Shattered like our Covenant (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
From the document (linked above), which passed overwhelmingly at that Jurisdictional Conference:
In response to our common belief that God’s grace and love is available to all persons, the Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church states our belief that the United Methodist Church is in error on the subject of “homosexuality’s incompatibility with Christian teaching.”
We commend to our bishops, clergy, local churches and ministry settings, the challenge to operate as if the statement in Para. 161F does not exist, creating a church where all people are truly welcome.
The secretary of the Western Jurisdictional Conference will submit this statement of Gospel Obedience to the Jurisdictional College of Bishops, each Annual Conference, and chairpersons of Boards of Ordained Ministry for discussion and implementation.
Those of you who are not familiar with our polity should know that the United Methodist Church currently holds as its doctrine the following statement on homosexuality: ”
The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.
The only body of the United Methodist Church that may revoke or change this stance is the General Conference of the United Methodist Church. A few weeks ago, that body failed to make such a change. The Western Jurisdiction has made this statement in violation of covenant and polity, and is rejecting the denominational stand.
I have no problem with people who follow their conscience and the leadership of the Spirit in their lives. In fact, I applaud it. I understand that this move was a carefully considered theological decision based on the dictates of conscience and done with careful exegesis (by some, anyway) and painstaking reflection.
But this action shows little regard for the connection and the covenant vow made at ordination.
I have little respect for folks who take a stand on an issue by defying the connection and covenant while still reaping the benefits of the connection and covenant.
All clergy were asked at ordination: “Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church? … Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity? … Do you approve our Church government and polity? Will you support and maintain them?”
Maintenance means upgrades and changes sometimes. Our polity allows for that. What it does not allow, without ethical breach, is ignoring our polity, even for the sake of conscience. Instead, provisions are made for withdrawal, honorable location, or sabbatical time which might be used to further this agenda of change within our denomination.
If you cannot support and maintain our polity while working to change it, then conscience dictates a departure. Those who value the covenant too highly to depart it should at least respect it while working to change the polity.
What this has done is establish a precedent for ignoring our Discipline. You might agree with this action in the current setting, but what happens when a Jurisdiction allows a bishop to make arbitrary changes to the status of one’s ordination — based on conscience of course — without an appeal to process? This precedent becomes a thing of destruction and not a path worthy of our best traditions.
If this or any other issue is worth defying the denomination, then defy it, by all means. But don’t pick and choose the comfortable parts of the covenant like pension, guaranteed appointment, insurance, and, for some, parsonage housing while you refuse to abide by the uncomfortable theology that is, for good or for ill, in place by the will of our General Conference.
No cheers for the Western Jurisdiction on this matter.
Related articles
- Western Jurisdiction: Gay issue stand wrong (umc.org)
- Enter the Rainbow: It Was a Holy Mess – Jurisdictional Conference Reflections (methoblog.com)
- The United Methodist Reporter: Can United Methodists face a few hard truths? (methoblog.com)
- Conferences reject church’s stance on gays (umc.org)
As an ordained pastor in the Western Jurisdiction, I guess I am wondering if you think there is ever a role for being a “conscientious objector” within the life of The United Methodist Church? In the larger culture (for instance during the Civil Rights struggle), there was a powerful role played by people who didn’t leave their local communities, but peaceably defied the laws until the laws were changed to be more just. There were some people who wished that those “troublemakers” would have either just obeyed those unjust laws or left, but they didn’t. They stayed because they had a different vision for their community. The question I pose to you is one that I am considering myself: “Is there ever a role for being a “conscientious objector” within the life of The United Methodist Church?
Conscientious objectors are recognized by the military. Before there was a designation, folks who ignored their responsibilities suffered penalties.
And that’s the point. We swore a vow. This wasn’t legislated and thrust upon us. We knew when we took the vow that the stipulation was in place. We aren’t sitting at lunch counters objecting to laws that leave no options.
We are serving willingly in an institution with which we sometimes disagree.
My point is that those who choose to violate their vows should forego the benefits as well. See the section referred to above regarding the questions asked at ordination.
Given the fact that most Western Jurisdiction rulings have been more along the lines of a wink and a nudge, this isn’t taking a stand. The likelihood of someone losing their orders over this is minimal. And the disrespect for colleagues and process is unmistakeable.
No conscientious objector ever took an oath to uphold the very law or rule he or she was protesting.