The Law of Unintended Consequences takes place whenever outcomes present themselves that were not expected by one’s action. In a Connectional Church like the United Methodist Church, such reverberations are felt sometimes long after decisions are made as new groups of people make use of polity and ecclesial changes.
Green Street United Methodist Church in North Carolina has exposed one such unintended consequence of Judicial Council Decision 1032. And the way how it is lining up is pretty amazing.
Green Street UMC is getting some major press in the last week as it is a local church that has decided to place a moratorium on weddings in their Sanctuary until they can offer weddings to their lesbian and gay members. Their resident Bishop and the President of the Council of Bishops say their actions are legal in our polity. But they’ve also opened the floodgates of online criticism, as folks on Twitter have had scalding things to say from their armchairs (or cheetos-stained basements). While other churches have done this before, NIMBY applies to this situation: this is the first church in the powerful and traditional Southeastern Jurisdiction to do this. So when it happens in the lost liberal wilderness, no one cares. When it happens in your backyard, it gets heated.
But the question is: What gave them the power to do this? How can they do this?
The answer? Judicial Council 1032. But not directly.
In 1032, the Judicial Council (the Top Court of the UMC) decided that a pastor has sole authority when it comes to allowing laity into membership into a local UMC. The case involved a clergy who denied membership to a gay member of the choir. The Bishop removed the pastor and that action made its way to the JC. The JC said that:
As part of these administrative responsibilities the pastor in charge of a United Methodist church or charge is solely responsible for making the determination of a person’s readiness to receive the vows of membership.
Traditionalist Straight People lauded the decision as it gave the pastor sole authority over determining membership and they could exclude LGBT persons who were “unrepentant.” No Bishop or DS could punish a pastor for not allowing LGBT persons into membership. It was a defining moment (upheld by JC review and defeated at General Conference) that gave pastors authority without accountability.
But there’s an unintended consequence from this action, now 7 years old.
Going back to the wedding issue, look at the language regarding the powers/responsibilities of a local pastor in para 340.2
The decision to perform the ceremony shall be the right and responsibility of the pastor.
Huh. The exact same rationale that JC gave when it said pastors could determine membership readiness. In other words, the decision by Green Street is 100% legal because the much-lauded 1032 gave sole authority to clergy.
So the Traditionalist Straight People who say “Green Street should take the ‘United Methodist’ off their yard sign” or “they need a change in pastorate because this one has failed” or “their option is to leave if not in agreement with UMC Doctrine” are being hypocritical if they lauded Judicial Council 1032 because they both involve almost the exact same tenet in the Book of Discipline.
So now, Traditionalist Straight People have a decision to make. Either they must:
- Agree with Progressives that pastoral authority regarding membership and marriages must come with some level of accountability (either to the local SPRC, district committee on ministry, or Conference Board, etc). That way sole responsibility does lie with the clergy making these decisions, but the review of that responsibility lies with a different body at their parish, peer, or conference level.
- Agree that if they really want sole pastoral authority regarding membership and marriage to stand, then they have to allow for local autonomy to make these decisions for themselves…and lay off the criticism.
If Traditionalist Straight People reject both of the above, then clearly their concern is not about the rules or pastoral authority…but about homosexuality and NIMBY. And let’s just name that, instead of hiding behind anguishing over pastoral authority, okay Traditionalist Straight People?
(Photo: “Backyard Chair” on Flickr, Creative Commons Share)
Thank you.
Thanks for reading!
I’m okay with the Pastor having sole authority in membership/marriages as long as it is a pastor on my side of the aisle. Odd situation when we involve a SPRC or the like and they can override an inclusive pastor’s decision to allow all to join, including LGBT. Essentially NIMBY in reverse I suppose. I just want to make sure whoever is making the final calls on this stuff is on my team. A proverbial cake and eat it too situation.
Interesting pairing of concepts – wonder how this will play out. One thing – Edgehill UMC in Nashville, TN (the buckle of the Bible belt, so they say), has had a policy of not doing weddings in their sanctuary until all can marry for at least 10 years. I’m not sure what kind of press Edgehill received when they made the decision, but the policy still stands today.
Ok – found a link for my previous comment about Edgehill – http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc5.htm Scroll down to 1997 (so that was 15 years ago) – and it looks like they may have been one of the first documented (and in the SEJ).
Come on, Jeremy. You know the answer to this one! These people are fully capable of holding two completely opposite, contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time. This has all never been about fairness. It’s about bigotry and homophobia. The arc of history is bending towards justice, and these people just don’t like that, nosiree.
Jim, I understand what you’re saying and why you’re saying it (it’s mostly true), but that sort of attitude towards people of different thinking is part of the problem. We are constantly saying things like “those people” think this or “those people” are this way. They aren’t “those people.” They’re “our people,” and if we’re as progressive as we claim, then we need to search for ways of bridging gaps, not making them bigger by saying things like your comment above.
Just because people are buying into bigotry and homophobia does not mean that we should respond with bigotry against them.
As a “Traditional Straight Person” (I love it when my category can be capitalized), I think you present us with a false “dilemma,” Jeremy. Regarding membership, Good News introduced legislation for the 2012 General Conference that would have created an “appeal” process for persons denied membership. The appellate group in our proposal was the P/SPRC, as a group that is designed to deal with confidential information and also is (theoretically) very representative of the congregation’s views. At some points in the past history of UM, Methodist, and EUB churches, appeals were part of the rules governing membership.
On marriage, for at least 30 years (and probably much longer) the pastor has had sole authority on whether or not he/she will perform a marriage for a particular couple. This allows the pastor to make that decision on the basis of confidential information gleaned in the counseling relationship with the couple. Of course, that authority has always been circumscribed by the laws of the state and the rules of the church. For example, a pastor could not perform a marriage that was illegal in the state (such as marrying two first cousins). The pastor could not perform marriages prohibited by the church, either, such as (in this case) same-sex marriages.
I see no conflict between the pastor having authority to deny membership with an appeal process and the pastor having sole authority (with no appeal) to not perform a marriage. They are different situations. In membership, the pastor is representing the church as an institution. In marriage, the pastor is performing a ministry service that, while connected to the church, does not specifically represent the institutional church. I think it is oversimplifying to say that the pastor must either have sole authority (no appeal) in all cases or that the pastor must have an appeal process in all cases.
I do not dispute the right of Green Street’s pastor to deny all marriages at the church (for whatever reason). I do think it is counterproductive to the ministry of the church, but that is a local church decision. I think the critics of Green Street are reacting not so much to the decision to withhold all marriages, but to the church’s advocacy of a position at odds with the official UM position.
I hope what I’m saying makes sense. Feel free to ask questions for clarification of my position.
Tom, I’m glad that since 2008 that Good News came around on this issue. I didn’t know about that legislation (it wasn’t my committee to monitor in 2012). What ended up being its status? I do want authority to be with the pastor but I also want accountability to those decisions made. Glad we are on the same track here.
I think that since the locus of your criticism being on their advocacy beyond their individual decision doesn’t include you in this “false dilemma” but others whose locus is on the authority of the local church to deny marriages would get some thinking material from the above. I hope 🙂
Actually petition #20618 to amend paragraph 214 was adopted by the Local Church committee and became calendar item #494 but joined another 44 calendar items that would have amended the Discipline that never received ANY consideration in plenary because of the dysfunction caused by those who think like Jeremy . It looks like at least half of those like #20618 had received support from the legislative committee but never received plenary consideration because of the dysfunction of the GCGC led by Mr. Miller or Bishop Wenner’s agreeing to Ms. DeLong’s extortion that perverted the legislative process.
Unfortunately, too many decisions are made and too many people look at things through the prism of homosexuality. The real problem here is that a number of self-avowed practicing gay clergy have been ordained despite lying during their ordination vows and being in violation of the Discipline every day since. Since those who agree with Jeremy are unwilling to admit that this is the real basic issue, it is unlikely that progress is ever going to be made that everyone can live with.
Considering that there are about 22 other United Methodist churches in the Winston-Salem area alone, someone who wants to get married will have plenty of options. I also wonder about the FAQ that states this was a Leadership Council decision not one made by the congregation as a whole.
Other than trying to create a talking point, the linkage between JC 1032 regarding membership and the decision of churches like Green Street to show their support of a right for everyone by denying it to everybody is simply “weak sauce.”
Creed Pogue- Why do you assume all non-heterosexual clergy lied during the ordination vows. There is no part of the ordination vows that require a clergy person to affirmatively state their sexual orientation. I assume you may be referring to question 6 regarding the ethics clause. One does not say they agree or will abide by “celibacy in singleness” when they answer that question. I can say I disagree with it and will not hold that as my standard and it is up to the Board of Ordained ministry to decide if I answered the question faithfully. Now, of course, violating the policy is a chargeable offense, but one must actually charge them with an offense before they would likely be asked the question. Thus, until a clergy person were to demonstrable lie during a trial following a charge, I’m not sure how your claim stands up. It is entirely possible for someone to be a gay clergy person without their having been dishonest at any point.
The concurring opinion in 1032 appears to suggest there is accountability for the pastor. (The lawyers will tell me, no doubt, that a concurrence does not create a precedent, but since Jeremy’s reading of the ruling appears to be heavily influenced by the dissent, it seems at least fair to give the concurrence some consideration.)
Tom –
There is also an “oversimplification” going on with an approach of compartmentalizing authority without accountability. A divide between representation of denominatonal church as an institution (membership) and providing a ministry service (marriage) doesn’t hold up in the long run. Eventually we get into issues of increasingly finer discriminations between our compartments. Sort of like Matthew 23:23 – where we tithe on windowill herbs but won’t give an inch or 0.1% to justice, mercy, and faith.
This sort of compartmentalizing seems designed divide the Holy Spirit into larger (denomininational) and smaller (congregational) venues. Authority isn’t simply authority, but one trumps the other through both overt majority power and dismissal of local variants.
Creed –
While appreciating your ability to make your points through interpretative phrases such as “extortion that perverted”, details still matter. Amy DeLong’s appropriate title in this piece is “Rev.”. Dismissing folks through misappellation is a tonal issue that goest beyond policy or procedural spin.
Self/All –
I am aware I appeal to less compartmentalization and more attention to detail in the same note. This simply indicates the difficulty we continue to have in talking with one another – it is so easy to slip from one perspective to another in order to defend one position or another. Someone connects points differently and I point out a detail. I have been a bit over-zealous in my detail and get caught and reassert a generalized value that doesn’t hold up in individual lives. Around and around we wrap our perspective in steel and gauze. Blessings, all.
Thank you, Tom.
Yes, if Green Street decided to ban weddings because it does not like white lace, that would be within its discretion. But if it declared while banning weddings it was because it opposed church teaching on inter-racial marriage or polygamy or women’s ordination or the divinity of Christ, then there would be reason for others in the connection to object.
Similarly, if the local church issued a press release declaring it was canceling Vacation Bible School until the UMC changed its unjust and bigoted policies regarding sexuality, there would be ground for complaint, not because churches are required by the BOD to offer VBS, but because of the public rejection of church law and doctrine.
It is not the policy that is the sore spot. It is the rhetoric around it.
Marriage is a holy sacrament? Someone skipped Article 16.
Where did anyone claim that, Brett?
It’s on the church web site.
(emphasis added)
Ah-ha! Obviously that is in error.
I thought I had said it somewhere and couldn’t recall ever making that claim!! 😉
I should have been clearer; thanks to John M. for clearing up any confusion I caused.
Theological issues notwithstanding, I think there are two issues at play here in regard to church law, and one of them is being neglected, and I don’t think Decision 1032 has direct bearing.
A pastor can make a decision about who they marry, or whether or not marry anyone at all, per paragraph 340.2, and they don’t need Decision 1032 to establish that authority, nor does it directly support it. But paragraph 340.2 is about the pastor’s discretion in what they themselves do.
There is also the matter of whether or not a church allows its facilities to be used for this purpose. Normally that isn’t even a question, but in these cases it is. Paragraph 243.1 and .6 gives local churches responsibilities including, “1) planning and implement a program of nurture, outreach, and witness for persons and families within and without the congregation;” “and 6) seeking inclusiveness in all aspects of its life.” I believe the church policy in question can be understood to fall within the purview of how the church interprets these provisions.
Paragraph 247.3 gives some broad powers to the charge conference to “review and evaluate the total mission and ministry of the church” and to “adopt objectives and goals recommended by the church council that are in keeping with the objectives of The United Methodist Church.” I believe the church policy in question can be understood to fall within the purview of the charge conference’s ability to adopt objectives and goals.
Additionally, 247.20 gives the charge conference the responsibility to “promote awareness of and concurrence with policies relative to…the Social Principles and The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church.” A church could potentially cite 162.J on equal rights regardless of sexual orientation in relation to this provision, but this time dissenters could similarly cite 161.B on marriage.
To further this point, paragraph 248 gives the charge conference authority to meet as the church conference, which extends the voting ability to all members of the church. Paragraph 252.2(b) charges the church conference, in relation to their outreach ministries, to “give attention to local and larger community ministries of compassion, justice, and advocacy.” I believe a church could cite this provision in support of this policy as well.
All of these instances that I am aware of involved the approval of the church council. I don’t know for sure, but that was probably later re-affirmed by the charge conference as well; I don’t know if any of those charge conferences met as a church conference. In any event, paragraph 244.1 gives the church council the authority to “function as the executive agency of the charge conference,” while still remaining amenable to the charge conference.
To further that point, I am not aware of one of these policies ever being enacted exclusively via the decision of the pastor, and I interpret these provisions to establish that the pastor can determine what he/she will do, and the church council and charge conference can make decisions about what their facilities are used for. To the best of my knowledge, these policies have always been enacted through this joint decision-making process.
With many others, I am pleased with Green Street’s decision, and find it to be a credible and reasonable response given the UMC’s current position.
I would, however, remind everyone that Trinity UMC in Austin made this exact same decision back in 1998, when the UMC first added the strictures on clergy and churches.
While I, in no way, want to take the focus off Green Street, I hope Trinity’s heroic action, taken in a time when gay marriage support was far less than today, is not forgotten either.