Rebuilding and Defending United Methodism Today – Part 7 of 9: The “Biblical [Dis]obedience” Siege vs. the Basis for Unity in the UMC

The following is an excerpt from the text for a speech delivered by UMAction Director John Lomperis on Thursday, November 21 at historic Boehm’s Chapel.  The gathering near Lancaster, Pennsylvania was hosted by the Eastern Pennsylvania Evangelical Connection. That evening included lively discussion with the audience. For the convenience of online readers, the speech is divided into nine sections here.   

Part 7 of 9: The “Biblical [Dis]obedience” Siege vs. the Basis for Unity in the UMC

This nationwide movement of renegade UMC clergy publicly vowing to bless same-sex unions in open defiance of the Discipline actually started a bit before the 2012 General Conference.  But it really seemed to gain a lot of steam and attention immediately after the last General Conference, when retired Bishop Melvin Talbert claimed to have the authority to declare that parts of the Discipline he personally disagrees with are no longer worthy of obedience by those who have chosen to vow to obey them.

We’ve seen a lot of blustery talk presently and in years past along these lines, but this now is at a higher level, particularly as a handful of people move from talk to action.

The clear goal of this movement is to abuse our church’s accountability structures, with all of our provisions for due process and presumption of innocence, to undermine, besiege, and overwhelm our church with a never-ending series of narcisstic publicity stunts.

The message to our church is clear: if you want to have effective biblical policies on sexual morality, we are going to do everything we can to harass you, embarrass you, and drain as much of your resources and energies as possible.

Not all of these cases have to move to trial.  If these renegade clergy were concerned for what’s best for the church, they could just accept the consequences for their actions and perhaps turn in their clergy credentials.

But instead, we have to have such spectacles of Frank Schaefer wasting so much of the church’s time and money with him pleading “not guilty” and then the jury investigates and examines and finally concludes that he actually did do what he very clearly, repeatedly, and publicly admitted he did.

All of this raises very serious questions about the unity and integrity of our church.  As noted above, Mr. Sprague has made clear that we can no longer trust that we share a common faith with liberal activists who happen to also be nominal members of the same denomination – even on such fundamental matters as the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The liberal activist caucuses have made very clear, especially at General Conference, that they have no interest in even extending basic Golden Rule respect to other United Methodists.  And now the new party line for the liberal caucuses is actually celebrating people choosing to pursue United Methodist ordination, choosing to make the vows to God and the church to be in covenant to uphold certain standards and policies, and then flippantly breaking their word.

When someone is willing to lie to God, when they are willing to base their entire continued ministry in the United Methodist Church on self-serving lies, how can we trust anything else they say?  The question I have been asking is that once we have come to this point, what basis do we have left for unity as a church?  When a reporter asked me recently if I thought there would be division in the denomination, my response was to point out that we are ALREADY divided at a very, very deep, fundamental level.

When United Methodist clergy say they refuse to submit to the clear teaching of Scripture, the communally expressed will of the church, the explicit directions of their church superiors, or even their own word, then why keep giving all the benefits and privileges of being a United Methodist minister to someone who refuses to fulfill its most basic responsibilities?  In what other job, in what other church, would someone be allowed to keep receiving a salary while flatly refusing to fulfill the job responsibilities, let alone lying to get the position in the first place?

That is why for renegade clergy who refuse to be in covenant with our church, the only sensible penalty is defrocking.  Unless you think it counts as punishment to give a ridiculously brief suspension and assign Amy DeLong to report back to her conference on her understanding of accountability, a sentence which Miss DeLong herself described as “a gift.”  Or unless you think it’s a sensible for the church to spend a lot of money, time, and attention on a church trial for another minister’s breaking covenant, give him a temporary suspension, and then later keep going through the same process again and again when that same minister keeps repeatedly violating his own ordination vows.

Some of the cases:

• In Southwest Texas, several renegade clergy are launching an ongoing publicity stunt of endorsing the candidacy of an openly cohabitating lesbian activist, wasting a lot of time and energy of that annual conference’s leadership as they are forced to so needlessly deal with the candidacy of someone who clearly does not meet the basic criteria for United Methodist ordination.
• A little north of New York City, Rev. Sara Thompson Tweedy, a leader in the New York Annual Conference’s disobedience caucus group, is now facing charges over revelations of her own active homosexuality.
• In that same annual conference, Thomas Ogletree, the former dean of Yale Divinity School, is facing charges for performing a same-sex union for his own gay son.
• In the Upper New York Conference, the Rev. Steve Heiss is facing charges for openly bragging about performing “several” same-sex union services.
• Here in Eastern Pennsylvania, Rev. Frank Schaefer was recently charged for doing a same-sex union for his gay son.  The way the penalty was structured, it makes it clear that if he is defrocked it is by his own choice.  I hope this can set some precedent for some other pending cases, such as the three dozen Philadelphia clergy who I understand are still being identified.

It’s important to note that in the cases of Ogletree, Heiss, and Schaefer, each of them could have avoided going to trial if they were willing to pledge to not bless any same-sex unions in the future.

The bishops have been dragging their feet a bit on processing the charges in the New York cases.  I have heard speculation that they were waiting to see what would happen with the Schaefer case.

Another important thing that seems worth noting is the stark contrast we see between the deadliness of liberal theology and the value of biblical faithfulness for the local church.  Ogletree is not a pastor but a retired academic.  Tweedy is secularly employed but also does part-time work at her church which stands solidly behind her.  That church’s attendance has declined by over one-third in just the last two years for which statistics are available.  Heiss’s church declined in attendance by 28% between 2009 and 2012.  The reports I’m reading indicate that Frank Schaefer’s liberal agenda has caused all kinds of turmoil in division in his local church, with “tumultuous times” and “decline” being how the church’s own newsletter describes the congregation’s current state, and with half of the members leaving since just last spring.  Contrast this with last year’s “Faithful UMC” letter, which called for clear enforcement of our Discipline’s policies related to sexual morality, including against Mr. Talbert, and was signed by pastors of some of our denomination’s largest, most thriving congregations.

Part 1: The Need to Rebuild Our Church Cultures

Part 2 : Biblical Groundedness

Part 3: Oriented for Conversion

Part 4: Covenant Accountability, Counting the Cost of Church Membership

Part 5: Covenant Accountability: The Obligations of UMC Membership

Part 6: Why United Methodist Liberals are Now Focusing on “Biblical Disobedience”

Part 7: The “Biblical [Dis]obedience” Siege vs. the Basis for Unity in the UMC

Part 8: The Latest with Melvin Talbert

Part 9: Where Do We Go From Here?