Is it time for the United Methodist Church to do away with church trials to adopt a more efficient system of automatic penalties for wayward clergy?
As documented on this website and elsewhere, the United Methodist Church is being besieged by an apparently nationally orchestrated movement of a relatively tiny minority (far less than two percent of the whole) of radical United Methodist clergy performing pastorally harmful same-sex “sin blessing” ceremonies, in open defiance of the biblical church policies they vowed at their ordinations to uphold.
Liberal United Methodists from Amy DeLong to Adam Hamilton support various proposals to get our denomination, to one extent or another, to follow in other mainline denominations’ disastrous footsteps, while ultimately conceding that they will likely not have the votes at this next General Conference to liberalize church policies on marriage. And if they got their way in officially liberalizing our moral standards, this is guaranteed to split our denomination, as the record of other mainline denominations makes clear.
Other proposals would strengthen enforcement provisions for situations of clergy choosing to step outside of the covenant into which they chose to be ordained while largely leaving the basic structures of our denomination’s accountability system intact.
While it is no secret that I prefer the latter approach over the former, I ask if it is not time to take a major step further by radically replacing the UMC accountability system as we know it with a much more efficient system of automatic accountability.
Towards that end, I have submitted to the 2016 General Conference a relatively simple, two-part legislative proposal to establish automatic penalties for clergy who admit to performing same-sex unions. It does so by creating a separate accountability process for this single offense.
I carefully worded it to have zero impact on the rights of clergy who are involved in any other sort of wrongdoing, or who are falsely accused of anything. The reason it singles out the cases of clergy who are unambiguously guilty, by their own admission, of violating the prohibition against same-sex union ceremonies is because there is no other form of covenant-breaking that has been pushed by such a well-funded (but unrepresentative) disobedience movement, with the open goal of encouraging too overwhelming a number of violations for our tedious current accountability system to be able to handle.
We have seen numerous recent cases of folk ordained into United Methodist spiritual leadership demonstrating a remarkable lack of integrity by flippantly violating their vows to not perform same-sex union ceremonies, bizarrely bragging in the media about not being men or women of their word, and enjoying the protection of sympathetic bishops who arrange for largely consequence-free “just resolutions” (the church equivalents of out-of-court settlements).
Under the new automatic-penalty system, any clergyperson who openly admits to performing a same-sex union ceremony, which has long been prohibited in the Book of Discipline covenant they vowed to uphold, or who tries to play legalistic games by refusing to cooperate with the bishop’s basic attempts to determine the most relevant facts, would face swift, automatic, and major consequences.
If this is the first time the clergyperson has committed such an offense, s/he shall be suspended for at least one year, and potentially as many as three years, from key benefits of the covenant s/he has chosen to break (serving as a minister or in appointed leadership positions). At the end of their suspension, the wayward clergyperson shall be given a clear choice: either re-commit to the clergy covenant s/he chose to walk away from or else be defrocked from United Methodist clergy status.
Our denomination does not ordain anyone in the first place who will not first vow to God and the church to uphold our disciplinary covenant, among many other vows. This new system would not ask anything more of those who choose to leave this covenant and are seeking to be admitted back in.
This is no more unreasonable than asking an adulterous husband to recommit to his marriage vows of faithfulness before he can be fully reconciled with his wife.
Unlike several recent embarrassing cases, the result would be clear and readily understandable to all: the UMC rules do not clergy to perform allow same-sex union services, and so this United Methodist clergyperson was not allowed to continue performing same-sex union services.
The covenant-breaking clergyperson would no longer have any right to make their case in a church trial of their peers, would not have any possibility of dragging things out with further appeals, and would be categorically excluded from the Discipline’s frequently abused “just resolution” process.
The savings to the church’s time, finances, and emotional energies by having such efficient, just, and sensible accountability would be great. And we would ironically accomplish the stated goal of the homosexuality-affirming United Methodist activists who have recently rallied around the slogan, “stop the trials!”
After seeing the offending party so decisively removed from United Methodist ministry, other clergy currently promoting the disobedience movement would think twice before going down that same road.
This plan would offer by far the quickest, most decisive way for our denomination to move forward in mission beyond our present internal conflicts over sexuality.
Since this requires amending the section of the United Methodist Book of Discipline known as the Constitution, some have questioned if such a proposal could get the necessary two-thirds vote of General Conference and then two-thirds of the votes of every annual conference delegate around the world.
I readily admit that this would be a rather dramatic change and would be an uphill battle to pass. But the political odds may not be as steep as some have suggested.
Anyone who spends half a minute thinking about it understands that a large denomination like ours needs some sort of operating standards. No one seriously argues that clergy should be categorically free to violate these standards without any accountability (which would be the same as having no policies).
Rather strong super-majorities (well north of 60 percent) at recent General Conferences have repeatedly voted to maintain policies forbidding our clergy from performing same-sex unions. (For some reason, even significant numbers of delegates who vote to “soften the language” in our Social Principles calling homosexual practice inherently “incompatible with Christian teaching” also vote for the binding policies forbidding same-sex unions.) Furthermore, votes on other constitutional amendments in recent years suggest that annual conference voters are relatively more conservative than those at General Conference.
And unlike the U.S. Constitution, the UMC Constitution is routinely amended in several places at once.
You can read for yourself the entirety of the bold new plan below. I welcome your thoughts in the comments!
But as an elected General Conference delegate myself, this plan has my vote.
The first petition, #60802 (printed on pages 1078 and 1221 of the Advanced Daily Christian Advocate) is the constitutional amendment, with underlines reflecting language this petition proposes for addition, while non-underlined text is what is already in the Discipline:
Automatic Penalties – I
Amend Book of Discipline ¶ 20 as follows:
¶ 20. Article IV.—The General Conference shall not do away with the privileges of our clergy of right to trial by a committee and of an appeal; neither shall it do away with the privileges of our members of right to trial before the church, or by a committee, and of an appeal.14 This shall not apply to cases of clergy who admit to their bishop, or to the bishop supervising a directly relevant complaint against them, of having conducted a ceremony celebrating a homosexual union or performed a same-sex wedding ceremony. In such cases, automatic penalties shall be imposed.
Rationale: Currently, a small minority of covenant-breaking clergy have been abusing our lengthy accountability system to use the threat of the costs of church trials to avoid serious accountability for this one offense. This would allow for a more effective, efficient, and ultimately less painful process than trials.
The second, implementing petition is #60803 (found on pages 1141 and 1223):
Automatic Penalties – II
Amend Book of Discipline ¶ 363.1 by adding after ¶ 363.1a a new section, ¶ 363.1b, and re-lettering the following sections accordingly:
- b) Automatic Penalty for Acknowledged Same-Sex Unions—other provisions of the Book of Discipline notwithstanding, when the complaint is based upon allegation of the specific misconduct of a clergyperson having conducted a ceremony celebrating a homosexual union or having performed a same-sex wedding ceremony (¶ 2702.1b) within the preceding six years, this separate process shall be followed:
(1) Upon receiving the formal complaint, the bishop or the bishop’s designee shall, within a timely manner, directly request the person against whom the complaint was made for a brief written statement simply confirming or denying if he or she did in fact conduct or perform the Disciplinarily prohibited ceremony in question. In any meetings related to this process, both the person against whom the complaint and the person making the complaint may choose another person to accompany him or her with the right to voice.
(2) Throughout this process, the complaint shall be treated as an allegation or allegations until the person against whom the complaint was made delivers written confirmation of having conducted or performed the alleged prohibited ceremony or until 30 days have passed since he or she received the bishop’s request for confirmation or denial, and has chosen to give no answer.
(3) If the person against whom the complaint was made provides a written response to the bishop’s initial request other than confirming having committing the chargeable offense in question, then the ordinary supervisory response as outlined beginning in ¶363.1c below shall be followed as outlined below.
(4) If the clergyperson against whom the complaint was made either admits to have conducted or performed the Disciplinarily prohibited ceremony in question, or chooses not to deliver a response within 30 days of receiving the request for confirmation or denial of the offense, then he or she shall be considered guilty of having broken covenant with The United Methodist Church.
(5) If the clergyperson’s file indicates that that he or she has previously been penalized according to this process, then the penalty the bishop imposes shall be termination of the conference membership and revocation of the credentials of conference membership, commissioning, ordination, or consecration of the clergyperson. Otherwise, the bishop shall suspend the guilty party from all ministerial functions, and from any appointment to a local church, general agency, or cabinet-level position, without salary, for a period of no less than one year.
(6) The precise length of this suspension shall be at the bishop’s discretion, provided that it shall not be less than one full year and not more than three full years. There shall be no right to appeal such a penalty. A record of this penalty shall be placed in the clergyperson’s file.
(7) 60 days before the conclusion of such a suspension, the bishop shall contact the suspended clergyperson, either directly or through a designee, to request a written statement promising to not conduct or perform any such ceremonies in the future as long as doing so remains a chargeable offense under our Church’s communal covenant as expressed in our Book of Discipline. If the suspended clergyperson fails to make such a written promise, the bishop shall at the conclusion of the suspension period permanently terminate his or her clergy status.
(8) All of the process as outlined above shall be carried out in a timely manner, with attention to communication to all parties in the process. At the determination of the bishop, persons with qualifications and experience in assessment, intervention, or healing may be selected to assist in this process. The bishop also may consult with the committee on pastor-parish relations for pastors, the district committee on superintendency for district superintendents, appropriate personnel committee or other persons who may be helpful.
(9) When this special process for the specific offense of conducting a ceremony celebrating a homosexual union or performing a same-sex wedding ceremony is initiated, the bishop shall notify the chairperson of the Board of Ordained Ministry that a complaint has been filed, of the clergyperson named, of the general nature of the complaint, of each response of the person against whom the complaint was made to the requests noted above, and with a summary the bishop’s own subsequent actions in implementing this process.
Rationale: This efficiently lessens our reliance on trials for covenant accountability. It prevents a single minister from holding an entire conference hostage with a needless, costly trial. There is only one chargeable offense for which there is such a disruptive minority movement to shatter the integrity of our connectional covenant.
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on January 28, 2016 at 5:27 pm
I am all for this. It would remove the grandstanding, but would still allow those who wanted to change the rules to try to do so legislatively. There is no excuse for breaking a covenant.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Comment by elimbo on January 28, 2016 at 6:47 pm
While I support this type of legislation, I do not believe that its current form will withstand scrutiny by the Judicial Council. If you recall in the appeal of Frank Schaefer, the Judicial Council overturned his defrocking by ruling that his defrocking “cannot be squared with the well-established principle that our clergy can only be punished for what they have been convicted of doing in the past, not for what they may or may not do in the future.” Therefore, my suggestion is to remove the part of the legislation that requires clergy to recommit themselves to the clergy covenant or face being defrocked. Instead of blurring the line that the Judicial Council defined regarding future behavior, remove your new paragraph 7, and rely upon the punishment outlined in your new paragraph 5 if the behavior is ever repeated.
Comment by John Lomperis on January 28, 2016 at 7:40 pm
If this passed, we would need to amend the Constitution, which this plan would do, and would COMPLETELY change the ball game from the Discipline with which the JC worked in the Schaefer case.
Comment by elimbo on January 28, 2016 at 11:19 pm
One might want to consider a fixed punishment put in place for performing same-sex marriages, regardless if the clergy admitted their guilt or if found guilty at a clergy trial. Otherwise, if something like your plan was enacted, the next objective of those determined to get their point across might be to tie up the cabinet, clergy and conference administrations of various conferences with numerous trials – with the hope of getting a sympathetic jury or causing a greater schism from within.
Comment by halehawk on January 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm
I don’t agree with you on many things, John, but I hope this flies.
Comment by Chuck_Wnj on January 28, 2016 at 10:20 pm
This probably concerns a different section of the Discipline, but in the case a bishop is being charged, who would be the supervising bishop? And if its the president of the Jurisdictional Conference Council of Bishops, what happens if that is the person being charged?
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on January 28, 2016 at 11:24 pm
You write of covenant-breaking clergy who flippantly violate their vows. There was nothing “flippant” in my decision treat a same-sex couple the same way I would treat a heterosexual couple. Here is my justification for officiating at a same-sex marriage.
Keeping Covenant with the Church
In officiating at the wedding of DeLyn and Sarah Celec, and as a regional organizer for “An Altar for All,” I have sought to keep covenant with the Church. I have acted in good faith and in good conscience. First and foremost I have sought to be true to my baptismal vows. The second vow asks “Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?” Ordinarily I work within the church to address evil, injustice and oppression in the world. Sadly, in this case, injustice and oppression exist within the church, i.e. in its language about homosexual practice and its policies regarding ministry and marriage. The language of that second baptismal vow does not exempt the church—it says “in whatever forms they present themselves.” So, in good faith and in good conscience I am trying to keep that vow by addressing injustice and oppression within the church.
When I took vows to “support and maintain” our “Church government and polity” that was because I had previously answered affirmatively that I believed our “doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures.” In regard to homosexuality and same sex marriage, I no longer believe our doctrines are in harmony with Holy Scripture. Specifically, I believe we have used scriptural texts that do not address the context of sexual orientation and committed relationships we see today to exclude LGBTQ persons from ministry and marriage. More importantly, Jesus commanded us to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” When Marsha and I committed to love each other until “death do us part,” we had the blessing of church and state. I want that same blessing for LGBTQ persons. I believe I am acting in Biblical obedience when I bless and consecrate the committed loving relationships of all prepared couples without regard to gender or sexual orientation.
I believe I am acting in ecclesial obedience to a Church that believes all people are created in the image of God and that “homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth.” In the Discipline we read: “Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination. The mark of an inclusive society is one in which all persons are open, welcoming, fully accepting, and supporting of all other persons, enabling them to participate fully in the life of the church, the community, and the world.” Paragraph 140 In excluding many LGBTQ persons from ministry, the Church has deprived itself of their gifts and graces and made its claims to inclusiveness a sham. We read, “Without creative use of the diverse gifts of the entire Body of Christ, the ministry of the church is less effective.” Paragraph 303.4 The book of Discipline makes a powerful statement for inclusion. As Bishop Melvin Talbert notes, “It only contradicts itself in a few places.”
I love the United Methodist Church—it has nurtured and challenged me. If I am “out of order,” it is because of our heritage of opposing injustice and oppression. It has shaped my conscience and called me to act. I am honored to be among the ordained clergy of the United Methodist Church and I want to keep my credentials and ordination, but not at the price of complicity in discriminatory policies. At the same time, a church trial and losing my credentials would be a small price to pay (for me as retired clergy) if it exposes the moral bankruptcy of our policies and helps move us to change them.
John D. Copenhaver, Jr. Professor Emeritus, Shenandoah University 11/9/2014
Comment by elimbo on January 29, 2016 at 1:05 am
Let me get this straight…. You are a retired elder in the UMC and you are a Professor Emeritus at a University affiliated with the UMC. You have previously violated your clergy covenant and the BoD; yet, you claim that you love the UMC and that you are honored to be among its ordained clergy. I respect a person’s right to change their religious beliefs; however, if that happens then that person needs to quit being a representative of a denomination that no longer reflects his/her beliefs. You all but say that the UMC is hypocritical regarding its treatment of LGBTQ individuals; yet, I see you as the hypocrite – by not surrendering your credentials, you choose to remain as a representative of a denomination with which you do not truly represent. Of course, this is just my opinion — it is obvious that you will rationalize your choices however you choose.
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on January 29, 2016 at 11:13 pm
Our church has a wonderful statement on inclusiveness–I represent that. Those who discriminate against same-sex couples should surrender their credentials for violating the BoD. This seems pretty clear: “Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination. The mark of an inclusive society is one in which all persons are open, welcoming, fully accepting, and supporting of all other persons, enabling them to participate fully in the life of the church, the community, and the world.”
Comment by elimbo on January 29, 2016 at 11:53 pm
It is not a matter of accepting or welcoming a person who may be attracted to a person of the same sex. The issue is one of sexual behavior between two people of the same sex. Sexual behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual, signifies a choice to act. The reason why same sex marriages should not be performed by our clergy is because with marriage comes the long-standing expectation of the involvement and the inclusion of sexual relations with the spouses. Therefore, to endorse same sex marriage is the same as endorsing homosexual behavior. Granted, some will argue that just because a couple is married does not mean that they have sex; however, traditionally the majority of people equate the two, especially given that Christian beliefs do not express an approval of sexual relations except within the bonds of marriage. Therefore, your argument is flawed. The statement on inclusiveness states that we are to be “open, welcoming, fully accepting, and supporting of all other persons…”. The term “persons” is the key. Persons is synonymous with “individuals” or “people” and does not imply in any way an acceptance of a behavior between two people that traditional Christian beliefs and scriptural precedent deem immoral.
Comment by Ella Pauline on January 29, 2016 at 10:30 am
I agree with elimbo: If you have had a revelation that is no longer compatible with UMC beliefs, then leave! I do not criticize nor condemn your beliefs but they no longer fall in line with the church’s stated beliefs which I have absolutely no problem with! The question re whether or not same-gender relationships are also ordained by God is not what is damaging the church; we should always be questioning our beliefs and understandings. The problem is people like you who believe same-gender relationships are ordained by God and are trying to force their new found “enlightenment” on everybody else! I can only respect your right to your belief only if you respect my right to mine; if that is not possible then we and by extension, the UMC has a huge problem.
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on January 29, 2016 at 11:17 pm
Do you believe this statement from the BoD? “Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination. The mark of an inclusive society is one in which all persons are open, welcoming, fully accepting, and supporting of all other persons, enabling them to participate fully in the life of the church, the community, and the world.” I’m fully compatible with it–too bad the BoD contradicts itself.
Comment by elimbo on January 30, 2016 at 12:55 am
Since when is it discrimination to disapprove of a person’s behavior that scripture and Christian tradition also disapproves? The UMC can be welcoming and accepting of individuals without approving of immoral behavior.
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on January 30, 2016 at 5:38 pm
You are right–that is the core issue–just as scripture and tradition were (and still are) the key arguments for excluding women from pastoral ministry.
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on January 30, 2016 at 6:46 pm
You joined as organization knowing the rules…and you agreed to follow them. If you are no longer able to do so, for whatever reason, you should withdraw from the organization. Integrity demands nothing less.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on January 30, 2016 at 7:50 pm
I faithfully served a three month suspension for the “offense” of offering pastoral services to a same-sex couple, and afterwards was elected as a delegate (even if next to last) to Gen/Juris Conf. Why would I want to withdraw if colleagues support me?
Comment by Pudentiana on January 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm
Maybe because they, too, are corrupted by the liberal interpretation of our Scriptures and refusal to follow traditions of the Church.
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on January 30, 2016 at 8:34 pm
Well, then, your position is in trouble–this happened in the conservative Southeast Jurisdiction!
Comment by Skipper on February 1, 2016 at 3:34 pm
I have a feeling that you really know what you are doing is very evil. You can fool yourself, but no one can fool God. Jesus said “I assure you: Anyone who doesn’t enter the sheep pen by the door but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber.” When you have a broken relationship with God, you need to pray to God to help mend it and be open to God’s leading.
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on February 1, 2016 at 9:21 pm
Reading your post makes me wonder whether you read my initial response with the justification for my action titled “Keeping Covenant with the Church.” No, I do NOT think what I am doing is evil and my relationship with God is lively and intimate. Right now I am with a dozen United Methodist clergy friends in a week long pre-Lenten retreat. For five days we read, study, pray and worship together, beginning at 5:30 a,m each day. My opposition to the derogatory statement and discriminatory policies in the BoD is rooted in my baptismal vow “to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves.” I don’t doubt the sincerity of your faith. We just disagree. May God bless you.
Comment by Skipper on February 2, 2016 at 10:16 am
Yes, I read your “Keeping Covenant” statement. You call God’s way on morality injustice and oppression and what God says is evil, you say is good. I think you need to be honest with yourself about evil. I once talked to an Episcopal bishop who allowed this. I ask him if it was evil and he greatly surprised me by saying “It’s very evil.” Then I ask him how he could reconcile his position with the bible. He said “I can’t – I’m still working on it.” At least he admitted it was evil. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and fed to the fire. Think about morality: are you with God or against God?
Comment by John D Copenhaver Jr on February 2, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Geez. I don’t know why the Episcopal bishop said what he was doing was evil–I believe I am doing God’s will by consecrating the love of committed, loving couples regardless of sexual orientation. And, I have studied the Biblical and theological arguments on both sides, have you? If so, you would know there are compelling reasons to believe that the Biblical texts, including Romans 1, are addressing a cultural practice the authors associated with temple prostitution and idolatry, not the committed loving relationships that our homosexual brothers and sisters are asking us to bless today. Here’s a short article from a Lutheran seminary president that makes the case pretty well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/what-does-the-bible-reall_b_990444.html
Comment by Skipper on February 2, 2016 at 3:21 pm
Jesus in Matt 15: “It is useless for you to worship me, when you teach rules made up by humans.” You seem bent the spiritual destruction of people.
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on January 31, 2016 at 1:55 pm
to keep your promise.
Comment by Rev, Vaughan Hayden on April 1, 2016 at 3:25 pm
As a matter of integrity. You are free to follow your conscience but are also bound by the book of Discipline, which unless you were ordained before 1972 has always affirmed that homosexual practice is contrary to Christian teaching. If that is not something you can affirm, then you either lied to your bishop and Annual Conference when you were ordained, or have decided to sway from that position since. at which point, you are free to disavow your credentials and seek a place where you can practice without fear of disobeying the Bible being called an “offense”.
Comment by Gene on January 29, 2016 at 3:52 pm
John, I appreciate that you have NOT made your decision flippantly. I disagree with it; but I do recognize that with regard to the decisions you have made, you have made them because you see them as an attempt to keep your vows. And I appreciate that. You articulate yourself much better than most arguments that I have seen as justification for the decisions and actions they have taken, many of which seem to me to be about keeping one’s vows as much as simply treating them like they were part of a Burger King commercial — “Have it your way.” Thanks for sharing something of a more thoughtful nature.
Comment by Gene on January 29, 2016 at 12:05 am
I’m in complete agreement with the present wording of the BoD. I believe it is an insult to all who take their ordination vows seriously (including many who want to see the BoD changed to allow for the more full inclusion of homosexuals in the life and ministry of the UMC, but are unwilling to violate their vows) for some who have violated those vows to receive what amounts to little more than an administrative slap on the wrist as a consequence. But I cannot support this suggestion. It is just as unloving as those who would harm the church by acting against its Discipline, for it creates a new Discipline that has little to no room for grace in it. That doesn’t strike me as very Christian, let alone Methodist.
Comment by Ella Pauline on January 29, 2016 at 10:34 am
The high-handed way a very minority liberal/progressive contingent is trying to force their views on everybody is not very Christian; they do not care who they insult or run over as long as their agenda as they perceive it is satisfied. This does not represent a brand of Christianity I want to be associated with!
Comment by John Lomperis on March 28, 2016 at 3:35 pm
Would you also describe 1 Corinthians 5, or the early Methodist class meetings as not “very Christian, let alone Methodist”?
Comment by Namyriah on January 29, 2016 at 12:20 pm
A UM church in Nashville (pastored by a Woodstock relic) took great pride in renting out its space to the local gay church on Sunday evenings, and the UM pastor (a serial adulterer, btw) himself presided over several “holy unions” (apparently because the gay couples felt it was more legit to be blessed by a mainline pastor than by the gay pastor of the gay church).
Frankly, I don’t comprehend the person who claims to be Christian and says “I have gay friends and relatives, therefore it behooves me to break with 2000 years of Christian ethical teaching and perform gay marriages.” One of C. S. Lewis’s closest friends was Arthur Greeves, a homosexual. Lewis’s long friendship with Greeves proves that you can be bosom friends with a homosexual and never budge one millimeter from the biblical position on homosexuality. I figure there must be some emotional blackmail going on – “If you were really my friend, you would perform the wedding for me and my partner.” Well, the right response to that is, “If you were really MY friend, you’d respect my Christian beliefs, which prohibit me from doing what you ask.”
Comment by elimbo on January 30, 2016 at 12:28 am
I am an elder in the TN conference and I am currently appointed to a church just outside Nashville. I haven’t heard anything about the situation which you mentioned. Could you elaborate some more about it? Has a complaint ever been filed against the pastor?
Comment by Namyriah on January 31, 2016 at 7:33 pm
This was back in the 1980s, and that pastor has been retired for 20 yrs. I’m not trying to get anyone in trouble, just relating an anecdote from the past – “nothing new under the sun,” as it says in Ecclesiastes. I imagine that pastor has been overjoyed at last year’s SCOTUS decision, and at how most of the mainline denominations now ordain homosexuals, but I’m sure he’s anxious that the UMs follow suit before he goes to meet his Maker (which will be a highly educational experience).
Comment by Keith Jenkins on April 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm
I find your interest in and insinuations about an event that allegedly happened 30 or more years ago lascivious to say the least. Are you so sure that your meeting with your Maker, at which you will try to explain how your stereotyping of others (“Woodstock relic”) and your attitude of moral superiority (“a serial adulterer, btw”) witnessed to the love of Christ in your life, won’t be equally “educational”?
Comment by idahomom42 on January 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm
It is time. Time for me to resign my membership from the United Methodist Church.
Comment by Pudentiana on January 29, 2016 at 3:44 pm
No, if you oppose same sex marriage, then it is time for you to get in the trenches and honor your membership covenant vows by fighting the good fight.
Comment by Namyriah on January 29, 2016 at 9:29 pm
Go for it! I used to work for the UM Publishing House, I caught on to them years ago. If someone ran the numbers,they’d probably find that ex-UMs now outnumber the UMs by a wide margin.
Comment by brother_roger on January 29, 2016 at 5:03 pm
So, what penalties, if any, are to be considered for a Bishop who refuses to adhere to this? They should also have some skin in the game. Part of the problem as I see it is the refusal of sitting bishops to administer the Discipline.
Comment by Tim Vernon on January 29, 2016 at 6:47 pm
A big divide in the churches:
One group turns to God for salvation and a new life.
The other group turns to God for approval of their present life.
The churches might look the same on the outside, but they are radically different in their beliefs. Clergy who belong to the second group are trying to set themselves up as being more generous than God, and trying to be better than God is a dangerous thing to do.
Comment by Frank Joseph Smith on February 1, 2016 at 11:51 am
Dear John:
As a former church journalist, I very much your work appreciate, including both this article and the previous one in which you covered the promotion of sexual perversion through UMC Sunday Schools and VBS events. In that other article, you mentioned using proper pronouns. However, in this present article, you write the following: “The covenant-breaking clergyperson would no longer have any right to make their case in a church trial of their peers, would not have any possibility of dragging things out with further appeals, and would be categorically excluded from the Discipline’s frequently abused ‘just resolution’ process.” Wouldn’t it have been better to say “his or her” instead of “their”? [smile!]
Keep up the good work!
For Christ’s crown and covenant,
Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D.
Minister, Atlanta Presbyterian Fellowship (RPCNA)
http://atlanta-rpc.org
Comment by NotAgnostic on February 3, 2016 at 10:23 am
Since the Anglican worldwide communion just disciplined the American Episcopal Church (AEC), and it appears the AEC will be out of the communion altogether after their three year time-out period since the AEC has no intention of coming back to orthodox practices — why don’t we, the UMC, reunite with the Anglican world communion? Our liberal clergy, lay, and academies can merge with the AEC. The orthodox in the UMC, including those in the global south, with the worldwide order?
Didn’t Wesley reluctantly ordain a bishop named Thomas Coke after the Revolutionary War which created the American Methodist Episcopal Church? Since that particular war is in the past, and a new revolution/war (spiritual & western cultural imperialism) has begun, perhaps it’s time to reunite with our brothers and sisters in the Anglican worldwide communion?
I’m sure there are good reasons why we should not do this, but I just don’t see them.
Comment by DannyBoyJr on March 29, 2016 at 8:00 pm
You can compare the 39 articles of the Anglican church with the 25 articles of Methodism by John Wesley. Simply put, the Anglican church was calvinist in conception, Catholic in practice and worship, and has a high sacramental theology (works-based grace).
Plus, I am not eager to dilute our rich Wesleyan-Arminian heritage to join a communion of breakaway-Catholics-cum-national-churches. Our theology is more reformed and more biblical. And we really should get rid of the episcopacy/connexionalism and be more congregational in polity.
Comment by Chuck_Wnj on April 18, 2016 at 10:01 pm
What I’ve heard suggested is an around about way to achieve this. If the Protestant Episcopal Church is kicked out of the Anglican Communion its place will probably be taken by the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). What was suggested is that the ACNA would create a Wesley Diocese into which orthodox traditional Methodist churches (and possibly Annual Conferences) would join.
Comment by John S. on February 12, 2016 at 6:36 am
Once you deny due process for one offense you allow the denial of it for others. Just depends on who has the whip hand. If the UMC doesn’t have the courage to enforce the BOD does trying to disguise it with automatic penalties change anything?
Comment by John Lomperis on March 31, 2016 at 12:36 pm
How is this not “due process”? I imagine the situation in 1 Corinthians 5, they didn’t drag their feet for a year for an investigation committee to vote on whether or not the guilty man was in fact doing what he openly bragged about doing.
Comment by John S. on April 1, 2016 at 5:21 am
Because people abuse the system is not a sufficient reason to bypass the system. Your stated purpose is to remove impediments, generally called due process, to swift punishment on those you have determined are guilty without the normal mechanisms for determining guilt.
Are all statements made by the accused admitted? Who verifies the statements? Is the accused allowed to rebut the statements? To use one of the UMC cases, if a person is accused, based on published comments, and then denies the comments in proceedings, what then? Is the person allowed counsel in the proceedings? Can the person confront his accusers? And that is just off the top of my head.
Once you set this mechanism up for your preferred offense, others can set it up for theirs. The frustration with the current, nonfunctioning system is understandable but the dangers of a fast track judicial system seem overlooked. This is a bandage that addresses the frustration but does not address the core problem. And I’ve not the faintest idea how to address and solve that except repentance, forgiveness and reformation. Only in the gospel can a solution be found but right now the UMC cannot even agree on what the gospel is.
Comment by John Lomperis on April 1, 2016 at 1:34 pm
With all due respect, I encourage you to actually read the above plan, which answers many of your questions.
Comment by Rev, Vaughan Hayden on March 31, 2016 at 5:04 pm
It seems to me that if the clergy person admits breaking the law to the bishop, the congregation or by publicly performing the wedding, all questions about guilt are moot. The trial is not a matter of putting the law in question, but simply the conduct as willful. There is therefore no need for the trial and it should immediately move to the penalty phase.
This should actually be in the discipline in some form for all chargeable offenses. If the clergy admits guilt, then he or she should suffer penalty, looking for reconciliation. While the penalty may differ for each offense, the sham of trials can be avoided and accountability can be upheld.
Comment by Keith Jenkins on April 7, 2016 at 5:12 pm
dra·co·ni·an
drəˈkōnēən/
adjective
adjective: draconian
(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
:harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough, cruel, oppressive, ruthless, relentless, punitive,authoritarian, despotic, tyrannical, repressive