As another complaint against an LGBT Methodist is brought forward, Methodists should consider how to make complaints better function in the United Methodist Church.
The Ease of Charges
In the United Methodist Church, a pastor can be accused of an offense (“charged”) for a variety of reasons. Some pastors are absolutely awful and accountability must be sought. However, the primary reason in recent years has to do with LGBT inclusion: most pastors are charged with officiating same-gender weddings for LGBT church members, or being gay/lesbian themselves.
In our church system, charges of misconduct are very easy to make. Any laity or clergy in the United Methodist Church can levy charges against another clergy or laity, or question a person’s ordination status. We saw this past year that a trio of pastors in North Carolina, New Jersey, and Texas wrote a letter supporting the removal of a ministry candidate…in Pennsylvania. However, the reversal is also true: charges can be dismissed almost as easily if a Bishop’s cabinet deems it without merit…and that’s it.
It’s an incredible action that has incredibly large effects on a person’s ministry…and all it takes is a simple letter from anyone in the United Methodist Church, no matter how distant from the clergy’s ministry.
I wonder if there was a way for the complainant to feel the process better, for their own betterment so that they experience the weight of their easy action.
A cue from the President’s briefcase…
What if this process was made much more personal? Whenever a huge decision is to be made, we typically sanitize it to make it easier. So what would the reverse look like?
The popular blog BoingBoing recently entertained a relevant theoretical scenario. Instead of a soldier following around the President with a briefcase of code numbers to launch nuclear warheads to a remote location, the soldier should have the codes somewhere else:
My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.
In short, for the President to take thousands or millions of lives remotely, the President should have to personally take someone’s life in order to do it. That would be definitely make anyone stop and think if it was worth it! And then only undertake the action if they were willing to feel the weight of their action personally.
A cue from Anti-Abortion advocates…
While I’m not suggesting that I think it’s time to do anything that violent, I do think the idea of making a process more personal has both precedence and applicability to where we are in the United Methodist Church.
Over the past few decades, anti-abortion advocates have legislated an inordinate amount of steps women must go through before ending a pregnancy. In some states, people have to wait a few days, watch a video, view a sonogram, and other things to make a medical procedure more…and this is the least atrocious way I can say it…more personal.
If it’s good enough for anti-abortion advocates to add steps to personalize a process, then it’s a good enough precedence for the United Methodist Church to apply it to the process of making a complaint.
A Checklist before Charges
From the two examples above, additional steps are placed in a process to force the person to feel their decision more. Therefore, before a charge can be filed specific to LGBT-related issues (we do not want any impediments to other types of charges), I suggest the complainant must do the following:
- Complainants must read Defrocked by Frank Shaefer about his clergy trial experience, and read Adam’s Gift and read how after Jimmy Creech was defrocked his family was cleaning toilets to make ends meet.
- Complaintants must read the official transcripts of the three most recent trials of clergy (at the moment, that would be Frank Shaefer, Beth Stroud, and Amy DeLong).
- Complainants must call the Trevor Hotline and ask the people there about how many suicidal calls are from LGBT persons and how many antigay sentiments from the church have contributed to it.
- Complainants must volunteer three times at a youth homeless shelter and have conversations with shelter staff about how many homeless LGBT youth they serve and the reasons for their homelessness.
- Complainants must have a face-to-face conversation with at least one actual LGBT person about why they are relaying charges and why it is important to them.
Let’s be clear: these are not punitive actions meant to make a serpentine process even moreso. Rather, I fully believe that after a person has undertaken these types of preparation, then they are better qualified to decide whether to bring charges. Whether they choose to bring charges or not, they will be bettered by this process that seeks restoration and reconciliation, not just retribution.
Thoughts?
This is also a thought experiment: to my knowledge, this is not a proposal before General Conference 2016.
However, it seems to me that the process of making a LGBT-related complaint robs the complainant of full understanding of what the complaint means, and its effects on individuals and the Church.
Therefore, the above proposal offers to help the complainant better understand what “do no harm” means in John Wesley’s largest denomination, and I think we would all be bettered by it.
Thoughts?
Would it be fair, then, to ask a pastor/bishop to read all that prior to committing a (possible) offense, such as a presiding at a same gender wedding, etc? Surely it could help them make a decision as to whether or not to break their vows if they first have to see what their family may go through.
And…why confine it just to issues of sexual behavior? Isn’t this something that any & all potential / planned violators could benefit from doing?
I’m actually quite sure that anyone who undertakes that action has done more research and reflection on that action than a bare minimum would call for.
So they’ve decided that unfaithfulness is more important than the well-being of their families? Wow. I certainly hope you’re wrong. My guess is that they have NOT thought through all that their unfaithfulness might mean for their families or the Church.
Another “Wow!” You mean you actually think that pastors who follow their understanding of Jesus’ mission and ministry and conduct same gender wedding DON’T consider the consequences?! In my experience they know all too well what the possible outcome may be, but follow their understanding of God a despite the risk.
If they think that Jesus said go out and preform same sex marriages then I would question their Biblical understanding as a whole as it is VERY CLEAR that Jesus said a marriage is between a Man and a Woman. There is no logical, common sense reason to misunderstand this. I don’t think these pastors are doing this because they thing it is morally right, I think they are doing it because they have been led astray by Satan and the corruption of the common culture. When cartoons and movies who’s target audience are kids under 10 promote homosexuality we MUST stand up for the TRUE TEACHINGS of Jesus!
This is, at best, akin to putting a band aid on a gushing wound. Like several other demonations, the UMC will continue their slide into unless and until it changes its bigoted and distinctly unChristian policies and practices. I say this as a former member who could no longer be associated with a church that treated my child as “less than” simply for being the person God made them to be.
So when someone comes to your former UMC church asking to marry their second wife, will you stand by their side or will you exhibit bigotry towards “polysexuals”?
Sorry but God didn’t make them that way.
I’m interested in your opinion on this. Who did?
I would rather see a complainant have to meet face to face with the person they are going to file charges against and have to share a meal with them. They would have to talk about their shared ministry vision and then the complainant would have to give the complaint in writing to the person and discuss it. I’d add that both parties should sign a statement saying that they could not come to mutual understanding resolving the complaint before it can be forwarded on. This certainly has a biblical basis (Matthew 18) and it might eliminate the complaints from afar mentioned in the blog. If you are not willing to drive from Texas to file a complaint against someone from PA, perhaps you don’t really care that much.
I like this a lot. Thanks Jared.
Jared,
That is a great idea. I especially like the sharing a meal together aspect of it. Well done, indeed.
Good idea.
I find this to be the most reasonable action to take in regards to most all complaints. If we aren’t willing to talk to someone face-to-face and give voice to our objections, we may not object as much as we thought.
I agree Jared.
I agree. And as someone who can agree with the current BOD’s stance on LGBT issues, I think this is a good idea! And this can be used for ANY offense and would bring us to be more Biblical in our living!!!!! Make it a proposal to General Conference!!!
Having served on military courts-martial I have some experience in seeing the impact upon the innocent victims. A common defense is that confinement and discharge punishes the family since they are kicked out of the military healthcare system, lose housing privileges and so on. While understanding all that and even knowing that hardship that will ensue, good order and discipline comes first or we will not have an effective fighting force. It is the person who committed the crime who put his family in this predicament not the people who imposed the punishment. The larger picture is what counts.
Since LGBT inclusion-related offenses are victimless, I’m not sure I see the parallel. The complainants are not victims of a pastor’s error, especially across AC lines.
They are NOT victimless, Jeremy. The Church is harmed. And that affects the sharing of the gospel. So, millions suffer when a pastor or bishop is deliberately unfaithful, whether that involves sexual behavioral issues or other issues.
The clergy covenant is between clergy persons in the same annual conference. Therefore, the only possible violations of covenant are between clergy and laity in an annual conference boundaries.
Clergy are still baptized – and the Baptismal Covenant is threefold: (1) to the Church Catholic, (2) to the United Methodist Church, and (3) to the local congregation. I’m not sure your “therefore” holds.
I agree. And folks who practice biblical obedience do so by claiming their baptismal covenant calls them to offer ministry to all persons.
However, I don’t believe clergy are charged as violating baptismal covenants. They are charged as violating clergy covenants. So the therefore seems to hold…for me.
I must have explained it poorly. It looks like you want to personalize the charging system. It is not a personal thing but an organization one. An accuser does not have to justify the accusation but only be somewhat assured that an offense has been committed. After that the process kicks in and the accuser has no more role, unlike the civil courts. It is not about specific victims. It is about organizational integrity. Since we live within a connectional system a violation on the other side of the country affects us all.
Exactly right. According to our covenant, “harm” must be shown for charges to proceed. The Discipline doesn’t specify that the harm needs to be limited to Conference boundaries, only that the process will be carried out within an Annual Conference.
Love this! Equally love Jared’s suggestion. Make it “personal” for the complainant.
since God doesn’t make mistakes, let’s learn to forgive each other and let us be what we are! These pastors do. They should not be victims because they marry people in love!
It wouldn’t hurt all United Methodists, whether they are making complaints or not, to read the documents, volunteer and get to know others who are different from them. Who knows, we might actually have open minds, open hearts and open doors.
Amen Leigh!
You bring up a very important point. Even in our US legal system we have the “confrontation clause.” The fact that these life-altering charges can be brought from outside one’s one’s annual conference is distorted and has no personal accountability for the accuser(s). The highest outcomes from this process should be restoration (to position), and reconciliation (between accuser and accused). You have to get personal for the second to happen. Along the lines of Jared, one of my favorite paradigms for “reconciliation” is Morgan Spurlock’s series “Thirty Days” .. (on Netflix).. where an average American steps out of his/her comfort zone for 30 days, *living/eating/working* with someone else of an opposite view/life: gay w/ straight, Christian w/ Muslim, pro-choice/life, anti-immigration man lives with a family of illegal immigrants. The exchanges are powerful, raw, tender, tense, life-changing, and most importantly gives the up close and personal view of the heretofore “other.” Seems very Jesus-y to me. We UMs should do as well.
I love it, Pamela!
I believe the discernment process led by the Bishop allows for these conversations. Important to have them, I agree. But they’re already a part of the process.
The ideas of a checklist are sound. Your comparison to what anti-abortion groups have done undermines your argument. They undermine women’s access to health care when they put together their nefarious list of hurdles. We want people to test their gentleness before they file a complaint against another United Methodist.
Thanks Jeannie. I included that example not as support for those actions but as a rhetorical strategy to show how conservatives support such checklists in other areas and therefore can find viability in applying it to this area.
I appreciate what you are getting at with this post; empathy and understanding are certainly good values though they feel onerous requests as laid out here – maybe that was the intent.
Another route might be to require the complainant to detail, with concrete examples, how the person being charged has harmed them personally. What I’m getting at is this. I have no business filing charges on people I’ve never met whose actions have no concrete impact upon my life, or ministry. The farther away a person is from a situation, the higher the bar should be for their ‘right’ to file a complaint.
A lot of things happen in churches across this connection that might anger me or make me sad. I have a right to those feelings but a church guided by love binds its discipline in relationship that is more than a book updated every four years.
IMHO, much of our United Methodist squabbling is the result of well-intentioned, but poorly designed, kingdom-building under a questionable theological mandate. We were commissioned to preach the Good News to the ends of the earth; we weren’t asked to organize it to death.
How about the situation with Rev. Bias at Discipleship Ministries?
How about how Bishop Stanovsky handled the situation with the late Rev. Ed Paup?
If “boingboing” and you or whomever are opposed to any use of nuclear weapons (or probably any weapons), would you be intellectually honest enough to explain what you would do about those people (North Korea, Russia(?), etc.) who would be emboldened to use nuclear weapons against us or at least threaten their use knowing that nothing would be done to them? Deterrence is not a great moral construct by any means but certainly better than your dangerous alternative. If it were only you who faced incineration, I might be convinced to go along. But, you put everyone else at risk for YOUR moral vanity.
Finally, it would be good for more people to read the transcripts and pleadings in DeLong and Schaefer to get a better understanding of the facts. Why did a bishop try to place DeLong knowing her practices? Why did DeLong choose to deny her practices in the trial while proudly proclaiming them everywhere else? Would you be comfortable with allowing the defendant in a civil proceeding to ignore questions if the case involved race or sexual discrimination or theft?
As a person who is considering a call to ordained ministry within the UMC, I am greatly troubled by what I perceive as a lack of willingness to compromise, from both sides of the issue.
I am an LGBTQ ally, and fully believe that our denomination needs to embrace everyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. However, I acknowledge that not everyone shares my views, and that this issue could very well tear our church apart.
From a logical standpoint, I cannot vow to uphold the Discipline, knowing that I would willingly violate it, if the situation presented itself. Coming to this conclusion greatly complicates my sense of calling.
I hope and pray that something changes this year at General Conference, but I’m not holding my breath.
Respectfully, if you cannot obey the rules that trouble you then you should not benefit from the rules that please you and you should give strong consideration to exactly what your call is.
This does not complicate your call. It simplifies it. If you cannot vow to uphold the doctrine and discipline of The UMC then ba bing you have your answer. Time to move on.
Ross H
Stay strong. You are not alone and your calling matters to the UMC. You are loved. Continue pursuing your call in the UMC and we will all see the glory that is to come! 🙂
Why only LGBTQ? Why not any of the P, P, P, O or Z orientations? Do you just follow what’s popular rather than the unchanging truth of God’s creation of male and female for each other?
To everyone whose comments imply that one should not follow the call into UMC ministry if they cannot uphold certain rules of the Discipline:
Why would one neglect God’s calling to cater to the short-sightedness of mortals, who continue to cling to a covenant that is contrary to Heart of The Word? And, to those same commenters – Are you committed to discerning Truth as it is revealed in nature, in love, in life? Or will you allow ancient exclusionary practices to govern your relationship with God and God’s creation? Will you hold yourself to the standards you propose in your comments? Beyond the sanctions of the UMC Book of Discipline, the Bible calls for holiness – are you following all the ‘rules’? And if not, why do answer the call? Why do choose to identify as a Christian?
I long for the day we quit intellectualizing this issue in the UMC and actually commit to follow the teachings of Christ. God created each of us and loves us all, no questions asked, no qualifications on that love. How can we do anything less? What right do we have to do anything less? If this issue splits the church, so be it. This world is desparate for people of faith to publicly embrace differences in others. I would be proud to be a member of a faith community that does this.
Does that include the following teaching, or just the ones you like?
Why do you begin this issue by suggesting that the problem is with the complainant? The complainant would not have a complaint unless someone had done something wrong. Don’t shift the onus back onto the complainant. Focus it instead on the one that seeks to violate The Book of Discipline and the covenant he or she took when he or she became a United Methodist minister.
This is such an interesting discussion within these topics, specifically LGBTQ inclusion.
While reading, though, my heart was racing thinking of complainants having to understand what their complaint will do to the accused and their family. These aren’t the only charges that may be brought against a clergy. What is going through my mind is a particular instance where a female staff person was sexually harassed and assaulted by the clergy person who was her boss. The clergy surrendered credentials. The complainant finally had to move to another state. (there are many details left out of this telling of the situation). I wouldn’t want her to be deterred at all in filing her complaint. NOW, the process in this filing may be different than in the filings being discussed in this forum. I’m merely sharing what was going through my mind as I read.
At the same time, it seems ridiculous to me that pastors from unrelated Conferences…individuals not directly connected to the situation file a complaint.
This is The UMC. There is no such thing as an unrelated conference.
You can debate this until the end of time – but the real issue is the UMC’s stated stance on this issue, the pastor’s vows to uphold the Discipline and their breaking those vows – defiantly breaking their vows in hopes of forcing the issue. The church must uphold the discipline and hold pastor’s accountable to what “IS” right now – otherwise we lose all credibility as an organization. Change is slow in the.church – but it needs to go through the process.