The United Methodist Church is in the news again, and you know what that means… something related to homosexuality has come up… again…
Rev. Amy DeLong in Wisconsin will undergo United Methodist Church trial to respond to the charge that she has violated church law be being a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” and officiating a same-sex union. As this is getting ready to start, 70 members of the Minnesota Annual Conference and 166 members of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference has signed pledges stating that they would “joyfully” give the Church’s blessing in civil unions for same-sex couples.
Now, I bet that this is the point where you expect me to state my position on these issues, but that’s not going to happen. The real underlying issue that I have with these situations is the fact that Rev. DeLong and the members of these two Annual Conferences are clearly in violation of the United Methodist Book of Discipline.
For those that don’t know, the Book of Discipline is the law for the United Methodist Church. In it are detailed the “ins and outs” of ministry in the United Methodist Church. As a newly ordained member of the Indiana Annual Conference, I recently stood up on stage, in front of the entire Annual Conference (at least those who weren’t out playing golf at the time…) and answered in the affirmative to the following questions (and a few others, but these are the ones I want to focus on for now):
- Have you studied the doctrines of the United Methodist Church?
- After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?
- Will you preach and maintain them?
- Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?
- Do you approve of our Church government and polity?
- Will you support and maintain them?
And here’s the thing, if Rev. DeLong or these 236 other deacons, elders and licensed local pastors cannot answer these questions in the affirmative, then they need to step away and seriously reconsider their choice to enter into ministry in the United Methodist Church instead of blatantly defying the system. At this point, you may want to argue with me that it is a justice issue. I beg to differ. As I see it, it is a matter of integrity, and I’ll get to that in just a minute. There are multiple options for people who find themselves in positions similar to DeLong and these other ordained/licensed persons.
First, they can still respond to their call to ministry, but do so in a denomination that is more in line with their political and theological point of view. Nobody is forcing DeLong or anybody else to be a United Methodist. It is a long and difficult process. Why go through it if you disagree with the Church? There are several other denominations that will allow their clergy to bless same-sex unions, and will gladly ordain “self-avowed practicing homosexuals”. Right now, the United Methodist Church isn’t one of them. Try the Unitarians, or, more recently, the PC(USA).
Second, enter the system with the intention of changing it. The United Methodist Book of Discipline has a peculiar feature – it’s not etched in stone. It changes. Every four years there is the General Conference, and every four years at General Conference, the Book of Discipline gets changed. If you don’t like the system, work to change it. But… and here’s where I get back to the integrity issue… do it the right way.
Don’t stand in front of your Annual Conference, pledging to uphold the doctrines, polity and discipline of the Church with the intention of openly defying it to suit your personal agenda. That’s where it is an integrity issue. If you honestly cannot answer in the affirmative to those questions above, then don’t. Walk away, and fulfill your ministry by other means. Have the personal integrity to do things the right way, and keep your word, even if you don’t agree with the way things are.
A quick story to illustrate my point: when I attended seminary at Asbury, every person had to sign an agreement (the Ethos statement) that he/she would abstain from tobacco and alcohol during his/her time at the school. At the time, I didn’t drink or smoke, so it wasn’t that big of a deal; however, I was 22 when I entered seminary. Legally, I could drink and smoke. However, I signed an agreement that I would not, and that is what mattered. Could I have argued that I was legally able to drink and done so? Sure. I could have. I also could have gone to a different seminary where I didn’t have to sign that agreement. I could have worked to get the Ethos statement changed (which, by the way, it is now different than when I attended because people did work to change it). I didn’t do either of those. I stood by my word.
Are the way things are the way they should be? I’m not here to answer that question today. If you don’t like the way things are, go through the appropriate processes to change it. In the meantime, stay true to your word. If you can’t stay true to your word in this situation, how can people trust you to stay true to it in any situation? It really is a matter of integrity.
Pastor Swish - Life, Ministry, and Other Stuff 
For those in the LBGTQ community, these types of things are civil rights struggles. Agree with that assessment or not, that’s the belief. How did blacks fight for change during the Civil Rights struggle ofmthe 60’s? Challenging laws and societal norms. I don’t think we would question their patriotism. I wouldn’t question the United Methodism or dedication to United Methodism of Rev. DeLong or others like her. Please, disagree with them, but maybe take it easy on questioning their commitment or integrity.
In the Civil Rights Era, people were not willing submitting themselves to abide by these unjust laws, they were imposed upon them from the government. I think that is a significantly different situation. When we are born into this country, we don’t make a pledge to uphold the laws of the country. The same cannot be said for those entering ministry in the United Methodist Church.
If DeLong and others would argue that their conscience leads them to defy the Book of Discipline, then that same conscience should cause them to work towards change in the Book of Discipline (while abiding by it), or cause them to step away from their commitment to uphold it. Blatantly defying the Discipline doesn’t do anything to further their cause; all it does is put stress on something that is already fractured.
Reading these posts, I kept thinking of two people I know — he is a former priest, she is a former nun, and they’re now married (to each other…) They too ran afoul of church doctrine they once promised to uphold (probably at the time the issues no more affected their lives than your pledge to avoid tobacco and alcohol at seminary affected yours). As their views changed, they too attempted to work within the system — mostly by writing passionate, theologically grounded letters (about celibacy, ordination of women, birth control, and the like). But since they were questioning doctrine considered in harmony with the Holy Spirit, they got exactly nowhere. And so they were processed out of the system (as the WI pastor, and any others who overtly act in defiance of their governing body likely will be). However they did not decide to just “become Protestant” — they continue to serve the Catholic church (in diminished capacity), and they continue to pursue change from within their identity as Catholics. Turns out that although many wish they would just go away (in fulfillment of their “personal agenda”?), they perceive a calling to stay, and to live with the consequences of that choice — which sounds like integrity to me.
As for the Civil Rights era, that sounds to like where the PC(USA) is at — because the “government” is now imposing laws on its people that some of them don’t like. (Remember that the activists who sat at the lunch counters, conducted voter registrations, etc, had federal law — but not local opinion — on their side). So in PC(USA) it is the pastors who oppose inclusive practices towards LGBT’s who now face the gut-wrenching choices: upholding laws they don’t agree with (while pressing for change), acting in defiance of those laws (with a willingness to pay the consequences), or breaking ties with their denomination altogether (major ouch). And Sunday morning will be “the most segregated hour in America” for a long time to come.
As stated above, one of the questions a person is asked before being ordained as a minister in the United Methodist Church is “Will you support and maintain [the discipline, government and polity]?” If a person does not want to support and maintain them, then he/she should not answer that question affirmatively. I won’t even get into the major issues of the bishop knowing about the violations and promising not to bring charges in the first place. If the bishops won’t uphold the Discipline, how can we reasonably expect pastors to do so?
And again, I’ll say that comparing entering into a volunteer organization is not at all like the Civil Rights movement where the government imposed these laws upon the people. If you don’t like it, don’t join it.