More than Humanitarians

by Steve | Oct 26, 2016 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Sept-Oct 2016

Bishop Ivan Abrahams, World Methodist Council General Secretary, and other leaders. Photo courtesy of World Methodist Council.

By Elizabeth Glass-Turner-

The brilliance of the World Methodist Conference is still shifting through my mind; light through a suncatcher hanging on a window.

The days in Houston were color, sound, faces, laughter, weeping, worship, intensity, frustration, revelation. I met people and forgot names. I met people and remembered names. I saw textiles woven with Methodist patterns, saris shimmering, archbishop caps velvety and plush; music, art, science, all pinned up by prayer and thanksgiving and yearning and the plastic mechanics of translation headsets. There were laughing reunions of old friends, businesslike introductions, notes hastily scribbled while listening to profound speaker after profound speaker, paper business cards exchanged. Houston humidity was hanging heavy on the air, the heaviness clouding the jetlagged faces of international delegates. Energy emitted from others in waves strong enough they could’ve charged a few of the always-dying smartphones of delegates and participants.

Parsing out such a gathering takes months.

A couple of undercurrents of thought emerged, though. They bubbled up in chats, they surfaced in workshops and seminars, they popped up in a plenary or two. One current was simple joyous celebration in the very bringing together of such a globally diverse gathering. Attendees were glad to be present with so many other people from countries most have never been to. The parade of banners in Opening Worship illustrated just how far the Wesley brothers’ influence traveled. The Methodist Church of Tonga? Fiji? Southern Africa? Kyrgyzstan? Italy? And then there were Nazarenes, United Methodists, A.M.E. Zions, Wesleyans, C.M.E.s, A.M.E.s, Free Methodists, all branching out into the world from the United States. Methodism has been present in many nations around the world for over a century. At one point, in fact, early in Methodist days, a well-meaning evangelist sailed to the Caribbean only to find that Methodism was already there, thanks to the work of an earnest layperson.

Another current that emerged was the nature of our continued engagement with our world. And it was here that some different perspectives emerged. Both views fully affirmed the value of social justice and works of mercy; the crux was revealed in how they went about it.

In one workshop, handouts were distributed encouraging ministers not to ever try to evangelize a person from another faith (though “evangelize” was not defined). It recommended not only learning from another person’s faith (a laudable effort in itself), but rather accepting that no religion has a unique truth claim, and therefore it is inappropriate to suggest that yours does.

In the same workshop, a Bishop with a great deal of experience partnering with Muslim leaders to fight common diseases expressed a sense of frustration at this approach, asserting that his Muslim friends would not take him seriously if he was apologetic for his faith, and that he was comfortable working in interreligious partnerships while also being comfortable in his own skin as a Christian.

In conversations, I noted a slight change in demeanor occasionally when I explained my job title: Associate Director of World Methodist Evangelism. There was hesitancy while I briefly shared our vision of faith sharing, and a bit of polite social distance when I described the value of approaching faith sharing through word, deed, and sign. In other words, providing hurricane relief or microloans or wells for clean water is wonderful; doing it in the name of Christ, along with proclamation and prayer, could become aggressive, intolerant, and disrespectful.

And yet there was another subtext also potentially lacking a robust appreciation of the redemption of all Creation: that anything not accompanied by explicit sharing of the message of Christ is wasted (a line of thinking woefully lacking in a full theology of prevenient grace; Jesus healed nine lepers who walked away healthy yet lacking spiritual insight, but he healed them nonetheless, and that was a good thing).

For a bit of clarity, let’s sketch out the Christian theology behind this discussion.

Special or specific revelation can refer to the revelation of the nature of God through the Incarnation of the person of Jesus Christ. It refers to the special revelation of God through the unique supernatural means.

General revelation can refer to awareness of God through reason or nature, accessible to anyone through natural means.

Now if you don’t like that distinction or those definitions, you can take it up with St. Thomas Aquinas. For our purposes, they’re helpful.

If you embrace the postmodern assumption that nothing can be known for certain, then you wrestle with the idea of special or specific or supernatural revelation. After all, it would be arrogant to claim one person has special revelation in that context. And extremists (in the Middle East) who kill civilians by blowing themselves up or who (in North America) picket military funerals in protest of homosexuality claim special revelation, and we don’t want to be like them. There is an extraordinary deeply felt lack of optimism when it comes to the competing claims of world religions.

What, then, provides for optimism? The hope that those religions can emphasize what they hold in common, in order to provide tangible help to the suffering. And that, in itself, is not a bad thing. It’s good when a Bishop has close Muslim friends with whom he works to eradicate a terrible disease. It’s good when pastors mourn when a local imam is killed. It’s good when imams mourn when pastors are killed.

The questions that Christians must answer are what we believe, why we believe it, why we are Christians, and, at a conference like the World Methodist Conference, why we are Methodists.

I am not a Methodist so that I can be a better humanitarian. I appreciate humanitarians; they do a lot of good in the world, and that is a great thing. There are many organizations I could join to be a good humanitarian, though, and they have a lot less parliamentary law.

And I am not a Methodist out of sentimentality for my upbringing in Wesleyan Methodist theology. I appreciate heritage; it guides us in our identity and values. There are many organizations I could join to appreciate heritage, though, and they have a lot less parliamentary law.

Wesleyan Methodism is a way for me to be a Christian. If I did not believe in the specific revelation of the nature of God through Jesus Christ, I would not be a Christian. I wouldn’t waste my time with the parliamentary law of denominations or fellowships or conferences. If I just wanted to make the world a better place, I would join Greenpeace or the Red Cross or the Peace Corps or the U.N. (though that last one would reburden me with parliamentary law). I want the world to be a better place and I’m thankful for those organizations. They do a lot of great, worthwhile work.

But I am a Christian who wants the world to be a better place. And I value Wesleyan Methodism as a way to be a Christian. And if I follow Christ – imperfectly, believing more fully some days than others – if I choose to follow Christ, then that shapes how I interact with the world. And I will talk about Jesus because without Jesus I’m a jerk. And when I see a great initiative about wells for villages I will think of Jesus sitting by a well talking to a woman who, in my town, would be the woman with the smeared mascara and cheap dye job still wearing yesterday’s clothes. And when people ask about my Christ medallion, I smile. I’ve eaten Saltines with a sip of Welch’s, I’ve eaten Hawaiian bread with a sip of grape juice, I’ve dissolved a wafer on my tongue with a sip of port wine, and I’ve tasted in all of them the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ.

I’ve eaten with Muslims and agnostics, with atheists and Wiccans, with Buddhists and Baptists. I enjoy breaking bread with people who are different than I am. I don’t want any of them to go hungry. I want to share what I have with them, whether they ever believe what I believe or not.

But I’m also comfortable with my vocational call to proclaim Jesus Christ, and him crucified – or as I told my first congregation, “if I didn’t believe this, I wouldn’t waste your time; if I ever stop believing, I’ll stop preaching.”

Humanitarian work is valuable, deeply so. Just The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone illustrates that. One could say it is a means of general revelation. (Although I should note that Melinda Gates is open about her Catholic faith.) And if someone’s deep skepticism about goodness in the world is lessened because I hold a door open for her, all the better: perhaps that will soften her heart to consider whether there might be a benevolent Creator.

The work of the church, however – the work of the Body of Christ, the Church Universal – always goes beyond general revelation. It proclaims Christ, even as newly sainted Mother Teresa did when she taught her sisters that to touch a smelling, diseased, infected, helpless man or woman was to touch Jesus. Witness requires sacrifice; it requires self-denial. Even Jesus prayed, “Father – not this. Not this…” And so while, as good Wesleyan Methodists, we seek to become more and more Christlike, perhaps the Spirit makes us so by allowing us to treat others – no matter how repulsive we personally may find them – as if they were Jesus in the flesh.

It is the only way to keep hate from seeping into my heart: hate towards groups like Westboro; hate towards racists and rapists; hate towards bigots and big-mouths; hate towards bullies and exploiters. I have found that, Jesus’ “goodness, like a [leash], binds my wandering heart to thee.”

Christ has died – to make all things new, as we are anointed to carry out alongside him through the Holy Spirit.

Christ is risen – conquering the ugliest realities of the universe, a sign that death will die, as we are anointed to proclaim through the Holy Spirit as we bring life to dying people and places.

Christ will come again – breathing the promise of God’s Kingdom fully realized, a way of being where there is no more crying, no more pain, and we share this promise when we work to relieve suffering, as we are anointed to proclaim the healing of the nations through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, we speak of Jesus, because we cannot be silent. In our work, in our prayers, our hearts’ cry is the Son of God, Emmanuel, God With Us, Bright and Morning Star. It is through the light of Christ we see, and by his wounds we are healed. It is his Body we celebrate, the Word Made Flesh, and it is on this mystery we meditate while volunteering at soup kitchens or planting community gardens or shoveling a widow’s driveway or paying the utility bills for a laid-off neighbor or structuring a microloan process for former sex workers.

We follow Jesus wherever he leads, we celebrate his company, and we invite you to walk with us on our pilgrimage. You may say no; we’ll still share water from our canteen. You may say no; we’ll still offer bandages for your blisters. You may say no; we’ll still tell roadside jokes, tears streaming down our faces from laughter. But this? This is how we walk.

Won’t you walk with us?

Elizabeth Glass Turner is the Associate Director for Community and Creative Development at World Methodist Evangelism. She is also the editor of www.wesleyanaccent.com. Reprinted by permission of Wesleyanaccent.com.

Why the Wesleyan Covenant Association?

by Steve | Oct 26, 2016 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Sept-Oct 2016

By Bill Arnold-

The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) is a new alliance of congregations, pastors, and laypeople, coming together to enhance and support vibrant, scriptural Christianity within United Methodism.

The question for many is why? Why form the WCA? And why now?

I have been involved with the WCA since its beginning. My reasons are complicated, and reach back to my ordination as an elder in the Church, and beyond.

When I was ordained in the UM Church, I answered certain familiar questions that many have answered before me. These are part of what we call the “Historic Examination for Admission into Full Connection” as an elder in the church (Book of Discipline, paragraph 336). These questions were formulated by John Wesley and have been asked of every Methodist preacher from the beginning with little change. They are, of course, “historic” and are therefore not obligatory as official polity. Few would insist, for example, that every Methodist minister must recommend fasting and abstinence “both by precept and example” (question #16). And yet, while not official polity, they are treasures left to us by Father John himself, and they contain wonderful insight into what we ought to be and do as Methodist clergy (such as diligently instructing “the children in every place,” #14). Along these lines, I find especially instructive the following three, which seem as relevant now as in Wesley’s day (questions #11–13).

• Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?

• Do you approve our Church government and polity?

• Will you support and maintain them?

In the context of Methodism’s early history, one of the reasons these questions were asked was to address the debate between episcopal forms of government versus congregational forms. As a United Methodist, I continue to believe the episcopal form of church governance is preferable. In this, I agree with John Wesley in his sermon “Catholic Spirit” in which he embraced an episcopal form of government as scriptural and apostolic. I have been privileged to serve as a member of the Southeastern Jurisdiction’s Committee on Episcopacy for four years. I have seen firsthand the task of our bishops, and I think I have a good understanding of the challenging role bishops have in the Church. I stand in awe and appreciation of our SEJ bishops and I am grateful for the leadership they provide.

But of course, these “historic” questions also relate to the concept of accountability. One of the many beauties of early Methodism was the accountability built into being a Methodist Christian. Even now, we have accountability built into the system all along the way (theoretically), from General Conference (and the decisions it makes contained in the Book of Discipline), through the annual and charge conferences, into the life of every local church. I love our connectedness, and the strength in ministry it provides. And that’s part of why I answered “yes” to the historic questions.

• Studied United Methodist discipline and polity? Check.

• Approve our government and polity? Check.

• Support and maintain them? Check.

So how does all this relate to the WCA? Some pastors, local churches, and conferences in the UM Church, have decided, with deliberate forethought, that they can no longer approve our church’s government and polity.

General Conference 2016 did not alter our views on human sexuality. And yet, since the conclusion of General Conference in Portland, a number of boards of ordained ministry in some annual conferences have said they will no longer uphold the ordination standards prescribed in the Book of Discipline. Others have declared they stand in “non-compliance” with the General Conference on the question of same-sex weddings and ordination of practicing LGBT+ candidates for ministry. On July 15, the Western Jurisdiction elected a married lesbian as bishop, who assumed an episcopal role in the Mountain Sky Area (being the Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone Annual Conferences).

By contrast, the General Conference did, in fact, change our Church’s relationship with the abortion-rights advocacy group “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,” by requiring our boards and agencies to withdraw from it. Almost immediately, several annual conferences, in deliberate defiance of the intent and will of the General Conference, voted to join the RCRC.

The accountability of our polity is broken. Our Book of Discipline is no longer accepted as an agreed upon form of administration, holding our Church together as one.

On the one hand, part of me understands and even respects the decision by some United Methodists to declare their open rebellion against the General Conference. They have fought these fights for many decades. They feel the culture and popular opinion in the United States has changed in their favor, and they believe they are standing in a prophetic tradition that requires these actions. They have had enough. They think the UM Church is wrong, and needs to be forced into changing its positions.

I hope those United Methodists will allow me to disagree civilly. I think the changes in culture and popular opinion in the United States are alarming and reflect our broken society as much as anything. Besides, I think such cultural changes are irrelevant to the Church’s position on human sexuality. Fifty years ago during the sexual revolution, the Church failed to articulate and defend a consistent foundation for sexual ethics. As a result, the UM Church’s current standards for ordination and our affirmation of Christian marriage (joining one man and one woman in union for life) appear to many to be hopelessly out of step with the times. Nevertheless, these are biblical and theological mandates, and in the best parts of Christian history, the Church has stood for these principles. The burden of proof for changing those standards must rest squarely on the foundation of clear and compelling biblical exegesis. So far, I have been unconvinced such a case can be made.

At the same time, the Church is being called to a more proactive, loving, and robust ministry to persons experiencing same-sex attraction. With regard to the UM Church specifically, I grieve over the loss of accountability in our Church’s governance and polity, without which we cannot move forward as a unified branch of the Wesleyan movement.

And so, at this moment in our Church’s history, many have publicly announced their decision to break from the governance and polity of The United Methodist Church. I have chosen this venue, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, as a place to say, just as publicly, that I support and maintain that governance and polity. Through the WCA, I commit myself to uphold and maintain the governance and polity of The United Methodist Church.

The WCA is nothing more for me than a way to embrace Methodism. I love our Church. I love its rituals, its history and heritage, and I love its Wesleyan theology. In short, I love being United Methodist. Other than the influence of my godly parents, God worked through The United Methodist Church more than anything else to redeem my life, nurture my faith, teach me the Scriptures, confirm my calling, and ordain me to ministry.

The WCA is a way of saying all this publicly – of recommitting myself to my ordination vows. I want to be a good Methodist. At this point in time, that means participating in the work of the Wesleyan Covenant Association.

Bill Arnold is an ordained elder in the Kentucky Conference of The United Methodist Church and professor of Old Testament studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Bill has been a delegate to three General Conferences and is the author of numerous books including Introduction to the Old Testament (Cambridge University Press) and Seeing Black & White in a Gray World (Seedbed). This article originally appeared on www.teddyray.com and is reprinted by permission.

We Don’t Actually Believe All That

by Steve | Oct 26, 2016 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Sept-Oct 2016

The Rev. Mike Tupper (left) and the Rev. Frank Schaefer during a May 13 press conference. Photo by Kathleen Barry, UMNS.

By Walter Fenton-

“How effectively can a church retain the lukewarm or uncertain if it keeps its most controversial teachings while constantly winking to say, ‘Don’t worry, we don’t actually believe all that?’”

Although New York Times columnists Ross Douthat wrote the above about the Roman Catholic Church, recent cases involving three United Methodist Church pastors and one of its bishops aptly illustrates its applicability to our denomination as well.

It’s no secret that the UM Church forbids its ministers to preside at same-sex services and does not ordain or continue in ministry openly gay clergy who are self-avowed and practicing. Both are serious offenses that could lead to the loss of one’s ministerial credentials. But evidently not in the cases of the Revs. Anna Blaedel, Valerie Rosenquist, Mike Tupper, and retired Bishop Melvin Talbert.

At the Iowa Annual Conference this past June, Blaedel requested a point of personal privilege so she could announce at a plenary session, “I am a self-avowed practicing homosexual…. I am out, queer, partnered, clergy.” A complaint was immediately filed against her, but on August 30, as one of his last acts as the conference’s presiding bishop, Julius Trimble, dismissed the complaint without comment. Blaedel continues to serve in her appointment at the Wesley Center on the campus of the University of Iowa.

Tupper, a pastor in the West Michigan Annual Conference, presided at his daughter’s same-sex wedding in 2014. He subsequently reached a “just resolution” in the case, which allowed him to keep his ministerial credentials. However, he officiated at another same-sex wedding in 2015. Offered another penalty-free settlement, he refused it and instead embarked on a nationwide tour demanding a church trial, believing it would draw greater attention to the LGBTQ+ cause.

His bishop at the time, the recently retired Deborah Kiesey, mooted his requests for months, hoping to run out the clock on her tenure and his. This September, the recently retired Tupper finally accepted he would get no public church trial, so he agreed to his second penalty-free “just resolution.”

Earlier this year, Rosenquist and Talbert co-officiated at a same-sex union in the Western North Carolina Annual Conference. Complaints were filed against Rosenquist, but in the final days of service before his retirement, Bishop Larry Goodpaster announced that a “just resolution” had been reached in Rosenquist’s case. While the terms of the resolution were not shared, it is clear she has avoided a church trial, retained her ministerial credentials, and is being continued in her clergy appointment.

Talbert, who had a complaint filed against him for presiding at a same-sex wedding in 2013, reached a non-punitive just resolution in that case. He has had no complaint filed against him for violating the Discipline again, even though his latest infraction breached the terms of the first just resolution he signed.

Obviously some bishops have decided they will no longer, in a meaningful way, enforce the church’s teachings when it comes to these matters. They have apparently decided to wink when it comes to the church’s controversial teachings, and say, “Don’t worry, we don’t actually believe that.”

Of course, some LGBTQ+ advocates will applaud their actions, even if they’re done in a Nicodemus kind of way. Still other United Methodists shrug their shoulders, and ask, “What’s the harm? Who cares what a bishop and a few pastors do in Iowa, North Carolina, and Michigan? Can’t we all just get along? Isn’t unity more important than our differences over our sexual ethics and same-sex marriage?”

For people who ask these questions, the answers are easy. There is no real harm. It doesn’t trouble them, so it shouldn’t trouble anyone else. And yes, they do believe unity is a greater good than the church’s sexual ethics and its teachings on marriage. They are of course entitled to their opinions, and to advocating for changes in the Discipline.

But we would argue to the contrary. The harm done is serious and substantive. In a connectional church, people are right to care about what happens in Iowa, North Carolina, and Michigan. And no, “unity” does not trump the church’s sexual ethics and its teachings on marriage.

Bishops who wink and nod on these matters undermine respect for themselves, their office, and the church. Whether they like it or not, the church has repeatedly affirmed its teachings on these matters. And whether they agree with them or not, the vast majority of United Methodists believe the church’s sexual ethics and teaching on marriage are rooted in Scripture, affirmed by tradition, and grounded in reason. Furthermore, they maintain the church’s teachings on these matters are essential to the practice of the faith, and are predicated on core doctrinal teachings.

So when bishops, whether quietly or flamboyantly, undermine these teachings they undermine their own authority, harm the work of colleagues and mock the beliefs and values of the people they are entrusted to care for and lead.

And this is particularly egregious when it is done in less than candid ways. For instance, back in 2014, Bishop Elaine J. W. Stanovsky reached a toothless settlement that supposedly resolved Bishop Talbert’s very public presiding at a same-sex wedding in October 2013. She released word of the settlement on December 30, nearly 15 months after the infraction. The announcement date was clearly chosen to bury it in the long holiday week between Christmas and New Year. It was analogous to politicians who release bad news on a Friday night after 9 pm. It lacked candor and courage. Why do in the dark what you believe to be just and right?

The best that might be said for Trimble and Goodpaster, the retiring bishops involved in two of the cases cited above, is that they were trying to dispose of delicate situations as of way helping their successors. However, reaching a just resolution that appears to involve no serious consequences, and dismissing a legitimate complaint during one’s last days in office demonstrates tone deafness at best, and a lack of leadership at worst.

The cases these bishops handled involved pastors who clearly wanted, in very public ways, to challenge the teachings of The United Methodist Church. Given the public nature of Rev. Rosenquist’s actions, Bishop Goodpaster should have insisted that no just resolution could be agreed to without all parties consenting to a public release of the resolution. And Bishop Trimble should have openly shared his reasons for dismissing what appeared to many Iowan United Methodists as a legitimate complaint against a pastor who openly announced, “I am a self-avowed practicing homosexual…. I am out, queer, partnered, clergy.”

By failing to deal openly and candidly, Bishops Goodpaster and Trimble, as well as Stanovsky and Kiesey, have deepened the already low level of distrust rank-and-file United Methodists have for their episcopal leaders. Their actions give the appearance of condescending to their flocks rather than showing them respect. They appear to lack either the time or courage to gamely defend decisions that justifiably appear dubious to many.

It was widely noted – well before the 2016 General Conference, before all the ecclesial defiance at annual and jurisdictional conferences, and before the election of an openly gay bishop – that UM worship attendance in 2014 in the U.S. fell by 2.6 percent. It would be unfair and misguided to suggest this dramatic drop is all due to the church’s long debate over the practice of homosexuality. But the debate, the open acts of defiance, and the dubious dismissal of complaints and “just resolutions” are surely accelerating the plunge.

Now might be a good time for bishops to regularly see monthly or even weekly attendance records so they have some sense of what kind of damage is being done in terms of attendance and giving to the church. This is not to suggest bishops run the church like a business, shifting course according to the preferences of consumers. But it is to suggest that we need to know where we stand, and where we might be headed. Clergy families, people who work at our boards and agencies, young seminarians accumulating debt, and local church boards trying to decide whether to embark on a capital campaign (the list goes on) should have some concrete information about where the church is headed. And they should know sooner than later.

It is not scare mongering to suggest the church is in crisis. And yet despite the crisis, no one expects our bishops to get every detail right. In truth, United Methodists are looking for leadership and are willing to be led. However, they rightfully expect that their values will be honored and fairly considered. They also rightfully expect their leaders to act with integrity and courage, and therefore to candidly and forthrightly explain themselves when they make controversial decisions.

Winking and nodding might be a clever political play, but it’s not leadership.

Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergyperson and an analyst for Good News.

Lesbian Pastor Takes Involuntary Leave

by Steve | Oct 26, 2016 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Sept-Oct 2016

The Rev. Cynthia Meyer (second from right) gets a hug and well wishes from supporters. Photo by Todd Seifert, Great Plains Conference.

By Heather Hahn-

A complaint against the Rev. Cynthia Meyer, a lesbian pastor in Kansas, has ended with her taking an involuntary leave of absence at least until the conclusion of the next General Conference. The resolution, announced August 3, averts a church trial.

Under the agreement, Meyer will go on leave starting September 1 and no longer serve as pastor of Edgerton (Kansas) United Methodist Church. She cannot receive an appointment or perform the duties of a United Methodist elder, such as administering the sacraments. In short, she will be out of a job.

However, a church or other United Methodist entity can hire her for functions equivalent to that of a layperson. She also will receive $37,000 — about a year’s pay in her current appointment.

She officially will retain her clergy credentials at least until 90 days following the next General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly. Depending on what the legislative body does, she may:

• see her full elder status restored immediately and receive a new appointment

• take advantage of another provision the body approves

• see the trial process begin again.

Meyer faced a charge that she is a “self-avowed practicing” gay clergy member, a violation of the Book of Discipline, the church’s governing document.

The agreement came August 1 after more than 12 hours of closed-door discussions among Meyer, Great Plains Area Bishop Scott Jones, four counsels involved in the case, and two facilitators from the denomination’s JustPeace Center for Mediation and Conflict Transformation.

The resolution also comes as United Methodist bishops are preparing to appoint a commission, charged with reviewing the denomination’s policies related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning individuals.

The bishops also are considering calling a special General Conference in 2018 to consider any of the commission’s proposals. Meyer’s leave will last at least through a special General Conference. Yet, if a special session is not called it will last until the next regularly scheduled General Conference in 2020.

Thoughts on resolution. Jones, whose former area encompasses the states of Kansas and Nebraska, is a member of the Council of Bishops executive committee that is planning the Commission on a Way Forward. He will became the bishop of the Houston Area, starting September 1.

“The agreement we reached upholds the Book of Discipline and yet recognizes that the larger denomination is in a time of discernment about a way forward,” Jones told United Methodist News Service. “So this agreement recognizes that accountability was necessary and yet holds open possibilities for whatever the general church is going to decide.”

Meyer said in a statement that she recognizes the agreement as a complaint resolution but not a just response. Nevertheless, she said she moves ahead in hope.

“I hope that The United Methodist Church, through a fully representative, inclusive commission, then a focused General Conference, will intentionally, prayerfully remove all discriminatory language and practice from its Book of Discipline,” Meyer said in a statement.

How case came to be. Meyer, an ordained pastor for 25 years, came out during her January 3 sermon to the Edgerton congregation. She told the church that she was choosing to serve “with full authenticity, as my genuine self, a woman who loves and shares my life with another woman.” In addition to serving other churches in Kansas, Meyer also spent 12 years as dean of students at United Methodist Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta.

A complaint soon followed her sermon, and she knew her clergy credentials could be at risk. Since 1972, the Book of Discipline has proclaimed all individuals are of sacred worth but the practice of homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” The book lists officiating at same-sex unions and being a “self-avowed practicing” gay clergy member as chargeable offenses under church law.

Meyer moved a step closer to a church trial in April after she and Jones initially failed to agree on a resolution to the complaint. However, the Book of Discipline says a trial should be regarded as “an expedient of last resort.” Under church law, a resolution without trial remains an option throughout the complaint process.

The Great Plains Conference meeting June 1-4 approved an “aspirational resolution” that urged “a just resolution” in the case. Jones said he took that resolution seriously. Meyer told UMNS that she is doubtful that going forward with a trial “would have provided justice in the denomination.”

“Given the likelihood of a negative and quite harsh end to the trial, I did not want an annual conference or the church as a whole to go through the process,” she said.

Heather Hahn is a multimedia news reporter for United Methodist News Service.