The "Continuing" Shell Game

Intrigued by the news of a "trraditionalist" Methodist denominaion breaking away from the UMC, I couldn't help but revisit the experience Anglicans had with the Anglican Church in America, which initially endorsed the terms of Anglicanorum coetibus but in practice actively discouraged parishes that wanted to enter the Catholic Church, and in at least one case, it sued to prevent the exit. What puzzled me was why anyone would accept the promises of an in-group in charge that those who wished to leave the denomination would be given safe passage under some sort of plan yet to be finalized or approved.

I'm especially puzzled given the apparent timeline of Methodist events: in 2019, the UMC appears to have followed established canons whereby its overall governing body voted to retain its traditional definitions of marriage and sexuality. But by 2020, a body, or group of bodies, not constituting the governing body, somehow determined that this was unsatisfactory, and a new plan was proposed whereby those who had foolishly supported the 2019 vote would be allowed to leave the denomination with their parish property if they so chose. (If someone can make this clearer to me, I'll be grateful.)

So the majority somehow became "dissidents", who would nevertheless be treated with generosity once the new normal came to a vote in 2022. Or not, of course. How 2021. I sent for a free brochure from a law firm, Dalton Tomich, advising Methodist parishes on what they need to do to plan for all eventualities, given the likelihood that the next General Conference would make unpredictable moves in 2022 that would likely hurt parishes whatever option they chose.

The law firm's basic advice amounted to saying that that those in control had annouced a new set of policies and procedures that nevertheless wouldn't be enacted or approved until 2022, and certainly with no assurance that what emerged would be anything like what was being promised -- but meanwhile, any expectation that those in control would follow established canons was effectively suspended.

Their advice was basically to hire this law firm to negotiate a set of conditions now that would allow a parish to continue under the circumstances it wished whatever the outcome in 2022. The problem as I see this is that those in control now are pretty clearly not dealing in good faith, and presuming they'll stay in control as of 2022, they won't deal in good faith then, either.

So a parish that chooses this course will pay Dalton Tomich big bucks to negotiate a contract, which those running the UMC will reject in any case, and then they'll get to pay Dalton Tomich or some other law firm even bigger bucks when the situation deteriorates into litigation, which trust me it will.

And even Dalton Tomich recognizes that UMC bishops can move preemptively to close parishes that seem likely to cause trouble. Their advice, as far as I can piece it out, is to try to negotiate a contract that keeps the bishop from doing this before the bishop can shut them down. Yeah, that'll work.

Dalton Tomich suggests the current situation, even before a final plan is announced in 2022, is chaos, because the old order is effectively suspended, but nobody knows what to expect next, while the bishops, whom nobody trusts, are in control. According to the brochure, this has already happened among the Presbyterians, who used a similar process to purge traditionalists from the denomination.

Having seen a variation of all this among "continuing" Anglicans, I think this is simply a symptom of being Protestant during the final collapse of Protestantism. The only Protestant solution to the problem, which Dalton Tomich suggests at least as an option in its brochure, is to become an "independent" parish, or for that matter for individuals in a former parish to give up on affiliation except as attendees at "non-denominational" churches.

None of these is a good option for any number of reasons. So far, Catholic evangelism doesn't seem to have recognized this approach. Somebody should.