation to jurisdictional and then General Conferences.
But the entirety of my ministry as an ordained pastor has also been framed by the underlying tension of divergent views within the UM Church on not just human sexuality but also the authority of scripture, the nature of revelation, the role of missions, the application of social justice, and even the identity and divinity of Christ. And in the whole of it what we have discovered as a church is that for all of its merits, there are also limitations to the grand idea of pluralism.
To be sure, the famed dictum of “unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things,” is a wonderful goal, though John Wesley was hardly the first person to espouse it. You can find the quote at least a century before him, in fact, in the writings of a Catholic Archbishop who ended up attacking both the papacy and the English church before eventually being declared a relapsed heretic unable to be in unity with anybody. As wonderfully aspirational as the motto might sound, thus, it simply does not work when people cannot agree on what the “essentials” actually might be.
All of which is why I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that fifty-two years after its founding, the UM Church must likewise now be reformulated. And though there is no perfect plan, the recently announced “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” would seem to be the best proposal that will come before the General Conference in May. For the Protocol will allow for those of varying theological and social understandings to follow their conscience without the continual acrimony and ideological struggle that has marked our denomination for decades.
Traditionalists, for instance, will be able to retain what have been the historic beliefs and practices of Methodism, though in a new wineskin that will also allow for a more local and lay-centered polity. Progressives, with the addition of a regional conference for the United States, will be empowered to pursue their vision of a church with a broader understanding of sexual ethics, identity formation, and ever-emerging revelation of God and God’s Word. Centrists will be free to embrace their pragmatic approach to ministry. And those in the central conferences outside of the United States will have liberty to decide which expression of Methodism best matches their own understanding, discerning whether simply retaining the current name and logo is important enough to remain organically affiliated with those espousing practices with which they may not agree.
Again, the Protocol is not perfect. Some on the progressive side may question why conservatives should receive twenty-five million dollars, forgetting that Methodists of many opinions contributed those funds in the first place over a rather long period of time. And others on the conservative side may think that the amount is not in any way commensurate with what traditional church members have poured into our collective life for decades.
Likewise, many traditionalists may wonder why they should be the ones to give up the denominational name and apparatus when they have, in fact, prevailed in every General Conference vote since 1972 and it is those within the progressive caucus who have not only defied our common Discipline but brought us to this brink of separation in the first place. Some have even said that it feels like we are being paid off just to go away.
But in the end, the more significant result of adopting this Protocol will be that churches, or even annual conferences, of any persuasion will be able to follow their conscience out of the UM Church should they feel the need to do so without the penalty of loss of any of their local properties and resources. And that is a provision whose value cannot be overstated. For relaxing the Trust Clause is like loosening someone’s grip around your neck and being free once more to not only breathe but to go where you may feel God is leading you.
In that regard, it will be critical for clergy, congregations, and conferences to clearly understand just exactly what the outlines of the emerging realities may be. In order to continue to support the understandings which the world-wide United Methodist Church has prayerfully and consistently embraced over its entire history it will probably be necessary to leave not Methodism but The United Methodist Church. For without doing so, all of us will remain stuck in an endless “Groundhog Day” of debate, dissension, disobedience, and disarray. The General Conference, bolstered by the growth of the denomination in Africa and elsewhere, may have the votes to retain the current stances on sexuality, for instance, but it will not have the power to enforce its decisions and so the resistance will only get worse.
On the other hand, should conferences and congregations be allowed to form a new expression of global Methodism, all kinds of exciting possibilities and ministry opportunities await us. Ideally, if annual conferences as a whole choose to make the shift, then the vast majority of our congregations will never even have to vote on the questions. But even if conferences do not change, local churches still can do so, choosing to align with a larger group that more closely mirrors their own convictions and aspirations.
All kinds of details still need to be worked out, of course. Pastors and congregations need to be afforded a transition period so that if clergy and churches choose separate paths there will still be a chance to make that shift more graciously without an immediate appointment change. And bishops too will have to determine their own destinies, with each of them honestly following their convictions no matter where they may lead.
There is still time, however, for those writing the specific language of the proposal to address such concerns, and at the General Conference there will still be the possibility of amendment. But if the gist of what has been proposed can be enacted, Methodists can do something rather remarkable which other Protestant bodies have been unable to accomplish: separating without all the acrimony and legal and financial fighting that has marked such divisions elsewhere.
My hope is that those of us who may leave the UM Church may go out as new missionaries to the world, ready to follow the original guiding vision of our movement, “to spread scriptural holiness” across the globe. And I genuinely wish that as these two new expressions of Methodism emerge, we will once again be able to look upon each other as brothers and sisters, or at least “cousins” in Christ, and not simply adversaries across a General Conference committee or assembly room.
Yes, if the Protocol is adopted, conservatives will walk away from much of what we have helped to build over the decades. But the words of Jim Elliot, the famed missionary of the last century, come to mind: “he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”
The truth is that we cannot keep going the way we have been. And we dare not lose the gospel with which we have all been entrusted. The Protocol is at present our best pathway to peace.
The Rev. Dr. Chappell Temple is the lead pastor at Christ United Methodist Church in Sugar Land, Texas. He has also served as an adjunct faculty member for Perkins School of Theology. This editorial was originally written for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and is used here by permission.
