Leading the process of changing the lifecycle of a church is very difficult. I remember one church where I gave them their three obvious choices:
Stay where we are, do what we are doing, slowly fade away. Become a chapel.
Sell everything and move to the other side of town where growth was happening. Become a new church plant.
Stay put and do the hard work of changing the makeup of the church to a more diverse congregation that represented the neighborhood. Become a different body.
Here is what usually happens in these truth telling scenarios: they tell you one answer, but they really don’t mean it. Because that answer requires much more commitment than they are willing to make. It requires sacrifices that are hard. It requires changes that seem impossible. It requires completely letting go of who we are and embracing something radically different. That is a bridge too far for most people.
Churches become comfortable, and that comfort directly affects their growth.
It is called inertia. Most all churches have it. The things they do become habits and we so rarely change our habits.
Side note: (That is why when the pandemic hit I was screaming at the top of my lungs to anyone who would listen: “USE THIS OPPORTUNITY! This is your moment. CHANGE! Do something different.” Yet so many churches just wanted to go back to normal, and missed this once in a lifetime opportunity.)
I am sure smarter people than me will go back and do a post mortem on The Protocol, but here is a generalized lifespan of The Protocol -
It was negotiated by the famous lawyer, Kenneth Feinberg, and announced with much enthusiasm as a breakthrough in the denomination’s current impasse. People from all different caucus groups supported it. It had signatures from Progressives, Centrists, Bishops, Traditionalists.
There was momentum heading into GC2020 of something finally happening that would set a different tone from the previous 6 General Conferences. People from all theological backgrounds were ready to move on.
The pandemic hit and everything was placed on hold. The Protocol was buried under new proposals (Christmas Covenant) and new paperwork (More new GC Legislation) and new (old- One Church Plan) ideas. Inertia hit.
After two postponed General Conferences (we can argue all we want about why and if they could have happened but that is missing the point), The Protocol is all but dead. In the political world we would call this a filibuster, but in the church world I have seen this time and time again. Inertia. Let’s go back to who we are before and do what we used to do. Maybe it will work this time. Sure some might try to say we rally The Protocol for GC2024, but that is not happening. Too much time has passed. The moment is lost. As I said, change is hard. Inertia is easy.
Ask ANY church consultant and they will tell you they have seen a similar pattern to this time and time again. 1 A big church consultant process, 2 a lot of fanfare, 3 a crisis happens, 4 the change is scrapped. It happens all the time.
So what’s next?
For a denomination in trouble, that remains to be seen. My guess is like so many churches before we will attempt to struggle along with some patch work and a new coat of paint hoping for the best. Various caucus groups will claim victory or defeat. There may be some weeping and gnashing of teeth or celebration of joy depending on where you were on the side of change.
It is my prayer that the Council of Bishops use the immense power that they have been given in this absence of General Conference to creatively and collectively enact the hopeful portions of The Protocol in their Annual Conferences. We can treat one another with hearts of peace without The Protocol.
The Protocol was Doomed
I am just a lay person with a passion for a lay movement in evangelism (getting ordinary people to tell people about Jesus and start small discipleship and support groups) Nothing big or fancy in my vision, but over the last 20 years I have discovered something I should have understood prior. Institutions by nature (and I believe by definition) resist change (in all fairness, I might say they resist chaos and try to bring stability to the process). Movements bring change and chaos, especially lay led ones. The conferences, the boards, the book of discipline, the "order", the legislation, the enforcement (or lack thereof of the legislation) are all attempts to reign in chaos and bring order (inertia) ... As I understand it, the Wesleyan "movement" was mostly lay led (I read that the U.S. church was started by two lay preachers) ... there was enough structure to provide a quarterly pastoral visit, communion, baptisms, weddings, and receive and offering to support the "institutional mechanism that provided that "structure". I am not naive (a person or action showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment) and realize that even house churches have structure (when do we meet, where do we meet, what do we do, how do we do it, who does what, etc) but i have also seen the desire for stability throw a wet blanket on a vision, passion or a movement and rather than be frustrated, I have analyzed it a I believe that it comes down to the concept of bringing stability and reigning in chaos. Some of this is needed but I believe the UMC has become "unbalanced" toward the stability end of the spectrum. One plus I see in a lay movement is since we laity "out number" the institution by a large percentage, that if we go about telling people about Jesus and meeting with them to help them grow, I am not sure I really care if the institution supports the movement, ignores the movement or actively works against the movement. I believe it can not only survive but thrive if we can just catch the vision and approach it with a holy passion that comes from the One who told us to be about "His" business. Maybe I am naive but I am willing to risk to work toward that vision. At this point we don't have much to lose other than being ridiculed. won't you join me?