Time for New Complaints, Charges Against Renegade UMC Clergy?

As we await and plan next steps for the United Methodist Church, we must accept that there is no truly easy, painless way forward. Any possibility will require hard work for an extended time. Is the time soon coming where this work will include new complaints and charge against renegade UMC clergy who betraying our denomination’s prohibitions of clergy committing sexual immorality or officiating at pastorally harmful same-sex weddings?

Remember, our governing Book of Discipline’s biblical standards on such matters remain binding church law. Only General Conference has authority to change or impose a denomination-wide moratorium on any part of church law. As noted, at least in many places, accountability has continued will continue until General Conference can actually adopt the Protocol.

It is important to correct three common misunderstandings:

First, traditionalist United Methodists, as a group, are NOT eager to “just leave” the UMC.  “Traditionalists” has become the widely accepted label for United Methodists who agree with the UMC’s high official view of biblical authority, and accordingly firmly  the UMC official standards that all people are of sacred worth, sex is a gift for monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and sexual activity outside these boundaries (whether pornography, pre-marital sex, adultery, or homosexual practice) is inherently sinful. Many self-described progressive and so-called “centrist” United Methodists have been telling themselves that we traditionalists are eager to leave and abandon all but our local congregation’s properties.

Of course, some traditionalists have expressed eagerness to leave, and some congregations have already left. But the same could also be said for some liberals, as is documented.

The myth that all, or even most, traditionalists are determined to imminently leave no matter what is illogical. For traditionalists, the UMC is our denomination. Much more rightfully so than it is the denomination of liberal activists who have infiltrated clergy ranks and denominational offices, despite not actually belief in our denomination’s official, biblical doctrinal and moral standards.

All the energy and treasure poured into building our conferences, agencies, and other connectional structures have been contributed to a denomination officially committed to orthodox, biblical doctrinal and moral standards. By what reasonable standard are liberal infiltrators entitled to claim these structures as their own? While renewal groups have protested certain actions by general agencies, we have sought to reform rather than surrender them.

The “Protocol on Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” is an unprecedented game changer. No, this proposal is not truly fair by any objective standard. And yet, for the first time, it offers a solution in which all major factions have compromised enough to reach a workable consensus. While far from ideal in principle, it was a remarkable achievement in “the art of the possible.”

But the Protocol has not yet been enacted, because General Conference has been delayed.

Second, there are limits to what is possible with the next General Conference, in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

We can forget having a “normal” General Conference this year, of all 862 delegates physically gathering in the same location. Remember, non-Americans are now becoming the majority of our global denomination. It would be grossly unfair to make major decisions in a room in which a great many international delegates were unable to enter, due to pandemic-related travel restrictions.

It is not clear that postponing General Conference even as late as 2024 would solve this problem. Some estimate that for much of Africa, it may take “several years” before enough people have been vaccinated.

More realistic would be “distributed” General Conference. There would be a limited number of official sites for delegates to gather (so little to no international travel) while being simultaneously connected electronically. I believe this can be done safely. After all, last year most African annual conferences were able to have much larger in-person annual conference meetings. Perhaps all American delegates could gather in one place. Somewhere in the Eastern United States would minimize the time-zone spread. Or perhaps there could be five sites for U.S. delegates, one for each jurisdiction.

Such a format is ill-suited for the complex normal work of General Conference delegates breaking into committees and sub-committees, developing alliances and amendments in perfecting contested legislation.

But it could work for a relatively quick vote on something like the Protocol. The packaged deal has already been meticulously negotiated with a professional mediator and endorsed by leaders and caucus groups across the theological spectrum. Early supporters across the spectrum have already warned against unraveling the various trade-offs by seeking major amendments. Even with the pandemic’s disruptions, I see nothing in the last year that has fundamentally changed the basic realities making the core framework of the Protocol legislation at least begrudgingly acceptable to UMC leaders who disagree about so much else.

It would make little sense to vote on anything before the Protocol, as its passage would have major implications for every other decision. And almost anything else put before even a limited-agenda General Conference is likely to be much more contested. This includes the proposed denominational budget, whose calls for uneven redistribution of resources seem likely to provoke amendment attempts.

One key part of the Protocol legislation would impose an immediate moratorium on the processing of complaints against clergy who violate our standards on homosexuality. Traditionalists would never agree to such a moratorium except as part of the Protocol’s packaged deal. But since no General Conference has actually adopted such a moratorium…

Third, contrary to widespread misunderstanding, our denomination has no legal moratorium on enforcing church law, on sexuality or anything else. 

Part V of the original Protocol agreement more weakly talked about holding “in abeyance” complaints against clergy who violate the Discipline’s key homosexuality standards. But the 16-member Protocol Mediation Team (which included only two traditionalists) who actually signed this had no true legal authority to impose this as binding church law on anyone else, or even on themselves. Again, only General Conference can do that.

The Protocol was publicly unveiled in January 2020, with the expectation that General Conference would meet in just four months and adopt the Protocol, including its binding moratorium. When a complaint is filed against a United Methodist minister, the Discipline already gives bishops up to 90 days (with a possible 30-day extension) before having to take definitive action. So the practical impact of such abeyances was designed to be extraordinarily narrow. 

Furthermore, this limited call for abeyances was paired with a call for restraint in closing small congregations. When liberal bishops move forward with church closures, or talk about supporting the abeyance for complaints without even mentioning halting church closures, that does not help trust.

Bishops who do have some integrity, including some liberals, are still following the Discipline as we wait for General Conference. No bishop has any right to do otherwise. Any bishops who do not follow the Discipline themselves become rightly liable to complaints.

Passage of the Traditional Plan has made it much harder for church officials to dismiss or dodge well-grounded complaints against any clergy, including bishops. 

For the past year, our normal UMC conflicts have been overwhelmed by the global pandemic. And restrictions on any sort of large gatherings have apparently resulted in much fewer publicity-stunt Discipline violations as seen before 2020. Quite simply, if there’s no violation of our Discipline’s biblical standards, then there’s nothing to file complaints against. 

As U.S. vaccinations proceed and gathering restrictions continue to ease, could the current unofficial, uneasy the truce hold?

In a meeting with other traditionalist United Methodists last spring, I encouraged restraint in filing complaints. Again, there’s no longer as much to file complaints against. And when I filed my complaint in Iowa, it required much preparation, and then another 20 months before it was finally resolved. One may reasonably question the value of taking the trouble to launch a complaint process that may not finish before General Conference adopts the Protocol and makes it a moot point.

But if a General Conference decision on separation was again subject to a major delay, this would remove the most pressing reasons for restraint in filing complaints.

Traditionalists made very clear that when clergy betray their ordination vows to uphold biblical standards, it causes great harm to our church, the church we love.

If ministers choose to commit such betrayals, they have no right to feel safe, secure, and protected in their bad behavior. They display an extreme lack of integrity, and selfishly hurt the church. Consider the contrast of the Good Shepherd, who sacrificially lays down his life for his sheep. The sad reality is that ministers in our denomination’s unique appointment system include wolves in clerical collars, who can be spiritually existential threats to congregations to which they could potentially be appointed. An entire series could be devoted to stories of them hurting real people and local churches.

Faithfulness in whatever church we are part of, as long as we remain part of it, demands defending the church against false teachers who mislead and hurt people. Even if a separation agreement is reached in 2024—or 2028, or 2032—we still want more faithfulness and less covenant breaking in our denomination. Even if we are only talking about a few years, how could these be bad things? 

I do not know what may happen with General Conference planning. But I do know that if need be, I am willing to offer my services to help coach and assist in filing complaints against liberal United Methodist ministers who betray our church by recklessly violating the biblical morality standards they vowed at their ordination to uphold. If a time is coming for a new wave of harmful covenant breaking, then we must be ready to push forward new complaints and charges against renegade UMC clergy. Ideally, such complaints would lead to repentance and restoration for the offenders. But removing them from the sacred privilege of ordination is much better than continued harm to the church.

And with the new church laws passed under the Traditional Plan, we now have much more powerful tools available to demand accountability.