An entire class of 16 clergy candidates in The United Methodist Church was voted down in Florida because two of them were so unacceptable that Conservatives were willing to throw out the entire class rather than let “those people” live out their call to ordained ministry.
The Cruelty is the Point
In secular politics, The Atlantic writer Adam Serwer coined the phrase “the cruelty is the point.” It means that repeatedly targeting particular minority groups is not just scoring cheap political points but is intended to exclude that people group entirely from any positions of power or from even being able to vote at all. Antagonizing people out of politics and power entirely is the point.
That phrase now applies to 28% of voting clergy in the Florida Annual Conference who voted down an entire new class of clergy, 16 people in all, solely to target and remove two LGBTQ+ candidates, no matter the collateral damage to straight candidates and fellow conservatives. Unbelievable.
Let’s take a look at the details.
Wesleyan Discernment
A quick primer on the ordination journey that has multiple steps and years along the way. Here are (roughly) the steps:
- First, a candidate first discerns a call to ministry with their pastor.
- The pastor recommends them to their local church SPRC, which questions them and votes on them.
- The SPRC recommends them to their local church charge conference, which questions them and votes on them.
- The candidates are then questioned and voted on by district committees on ordained ministry, including district clergy, laity, and the district superintendent. They work for months or years then with a mentor.
- Perhaps the most significant step comes next: candidates prepare materials for the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, which grill candidates on a variety of topics and practices and then they vote and recommend candidates for provisional clergy membership.
- Then—and this is the subject for today—candidates are voted on by the Clergy Session of an annual conference. If they pass, they become clergy but without voting privileges (hence, provisional).
- and 8. Finally, the last two steps are similar to the above: after several years of fulfilling requirements, the provisional clergy are again voted on by the BOM and by clergy session before they become fully ordained clergy with voice and vote and conference membership. Whew!
This is a long process. I went through almost the fastest you could, and it took me four years to get to Step 6, and eight years to get fully ordained. It’s a lot of time. As you can see, by the time a candidate comes to Step 6, they are well known by elected and nominated members of this process. Like Wesleyan Accountability being best-practiced face-to-face, the closer people are to candidates, the best they can discern with them whether ordained ministry is in their calling.
Gatekeepers & Hoops
However, at each level are folks who see themselves as gatekeepers, as people who feel the need to keep the standard of clergy high and keep the riff-raff out. For most, it’s not a cruel decision as they are setting an arbitrary standard regardless of the candidate. Fine, whatever.
But for some, that gatekeeping is to keep specific demographics of people from becoming clergy: either grads from THAT seminary (this happened to me) or–yes, really!—women, or members of the LGBTQ+ community. It doesn’t matter the candidates’ call or fruits of ministry; the cruelty is the point of keeping “them” from conference membership.
At the Florida Annual Conference clergy session, we see examples of this type of gatekeeping turning into petty obstructionism, with very real consequences that were unnecessary and indiscriminately harmful.
Florida Man-ipulations
Here’s what happened in Florida at Stage 6 of the above process on June 9th, 2022.
Florida had a class of 16 provisional candidates (11 elders, 5 deacons) that were up for a vote at the Clergy Session of the Annual Conference. Discipline mandates a 3/4 affirmative vote for passage. Keep in mind, up to this point, candidates have passed multiple examinations by people who know them directly and well. So it is very rare for a clergy session to dismiss the work of the ordination journey at that point, especially as people mostly don’t know the candidates well.
Florida has a tradition of voting for candidates as a class, not individually, so they were all up for a vote together. And yet when the vote came, for the first time in recent history, the entire class was voted down. Yes, you read that right. Conservatives and Traditionalists and WCA members voted down the entire provisional class. All 16 of them. All because two members of the class had publicly identified themselves as LGBTQ+. The cruelty was the point.
While 72% of Florida UMC clergy present affirmed the personal calls and collective discernment processes of these candidates, 28% voted no. One such person who voted “no” bravely called for a second vote to reconsider the denial of the entire class. It failed by a heartbreaking 7 votes.
There is real indiscriminate harm done here by this scorched earth action. The class included seven graduates from Asbury Theological Seminary, the vanguard conservative institution. Really? Were they unacceptable?? And while the provisional elders can get licensed for ministry anyways so that they can serve as clergy, the five deacon candidates have no such option and are cut out entirely. They remain laity until June 2023. Really? It was worth it to upend 16 lives and send families home empty-hearted after a canceled Commissioning?
Finally, what I want to know is how many of those “no” votes were from pastors who will no longer be in the UMC? While the FLUMC is voting on only 14 church disaffiliations this year, the actual number of churches intending to disaffiliate is much higher than that. It stands to reason that all or most of those 7 deciding votes came from pastors who aren’t planning on staying in The UMC anyway.
The Broken Chalice
Other than voting down the LGBTQ+ candidates without regard for the collateral damage, I don’t really know what those nay-voting clergy were thinking. Maybe they were hoping the non-LGBTQ+ candidates would feel aggrieved and embrace some type of angry victimhood which would help the nay-voters justify their actions.
As it turns out, they couldn’t be more wrong.
The part of this story that sticks with me is that hours after this vote, with their guts punched and their futures uncertain, that entire class of candidates served Holy Communion at an annual conference service. Looking into the eyes and serving the bread and cup to likely some of those very clergy who derailed their lives with reckless abandon and erased years of discernment by people who actually knew the candidates inside and out. “The body of Christ, broken for you.”
That sort of resilience and faith is what the UMC needs. My prayer is that the clergy session vote gets reconsidered, that people who voted “no” reconsider the collateral damage of their actions and vote “yes,” and if not, then the “no” becomes a “not yet”, and the next year’s class is even more incredible than this one.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, subscribing, and sharing on social media.
Actually I believe that one if the candidates is not just identifying as LGBTQ+…. But is on video as saying they are practicing. That was the hang up that the BOM would knowingly pass on someone that is disqualified per the BOD to be commissioned…. No matter what I personally think about how a person should be able to live out their calling, having someone there that openly and publicly is flaunting our discipline seems to be asking clergy to take a step too far
As a UMC retired clergy with degrees from leftist leaning Candler in the 1970s and in the 1990s way over the top leftist UTS (Jeremiah Wright gave the keynote speech at one of our primary doctoral campus sessions), I have met the denominational enemy, and, to quote Peanuts, “he is us.” (She/He or They when gender nomenclature run amuck is applied.)
I was not there when my Floridian ecclesiastical siblings “voted out” an entire class of provisional ordinands, but there had to have been a way to vote on them individually. As we transition to a church open to lgbtq clergy, chosen gender identity for laity and clergy alike, and woke values in place of or alongside our historic, traditional values, there will be rough moments. In time our traditional folks will move on to the GMC and everyone who wants an inclusive church with practicing same sex partners in the parsonages, same sex weddings in church sanctuaries and woke/Democrat secularism ruling the day will get their way. I’d advise against ordaining “in your face” flaming lgbtq folks, but my opinion doesn’t matter. I am just an old white guy who loves Jesus and follows John Wesley as much as I can. I’ll stand beside all of my clergy siblings, progressive and traditional alike, pray for you every day as I have for five decades or so, and let the Lord sort things out.
The post to which I am responding seems partisan and unsympathetic to any of us who may disagree. I’ll love and pray for its author anyway. I don’t much agree with the opinion but will always respect the fellow clergy who expressed it.
Must be nice to be able to be an “in your face” flaming old white man.
Actually, that was the late great Pogo who said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
That flaming lbgtq folk is my beloved daughter! You have no business disparaging her with your insensitive comments. I do believe God loves you but I also believe he is so very disappointed in you today.
Amen
*Pogo
https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/ordained-ministry/florida-clergyman-describes-vote-against-class-with-two-gay-/
They tried to vote separately, but the bishop wouldn’t allow it.
You are talking about my younger brother, who saved my family and our church. My friends. My students. I’m just an old Christian who refuses to hate and slander people who were born different than me. I’ll pray for you too, that you would see a little love grow in you before you stand before the one we serve. But I will pray much harder for those 16 called lives you and the WCA seem bent on destroying.
Ever ask Clergy session how many are In or have been in extra-marital relationships? Also against BOD, but seldom called out. BOD is a work of men (gender intentional), not the Law of Love.
How about, “Are you in debt so as to embarrass you in your work?” Nothing like requiring graduate theological education and then asking the graduates if they’re in debt before ordaining them.
It is very likely that Jesus and Paul would not be ordained in The United Methodist Church. After all, both of them spent time in jail. The Mississippi Conference refused to ordain Ed King in the 1960’s because he was in jail at the time of the vote. At least the vote was close. Racism was and is very much alive in our Country we call the United States of America. Ditto for the United Methodist Church.
Do you just want to prolong the mythology that clergy are perfect? I don’t get your point. How is someone’s commitment to a loving relationship a threat to you? What did Jesus say about this? Give us some quotes please.
The gist here is whether you try to follow what Jesus did and taught, I.e. compassion, love, removing tribal instincts; or if you think the whole point was to be slaughtered so you can go to heaven but be a complete jerk while you are alive. There’s a huge difference between the two church’s that are splitting, and they are completely incompatible. The message of Jesus while he lived as an example or the profitable vending machine system of insert this coin (say this), push this button (hate others and call them sinners-but not greedy leaders of the church), and then yippee, you can go to heaven!
Because Jesus treated everyone he met with “I’m here to die for your sins”, and he never said a thing about loving the ‘other’, to critiquing hypocrisy, right?
Jeremy—have you found out why progressives in the conference didn’t approve the motion on the floor to vote on candidates individually? It seems like allowing this to pass would have done less harm.
And this is why people are leaving the church. When actions of the church are based more on politics and less on faith, it becomes harder to stay associated with an institution that is meant to put God first, but doesn’t.
Being approved while others are not comes with its own harm.
Amen❣️ I am a happily retired UMC pastor’s wife and cannot believe they did this. What about all the divorced pastors?
The Bishop discouraged the individual votes, at least in part from wanting to be on time for lunch. In my opinion.
Tell me there is no truth in this!!
Ask him….
Allowing each candidate to be voted on wouldn’t support the progressive’s lies.
A tweet from a provisional Deacon in the FLUMC:
“I stepped out of clergy session when bishop carter was reading scripture at the end, so I saw the first few folks who were leaving.
The laughs, smiles, & joy I saw on peoples faces was demonic.”
The NO voters had the choice to abstain, but they were indeed intending to do harm and cruelty was most certainly the point. They’ll surely never repent of their sin, but I hope that they receive enough scorn and rebuke to at least make some of them quite uncomfortable with their disgusting, hateful, and un-Christian act! The ones who are headed out the door truly want to “burn down the building” on the way out.
How sad that we have not accepted good people for what & as they are. Such a loss of potential.
Thanks Jeremy for accurately describing these events within the Florida Conference; our Bishop announced this morning that he is examining the possibility of holding a special called annual conference, including a special Clergy session–the purpose of voting about additional disaffiliations of churches AND to vote on approving the commissioning of the deacon and elder candidates for ministry.
It has always been the practice in Florida (going back to the mid-70’s) to vote on the “class” of ordinands each year, rather than single out individual candidates; those classes travel the journey together.
A very disgraceful act by the anti-gay conservative Florida clergy who simply have not searched their own family and circle of loved ones! In my own experience, only as I took a closer look at my blood relatives and my family. and primary friend relationships did I begin to realize “Y’all really does mean ALL when it comes to God’s creation of us human beings…. What’s more, I guess there are still some clergy in Florida who have not been studying seriously our Lord and savior Jesus. As far as I can discern, the man named Jesus accepted folk of every DNA, genetic mix. If the Global Methodist Church follows the actions of its homophobic Florida clergy, yet insists that their mission shall be “to make disciples of Jesus Christ who worship passionately, love extravagantly, and witness boldly then they are writing their obituary even as they begin!
Gene writes, “As far as I can discern, the man named Jesus accepted folk of every DNA, genetic mix.” You are so right, Gene. What Christ also did was call us all to repentance. What He DID NOT do was ordain the unrepentant sinner to lead His church, or change the Father’s definition of covenant marriage, laid out in Genesis 2, which is the foundational issue at hand.
Amen! Thank you Susan.
Many should reread the Bible in entirety instead of plucking scriptures to justify our misguided understanding of love somehow makes one righteous?
UMC Book of Discipline clearly stated what is expected as a clergy so why would one so bent on becoming one if one doesn’t agree? Enemy is working every where! Including churches. Yes, we’re all sinners, some of us rejecting that lifestyle is not unloving but we’re are trying to follow Biblical teachings as we see it fit. All those feels strongly he/she understands the scripture better then one should find many other denomination to join but now we will be broken like the rest.
Profound song.
“Sin will take you farther than you want to go,
Slowly, but wholly, taking control,
Sin will leave you longer than you want to stay,
Sin will cost you far more than you want to pay.”
Prayers for us all.
The Book of Discipline also clearly defines a process for a church leaving yet 106 UMC churches are suing the FLUMC conference, Bishop and District Superintendents to circumvent the Book of Discipline process. It seems the Book of Discipline is only convenient when it supports your position. How about we follow Jesus’ words and direction?
I’m sorry. Whose actions are “incompatible with Christian teaching”? This breaks my heart.
Linda this has broken my heart too! My husband and I were discussing this morning if we wanted to remain UMethodist and that is the straw! No we want to be Christians – why do we need a denomination? And…we do not want to be part of such a cruelty! My heart breaks too!
If you want to change God’s word, then start a new church with your own version of the Bible. Yes we are all sinners, and we need to get back to Gods word and stop changing it to please the crowd. Yes I am happy a message has been sent and I am sad that those who want to stand by Gods word, The Holy Bible, are being kicked out of their church by those who want to change it.
Amen!
Amen!
Indeed!
This is both infuriating and heartbreaking.
I am wondering if this action was in full or in part a retaliatory action against the statement issued a few days ago signed by five liberal individuals (and others) who had helped formulate the mediated Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation. In that statement they withdrew support for the Protocol, which seems to be a reaction to the WCA launching the GMC last month instead of waiting for the Protocol to be adopted at GC. Seems the first shot fired was this launch, and the action by conservative clergy in Florida against two LGBTQ candidates, necessitating doing harm to 16 candidates, was the third shot. Seems a barrage and full-scale war is not far off.
The individuals in that class got used. The BOM was playing chicken with the minority that needed to be on board with their commissioning recommendations. Then a majority of the clergy session decided to continue the game by not allowing the question to be divided. And everyone lost.
Despite this tradition, the candidates for provisional membership had to be considered individually. This is a violation of their rights under the Discipline.
That said, the UMC has the most convoluted, drawn out, critical and adversarial process of any denomination save the Roman Catholic Church. It’s like rushing a sorority with all the petty, arrogant, subjectiveness of that process. It wasn’t this way before 1996. But the SE jurisdiction and their central conference cohort changed things to the mess that exists now. That is one thing that HAS to be revised when the formal separation occurs.
When an NCJ conference in 1995 did accept everyone, the BOM had said no to a person who was “too rigid” because he wouldn’t say Jesus wasn’t the only Way, Truth and Life, a classical orthodox piece of our faith.
Was the BOM right when those who knew him better in the session appealed to the whole?
That it has always been a “tradition” to vote on provisional members as a “class” should not obscure the fact that the Discipline recognizes no such tradition. In fact one could argue from a plain reading of the Discipline that it implies that each candidate be voted on individually. At the very least, why didn’t some clergy member demand that individual votes be taken. The annual conference cannot add to the Discipline’s requirements regarding election to provisional membership, which voting by “class” does.
PS. provisional members may vote on all matters before the Annual Conference, except constitutional amendments and matters of ordination and conference relations.
A clergy member proposed individual votes and the bishop ruled the proposal out of order.
When l went before the Board of Ordained Ministry 49 years ago for my first interview, a member of the all male committee opened his Discipline and read the paragraph which then said “and men shall be recruited for ministry…” He then asked “what makes you think that applies to YOU?” As a woman l could only answer, “l only know that l am called by God. ” Now, 5 decades, 5 appointments, an 8 year term as District Superintendent, 3 years of which l was Dean of the Cabinet, a nomination to the episcopacy by my annual conference, and 10 years in my retirement appointment my answer is the same: “l only know l am called.” I also know there are those who would still ask me the same question and discount the authenticity of my answer. I will not be found among those who are questioning the privilege of God to call whomever God will call.
Linda Campbell-Marshall – great Reply!
No one should question the privilege of God to call whomever God will call. Those who vote based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity put themselves above God.
Just one More reason to find another denomination that truly follows Jesus and loves all people regardless of their ethnicity, gender, race, or status. A sad day for the UM conference.
The contrasting moment in plenary session— when the disaffiliating churches were released with a blessing and the exhortation to “not disparage those who stay”— could not have been more stark. No fuss, no muss. Just go in peace. It didn’t have to be this way for the clergy candidates who want to stay and serve.
My husband & I come from long lines of UMC pastors, back to circuit riders. We met at a UMC on Palm Sunday, & years later we married & baptized our two daughters in the UMC. The last thing we did before leaving the UMC was stand up as best people in a gay wedding, for friends who we had met serving for years together in the church. They got married & all of us- my family of 4, and their new family of 2, left the UMC.
Good luck building a church predicated on hateful discrimination & exclusion. We’ll be in the pews of the Presbytery, contributing our time & talents & treasure there. Making God’s love visible in the world by representing a different, inclusive church.
Here’s a resolution passed by FLUMC this morning in response to the harmful action of the minority:
WHEREAS the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry is responsible for guiding, preparing, evaluating, and presenting gifted, Spirit-filled candidates for licensed, commissioned, and ordained ministry, and
WHEREAS the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry presented 16 persons they found to be highly-qualified for provisional membership as clergy in the Florida Annual Conference, and
WHEREAS provisional membership was denied to this entire class of future leaders when some clergy, many of whom do not even plan to remain in the United Methodist Church, voted against them because the class included LGBTQ persons,
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Florida Annual Conference affirms the work of the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, believes wholeheartedly that the candidates they presented are called by God to ordained ministry, and expects that their commissioning will eventually happen; and
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that, while there is no mechanism outside of a vote by the clergy session that could rectify what was done to this class, the Florida Annual Conference invites these candidates for commissioning to participate in the Residency in Ministry process at the earliest opportunity, and if possible having the coming year count toward the required length of time that must pass before they can apply for ordination; and
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bishop would consult with the cabinet and determine whether a clergy session might be convened, in accordance with ¶369.5, either as a part of the fall clergy gathering or another time, rather than waiting until Annual Conference 2023 to commission the class as recommended by the Board of Ordained Ministry; and
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the Florida Annual Conference acknowledges that the actions of the clergy session were clearly harmful to the commissioning class of 2022, when they should have received gratitude for their hard work, admiration for their many gifts, and boundless hope for the church that they will soon lead instead. We apologize for the delay this action has caused in their careers, and for taking away what was supposed to be a joyous celebration on Saturday with colleagues, family, and friends; some of whom have already traveled to be in attendance.
Passed overwhelmingly?
Yes, according to eyewitness reports from those present. Here’s one: “Voted by standing, so no hard numbers, but it was an overwhelming majority.”
When asked to correct the sign on the cross, Pilate responded, “What I have written, I have written. . .”
Stubbornness and pride have been around for a long time. So sorry for the class denied. #cryemoji
I am the spouse of a retired UM clergyman, the daughter and granddaughter of Methodist/UM clergymen, sister and cousin of UM clergymen, and the mother of a UM clergywoman. I am a retired employee of the annual conference where I live. This action of the Florida Annual Conference is indicative of why more and more people feel that the church is irrelevant. This action is disgraceful!
When I was ordained, the big issue was smoking and drinking, believe it or not. One of my classmates, who did not smoke and drink, refused to sign the piece of paper put in front of him and a Board of Ordained Ministry in Indiana refused to ordain him. Some of those who voted to refuse his ordination was addicted to tobacco and hence smokers. The hypocrisy reeked. What did I do in Central Illinois? I signed the statement and I got ordained. Indiana lost a candidate with integrity. Illinois got one with “no guts”. Life is not fair.
Want to stop by for a drink? Water, of course.
I am one of the ordinands that was ordained as an Elder in Full Connection this weekend in the Florida Conference. The week was full of heart break and hope. Much of the week was filled with tears and words of encouragement, particularly from our older pastors of color and female clergy who had many rough years like this of being voted down by their colleagues. The spirit in the conference was overwhelmingly in support of those who were slated to be commissioned. This doesn’t undo the harm, but it does give strength to keep moving forward.
One correction… Although it makes for a good story, the entire commisioning class did not serve communion. In fact, only a couple of them did. Most of those serving communion were those who were being ordained, who were approved at clergy session (with an 81% vote). We were also devasted at what happened. I served communion with tears in my eyes.
I find this disgusting. I also hate to see John Wesley’s name as a part of this. He so stressed that we are to love God and love are neighbor. He stated that our neighbor included every
living human being in the world.
Where is the love in this?
Dear Jeremy – Thank you for this completely predictable and lazy knee-jerk reaction to a complicated and heart breaking situation. You could have saved a lot of space by just saying in all circumstances traditionalist are evil and progressives are good no matter what.
It’s interesting you failed to mention that if the BOM had acted with a even a modicum of integrity toward their responsibilities this situation would never have happened. Or that the strategy to force a vote on the whole class and block any effort to vote individually was clearly orchestrated by the progressive leadership of the Fl Conference. That included real time texts letting progressive supporters know how they should vote and the rejection of at least 3 motions/pleas, all by those cruel traditionalists to vote individually so that the possibility of voting out the whole class could be avoided.
You wrote your article from Seattle. I am an Elder in the Florida Conference and was at the clergy session. For the record I have served 25 of my 27 years as an elder in ministries connected with BOM. I have served on and chaired two DCOM’s. I served 12 years on BOM and all 12 of those years as a member of the BOM Executive Committee. My last quadrennium I was the Vice Chair of BOM. I served 8 years on the Conference Relations Committee. I was a part of the original RIM design team, spent 14 years on that team and it was my privilege to serve the last 8 of those years as the Chair of the RIM leadership team. In my years of service to BOM I have celebrated and wept with many, been on the receiving end of candidates joy and hugs as well as their anger and frustration. I was told that God was abandoning the Methodist Church because of me. I was cussed out by an absolutely irate spouse of a candidate who got continued, and had another candidate throw up on my shoes.
In all of my years associated with FL BOM they have always held in tension their responsibility to the candidates and the church. Up until what happened with the Executive Committee and Jay Therrell last year I would have told you our Conference has enjoyed a very healthy trust in the fairness and integrity of the work of BOM. Until this year, I would have sworn on a Bible that I never knew of an instance where BOM chose to use a candidate, even with that candidates consent, to make a theological, social, or political statement.
And then this year a candidate was approved for Commissioning who on the night of her approval posted a video where she stated that she was a self avowed practicing homosexual. (her exact words) At the time of her approval that information was known by some members of BOM and withheld from others. That is not speculation. It was stated during a speech in clergy session by a member of BOM that he knew her orientation and voted to approve her regardless. When the information on this candidate became more widely known there apparently were multiple conversations with the Bishop from other members of BOM which the Bishop openly referred to during clergy session, to try to come up with an appropriate strategy to prevent what eventually happened. As I already stated the progressive leadership came with a clear strategy to force the clergy session to vote on the commissioned candidates in a block. Have you ask yourself why that strategy would be so important to the progressive leadership? It’s true that we have always voted on candidates as a block. But to my knowledge we have never had a situation in the past where BOM was presenting candidates in open defiance of the BOD.
After the first vote failed a motion was put forward to reconsider and another motion was added to be able to vote individually during the reconsideration. Even knowing that the vote had failed once and the whole class hung in the balance the motion to vote individually was disallowed by the Bishop. The second vote failed by a margin of 72% to 28%.
Nobody won. Nobody wanted the outcome we got. Nobody that I saw celebrated. We should never have been in the situation and the outcome never ever should have happened. A great deal of avoidable harm was inflicted and innocent people suffered as collateral damage. God was anything but glorified and years of long and hard earned trust was destroyed on a single day. I heard the question raised: If BOM is now willing to use progressive candidates to make theological statements will they be willing to also use traditionalist candidates to make different statements? Trust will be difficult to rebuild.
My experience after the session was considerably different than the person who reported above. I witnessed no demonic glee. While I have no doubt there was some gallows laughter and joking to break the tension at the end of an incredibly long and tense session, most of what I witnessed was a mixture of “what the hell just happened” disbelief, open grief, tears, and a pervading heaviness. It is true that a lot of people got out as soon as they could. There was no laughter that I heard, no celebrations of victory, no we showed them. Personally it took at least 2 hours and a deep conversation with 2 trusted friends over lunch for the muscles in my chest to stop physically shaking. That night I had to shed a few tears before I could get my body to relax enough to sleep. I know that I am not alone in my physical reactions.
Having said all of that let me end where I began. For you to suggest that the actions of traditionalist at the Fl Conference clergy session was motivated by cruelty for cruelty’s sake and that is was all somehow about gatekeeping and harming LGBTQIA people is predictable and lazy. I can tell you that many who voted against the slate were deeply conflicted to be forced to handle a situation they should never have been put in. Perhaps feeling the weight of vows is something that clergy in the Pacific Northwest Conference have evolved past, but it is still an issue for some of us backward Florida folks. It is also inconvenient for your argument that I know of at least several clergy who are in favor of full inclusion and yet voted against the class based on their commitment to keep their vows to uphold the Discipline. I will look forward to your predictable post of outrage that brands them as not real progressives, traitors to the cause or whatever fits your narrative.
Or maybe, just maybe, I could express a moment of my own pain and outrage after reading your article and ask that you consider leaving complicated commentary on situations you don’t know anything about to the grown ups.
Thank you so much for these words. I have seen so many responses to this action across social media platforms that make me think people are willfully choosing to “forget” that all UMC clergy are in covenant with one another based on the existing BOD. Regardless of whether a clergy person agrees with the BOD (although I sure hope they did when they took their ordination vows!), all clergy should vote in accordance with their covenant with one another. It is deceitful if the author to say “cruelty is the point” and lay out the steps of the process to back up his false claim without saying ANYTHING about how the BOOM failed to do their job in making sure that the candidates that were scrutinized met the requirements of the BOD.
And that, my friends, is exactly what my experience was in the Florida Conference as a young Christian. People just like this, saying, “ leaving complicated commentary on situations you don’t know anything about to the grown ups,” are exactly the reason the Florida Conference is a dumpster fire and why young ministerial candidates are leaving in droves. You are the epitome of why this Denomination is dead.
Chris – I’m sure it’s true that I am the epitome of why this Denomination is dead and that you are the epitome of the only hope for its future. Nice to meet you.
But I take your point – the last paragraph was written out of frustration and I was wrong to include it – had I followed my normal habit and waited another day to post this I would most likely have removed it – I owe Jeremy an apology which I will make in another format.
Thanks for the correction and blessings on you as you show God’s glory in your own unique way.
The last shall be first and the first shall be last, and the people who come at the end of the day are going to get the same wages as the people who came at the beginning of the day. Sounds like you haven’t squared with that yet.
Sorry but I’m missing your point.
As a Provisional Deacon, entering 3rd year Residency I feel compelled to comment. I have been criticized because I question the role of the BOM in my conference. I have paid in years. My children endured too many seasons of “writing”. Not everyone believes “we are on your side” anymore…
No one won. Christianity lost. The Church lost. Elder candidates have an option to serve as Local Pastors. Ironically the same candidates that were voted down will be entrusted a church to lead? They will receive benefits from the church. The same is not true for the Deacon candidates.
There is a Discipline in place for a reason. Rules establish order, discipline and we follow them or we don’t. If the Discipline needs to change let’s do it the right way. For those who cannot in good conscience abide by it, we should as CHRISTIANS, with love and grace, allow separation. Clergy candidates should NEVER be collateral damage. Jesus is weeping with me, of this I am certain.
It is sad that the error of a few to defend perceived orthodoxy, not only keeps 16 people from serving God, the entire church from receiving their gifts, but completely abandons the values and teaching of the Bible:
Who is excluded from God’s love? Who is excluded from the love of UMC clergy?
Who should we punish for telling the truth? Thou shall not bear false witness?
Should we no longer treat others and we would wish to be treated?
What should we put before God? Our purity test?
… etc.
We are quick to contemplate the supposed “damage” that and LGBTQIA clergy might do, but not consider the actual damage that a bigoted discriminating or hateful pastor might do? Not just to candidates for ordination but the entire church every day that they serve. If the church held “in your face white men” responsible for the hundreds of years of racism, sexism, violence, intolerance and failure … to the same extent that they fear an LGBT candidate for ordination – who would be worthy to serve?
The net effect of this complete system failure . . . Is that our clergy is hypocrites and our candidates are undermined. No one is serving the church . . . Or God . . . We’re all staring at others, trying to figure out who is worthy to be a servant of servants. Jesus would tell you that EVERYONE IS!
Just wondering what you think of this service?
https://youtu.be/HBs5Pxn8yjI
My husband and I are At Large Lay Delegates to the North Georgia Annual Conference. One of our daughters is an elder in Full Connection in the UMC and the second daughter just received her M.Div from Candler. She chose not to go before the BOM this year. My husband and I are NOT leaving the UMC because we believe we can help to make a change from within the church. I would beg all people who want to leave the denomination to stay and help change the Book Of Discipline. If you’re not a member you can’t become a lay delegate to the GC and therefore you can’t vote for a change.
My heart is on the ground reading this horror story. Fifty-five years ago, I was assessed, evaluated, scrutinized, interviewed by professional peers in order to be licensed to practice a healthcare profession in my home state. My potential, soon-to-be, colleagues were completely professional in their encounters, treated me with complete respect and always viewed me as an individual. At no time was any indication given, or even implied, that I was part of a group of candidates. Each of us were seen as a person of unique great worth. The idea of being lumped into an arbitrary group is horrifying to this day. I did pass the evaluation and practiced professional optometry for 41 years.
Reading the statement from the article; viz. “Florida has a tradition of voting for candidates as a class, not individually “: I have to wonder if that is in one of the books that didn’t make the final cut of the Canon in the Bible; e.g. II Opinions, or Lacerations, or Phillip 66? How sad that the attitude; ‘we always did it that way before’ came to create such profound damage!
I pray for every one of those who were capriciously denied and hope that each of them , with God’s guidance, will find ways to use their God-given gifts and talents to “show others Christ”. Perhaps, the words of the great philosopher, Julius Henry(‘Groucho’)Marx might be fitting? He said; “I don’t know if I’d want to be a member of a group that would have me as a member”.
I wonder how many times was the ‘can kicked down the road’ along the way in the assumption that “someone up the line will say :”NO” but I’m not going to”? The legacy for this debacle will be a lasting memory for all involved.
I can only hope and pray that when I am called to accountability; that God , with Unconditional love and grace, takes me just as I am, as an individual , and not part of some capricious, arbitrary group.
It is sad that the ones that had met all the qualifications were not ordained. The ones that were not in line with BOD should have never been on the list for ordained ministry or should have never been allowed as a local pastor.
Many will disagree with me but that is ok.
Some here have asked why the traditional or conservative people have not started or gave advice to start our own church. We did, hence the BOD is conservative and traditional. So the question I ask, is why doesn’t the progressive group form there own church instead of hijacking the conservative created church?
I had already read just about everything said about this travesty, but you say it very well, as usual. Thanks for keeping up with all of machinations in our devastated UMC.
In the past, Florida Conference would (all but) only ordain persons who attended Asbury Seminary. And I have met more than one female candidate for ministry who was told Deacons orders is more appropriate for them. There’s a long tradition here of conservative control.
“In the past, Florida Conference would (all but) only ordain persons who attended Asbury Seminary.”
Regardless of where you fall in regards to this issue, I can say as a second generation ordained Elder in the Florida Conference (who did not attend Asbury) this isn’t even remotely true.
Yes, I agree with all the observations. As UMC clergy, I want to make three observations.
1. Mr Wesley and the early advocates of Methodism were oriented towards the local church. Most clergy served in local churches and represented their churches at conference.
2. Today, we have fewer clergy working for local churches, some even serve 3 churches. Other clergy and Deacons serve as extension ministry. Extension ministry clergy have the freedom to actully be progressive in their theology. In fact, their progressive theology makes them more effective in extension ministry.
3. This places Annual Conference members at odds with local church pastors, in the broadest sense, because local churches are more inclined to be conservative.
I hope folks see how complex a problem my church is facing.
The answer is not to separate! But to talk more openly and honestly about God’s prefurred future for the church.
Mattheue,
Your description of early Methodism is incorrect.
John Wesley started exactly zero congregations. He was the co-leader of a network of religious societies, and would remain in that role in England until the day he died. Religious societies are not local churches at all. Indeed, they are entirely “extension ministries” as United Methodists would now term them.
In America, Wesley “authorized” the network of societies to reconstitute themselves as a separate church, no longer under Wesley’s authority, but under the authority of the leadership they chose– principally Francis Asbury, ordained bishop at the same meeting in 1784 at which the members of the conference voted to separate, adopted official ritual, and established themselves in their own right as a church instead of a network of religious societies.
The society leaders now also become pastors by action of the 1784 conference were not “representing their congregations.” Not at all. Most of them had had charge of multiple societies, to which they were sent (by Asbury) for a quarter at a time. And when the network of societies became a denomination, Asbury continued that practice– quarterly appointments as the norm for persons now function at least also as pastors. There is no way to claim these persons, serving an average of 12 charges each, were in any way representative of those charges. They were not. They couldn’t be. And there was no intention that they would be.
Your argument still does not apply in Methodist polity today. Clergy members of the conference are not representatives of the local churches in the conference. They represent themselves and their “guild.” It is the lay members of the conference who represent the local churches. While it may be true that clergy can be substantially closer to local churches than they were in early American Methodism (post 1784) because they had fewer to serve and were present for longer than 3 months at a time (which really meant one visit before being replaced!), they still are not intended to represent local churches per se, and, ultimately, they do not. Add to this the increased number of multi-point and part time charges again (a trend which had decreased mid-20th century, but has risen sharply in this century) and the “closeness” to each congregation is also, overall, reduced (as you rightly argue).
Overall, I don’t think you can make the claim that the divides among UMC clergy are largely on local church vs extension lines. As someone who has been in extension ministry for nearly two decades, I can tell you in my extended network of extension clergy that we’ve been (and are) by no means more “progressive” as a lot than one finds among those serving as pastors of local congregations. We’re just as diverse overall. And having served as parish clergy for a decade before that, and remaining in relationship with these pastors through conference matters over time, it’s the same there.
The greater divide that exists– and that has been documented– is between clergy and laity generally. Clergy as a whole tend to be more progressive than laypersons as a whole– as the 2019 UMC Beliefs and Practices study from UMCom’s research team pretty conclusively showed: https://www.umnews.org/-/media/umc-media/2019/02/12/15/24/2018-theological-report-member-perspectives.ashx
https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/ordained-ministry/florida-clergyman-describes-vote-against-class-with-two-gay-/
Everyone should read this perspective.
Another perspective to see. The Original Poster should include this link and the UM-Insight article I commented above to the article. Transparency is best.
https://wesleyancovenant.org/2022/06/15/standing-in-the-way-of-progress/
Gene writes, “As far as I can discern, the man named Jesus accepted folk of every DNA, genetic mix.” You are so right, Gene. Christ also called us all to repentance. What He DID NOT do was ordain the unrepentant sinner to lead His church, or change the Father’s definition of covenant marriage, laid out in Genesis 2, which is a foundational issue at hand.
I am an ordained elder in the Florida Conference and my son was one of the sixteen candidates for commissioning at this year’s annual conference. When I was ordained, I was asked the same questions, one of which is, will I uphold the discipline. It is telling when 72% of voting clergy, failed. Until a General Conference changes the language in the Book of Discipline, I am bound to uphold its precepts. I do so whether I agree wholeheartedly, in principle, or even have personal disagreement with any provision, I am bound to this document. 72% of Florida’s clergy felt the need to publicly disregard the Discipline. When societies and even religions fail to follow the agreed upon rules, there is anarchy. I support those clergy women and men who voted their conscious to uphold the Discipline that was entrusted to them. As a reminder from our collective status as ordained Elders: “Under the providence of Almighty God…and adheres to and teaches the Gospel of Our Lord and the Doctrine of the Church.” Our Doctrine has not officially changed, until it does; May God have mercy.