by Steve | Jun 26, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
A resolution recently presented to the clergy session of the West Ohio Annual Conference speaks volumes about the self-declared “United Methodist Centrist Movement.”
The resolution made four requests of conference pastors and the two at the top of the list are telling: “Refrain from making complaints against colleagues in matters of sexual orientation,” and “Delay decisions regarding congregational departure from the United Methodist Church until after General Conference 2019.” (The final two requests were innocuous – we trust: “choose faithfulness and discretion,” and support the UM Church’s mission statement.)
If the resolution was authentically centrist it would have included an item calling on clergy to, “Refrain from presiding at or being a party to same-sex weddings.” After all, there would be no need to ask clergy to refrain from filing complaints if others refrained from violating the Book of Discipline in the first place. And local churches would not contemplate leaving if bishops maintained good order and accountability. But lacking such a request, the resolution puts the onus on pastors who actually support and defend the Discipline. One would think a movement that claims to represent the so-called “center,” and therefore the majority of the church, would want to see its polity protected.
But that’s not actually the case. While the UM Centrist Movement styles itself as centrist, it appears to lean progressive. And these centrists live in a theoretical world where hopefully the truly hard questions can be finessed: Is the practice of homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching or not? Is marriage, as the church defines it, between one man and one woman? And finally, is the church correct in its decision not to ordain self-avowed, practicing homosexuals?
Many centrists seem to think we do not need to definitively answer these questions with one voice, or they have already answered them by responding, “We find it acceptable to live in a church where some people think the practice of homosexuality is contrary to Christian teaching, but others do not, where some pastors preside at same-sex weddings, but others do not, and where conference ‘A’ ordains openly gay clergy, but conference ‘B’ does not.”
This all might sound nice in theory, but besides being wholly unworkable in reality, it treats matters of great importance as if they are adiaphora, that is, non essential matters the church does not need to address with one voice.
Some pastors and local churches find the Centrist Movement approach attractive. It allows them to evade having difficult conversations and making hard decisions about things that seem remote. “There are no openly gay couples in our church, and certainly none asking our pastor to preside at their weddings. And our district superintendent hasn’t informed us that our new pastor is openly gay and his or her spouse will be moving into the parsonage.”
To be sure, one could adopt the Centrist Movement’s prescription and avoid the hard questions, but eventually they will have to be answered. It would be willfully naïve to think otherwise, and more importantly, irresponsible not to. For questions about the church’s sexual ethics, its teachings regarding the institution of marriage, and whom it will or will not ordain are not adiaphora.
And in reality, when people left, right, and center are presented with actual cases they would not treat them as such. They would either say, “Yes, we believe marriage is between just one man and one woman,” or “No, it is not.” They would either say, “We believe an openly gay, partnered clergyman should be welcome to serve as our pastor,” or “No, we believe such a clergy member’s marital relationship is contrary to Christian teaching.” They would not, or could not, shrug their shoulders, and say, “Whatever.”
In reality there is no middle way or third way when it comes to these matters, and giving people the impression there is, is not helpful.
LGBTQ+ people are convinced any barriers to their full participation in the church are grounded in homophobia, which in turn leads to false biblical interpretations, a misguided adherence to tradition, unreasonableness, and a callous disdain for LGBTQ+ experiences. Given their convictions, they will never settle for a UM Centrist approach that would bargain away their rights. They would challenge any annual conference that refused to ordain them, and would call for the removal of pastors who declined to preside at LGBTQ+ weddings.
At the same time, the majority of our globally connected church is convinced our sexual ethics, and understanding of marriage and ordination are firmly rooted in 2,000 years of Christian teaching. They are not inclined to change their minds, and therefore will continue to promote and defend the church’s teachings, and yes, file complaints when necessary.
And in truth, when people who maintain they are in a hypothetical “center” are forced to face the hard questions and the people involved, they will make concrete choices too.
In the end, it is far too early for the fledgling UM Centrist Movement to claim to be “centrist” or a “movement.” So far, signs indicate otherwise. Unfortunately, as it stands right now, the group looks like a cluster of clergy postponing decisions a globally connected and united church must squarely confront on a regular basis.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jun 19, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Western Jurisdiction Bishops participate in Bishop Karen Oliveto’s consecration service. (Photo by the Rev. David Valera, PNW Conference)
By Walter Fenton-
The Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops of The United Methodist Church cannot take “no” for an answer.
Less than seven weeks ago the denomination’s Judicial Council (it’s “Supreme Court”) ruled, “A same-sex marriage license issued by competent civil authorities together with [a] clergy person’s status in a same-sex relationship is a public declaration that the person is a self-avowed practicing homosexual for purposes of [church law].”
This seems like common sense to most people, but not to the Western Jurisdiction’s bishops. They believe the justices got this part of their recent decision wrong, and therefore the bishops have formally filed a motion for reconsideration. If five of the nine Judicial Council members agree, the whole Council will reconsider this part of their ruling when they meet in Los Angeles in late October of this year.
The bishops’ request for reconsideration appears to be another attempt to delay confronting a crisis of their own creating. All of them knew that prior to her election, consecration, and assignment, Bishop Karen Oliveto had presided at same-sex weddings, and was herself married to a UM deaconess, but none had filed complaints against her.
Furthermore, at the Western Jurisdictional Conference last July not one of the bishops could find his or her voice to say something like, “Friends, I disagree with the church’s sexual ethics and teachings on marriage. However, as a bishop I have vowed to defend those teachings until they are changed by the will of our General Conference and according to our polity. Violating church law because you do not like it is no way forward, particularly since General Conference just approved the appointment of a Commission we all hope will address these matters in a more favorable way for our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. Please refrain from a provocative election that will plunge the church into a crisis and undermine the work of the Commission.”
But that was not to be, instead, Oliveto was elected, consecrated, and assigned. Within days, Bishop Grant Hagiya, president of the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops, reported “multiple complaints” had been filed against her. And yet, ten months later there has been no word on the status of those complaints. The bishops have found time, however, to contest any challenges to Oliveto’s election, consecration, and assignment.
According to church law, the disposition of complaints against a bishop must be reported after 120 days. However, if those involved in the matter have not reached a resolution they can request an additional 120 days, and, if necessary, another 120 if there is still no resolution. Apparently, these requests have been made and granted in Oliveto’s case even though the extensions seem unwarranted.
While Oliveto’s case is certainly sensational – designed to be so by those who nominated, elected, consecrated, and elected her – it is not a complicated one. The church prohibits pastors from presiding at same-sex wedding; she has admitted to presiding at approximately fifty. The church defines marriage as between one man and one woman; she is, by public record, married to another woman.
The options here are fairly obvious. One, Oliveto acknowledges her violations of church law, rectifies them, and vows to conform to church teachings heretofore. Two, she states she is not willing to conform to church teachings, vacates her episcopal office, and surrenders her ministerial credentials. Or three, she declares the complaints are unwarranted and moves to have them dismissed. Presumably, the complainant in the matter would disagree, engendering an investigation and church trial.
While all this may seem obvious, and is in fact the process the Judicial Council directed the relevant parties to initiate, the Western Jurisdiction bishops appear to be attempting to indefinitely postpone any day of reckoning. A request for reconsideration allows the bishops to claim their willingness to abide by church law, while simultaneously avoiding its implementation.
In the past, there have been at least two cases where clergy have openly advertised they were in same-sex partnered relationships. The cases resulted in trials, but when questioned, the clergy involved refused to acknowledge whether they were “practicing homosexuality.” Consequently, the complaints against the clergy members were dismissed.
But in its latest ruling, the Judicial Council said, “A same-sex marriage license… is a public declaration that the person is a self-avowed practicing homosexual for purposes of [church law].” This is common sense, and in keeping with a principal aim of LGBTQ+ advocates: the legitimization of same-sex marriage and the church’s imprimatur that the practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching.
It seems disingenuous now, and it strains credulity, for the Western Jurisdiction bishops to claim same-sex marriage does not necessarily imply the practice of homosexuality. One of the historically-understood presumptions of marriage, as the Judicial Council notes, is sexual intimacy. Perhaps the bishops are now seeking to further expand the definition of marriage to include people who are just good friends, who might even be sexually attracted to one another, but have no interest in sexual intimacy.
This is just game playing, and thankfully the Judicial Council’s latest decision foreclosed this defense as an avenue to avoid what church law clearly states. But unfortunately, for at least for a few more weeks or even months, the Western Jurisdiction bishops’ request for reconsideration allows them to claim they are unable to resolve the complaint against Oliveto until their request for reconsideration is taken up. (Surely, some of the Judicial Council members are now regretting not concurring with their colleague Warren Plowden’s dissenting opinion that would have legally and sensibly voided Oliveto’s election, consecration, and assignment.)
The Western Jurisdiction bishops are all too aware that if they followed the Judicial Council’s instructions to pursue the case according to church law, Oliveto could be forced to vacate her episcopal office and lose her ministerial credentials.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jun 8, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Bishop Ken Carter (center) with fellow Commission on Way Forward moderators Bishop David Yemba (left) and Bishop Sandra Steiner Ball (right), UMNS.
By Walter Fenton-
Florida Bishop Ken Carter recently released a video citing seven reasons why he believes The United Methodist Church will remain united. This is a notable move since Carter is one of three moderators for the denomination-wide Commission on a Way Forward, a group that will be releasing a plan to deal with the irreconcilable differences within our denomination at our specially-called 2019 General Conference in St. Louis.
United Methodists will justifiably ask questions about the release of the video. After all, it makes it far more difficult to view him as an objective moderator since he has taken on the role of advocate. Furthermore, people in the pews are going to quickly discover that many of the reasons given should have been more thoroughly vetted because they fail to make his case.
Scripture
To his credit Carter begins with the Bible. “The consistent witness of Scripture,” he says, “[is] for unity.” He cites New Testament passages to support his assertion (e.g., Jesus’ prayer in John 17, Pentecost in Acts 2, Paul’s admonishment to the Philippians to “be of one mind,” and the same apostle’s cry to the Corinthians, “One faith, one baptism, one Lord.”). Of course, there are others he could cite.
Nevertheless, proof-texting is hardly a sufficient exercise for building a case for church unity. Unity is not some vague idea floating free of our engagement with all of Scripture, our theological confessions, and the moral and ethical ways we live that derive from them. Unfortunately, the video presentation lacks nuance in its appeal to Scripture.
Whether Jesus is turning over tables in the Temple courtyard or rebuking Peter at Caesarea Philippi, he does not end such encounters with a simple shrug of his shoulders. At the end of his outburst, Jesus does not say to the moneychangers, “For the sake of unity, let’s just agree to disagree on whether it’s wrong or right to take advantage of the poor.” Nor does he patch things up with Peter by saying, “For the sake of unity, let’s just be of two minds regarding God’s plan for the redemption of humankind.”
Paul does not just proclaim the core teachings of our faith and its ethical and moral demands to the Corinthians and leave it at that. He makes judgments, and he charges the Corinthians to make them as well. A true community of faith is actually prepared to hold its members accountable for the sake of unity.
Carter takes from the passages he cites that “God desires unity, not division.” This is true, but it is not a unity simply for the sake of unity. It is unity grounded in Scripture and in a body of theological confessions that in turn transform and shape the people of the church. And as the very existence of our Book of Discipline proves, any church worth its salt requires covenantal accountability for the growth and prospering of its people.
Unfortunately, the very division Carter decries exists because some of our episcopal leaders have failed at the Scriptural command to shepherd the church.
Our Doctrine of Grace
Carter also attempts to root our unity in our doctrine of grace. To be sure, there is certainly a great deal of unity around it. However, the video message fails to demonstrate how the doctrine of grace necessitates our unity in light of a fundamental difference over our doctrine on the authority of Scripture.
It won’t do to pluck one doctrine out of many and then argue it alone requires unity. Given the nature of the long debate over our sexual ethics, Carter is mistaken to think an appeal to our doctrine of grace will allow us to gloss over equally fundamental doctrines pertaining to the unity of the church.
And besides, doctrines require adherence in order to achieve unity. The majority of the church affirms our church’s sexual ethics and its teachings on marriage and ordination. Furthermore, they believe these teachings are well grounded in Scripture, the historic teachings of the church universal, and our Book of Discipline.
To be sure, some United Methodists disagree – apparently Carter himself - but that does not entitle them to defy those teachings. Rather, for the sake of unity, they are, at a minimum, to conform themselves to them.
In the same way we read Scripture holistically we are to engage our doctrines holistically. It will not do to prioritize one, and then arbitrarily put it to service for the sake of church unity.
The Presence of LGBTQ+ People in Our Church
Carter goes on to say the UM Church will remain united because “LGBTQ people have been present, are present, and will continue to be present in our churches.” No one disputes the reality of his observation, but with all due respect, citing it as a one of his reasons why the church “will remain united” does not make sense. The mere presence of people who identify themselves in a particular way is no guarantee of church unity.
His implication here is disquieting. He seems to suggest the mere presence of LGBTQ people in our pews requires the church’s capitulation regarding its sexual ethics and teachings on marriage. This argument has not been persuasive, is not persuasive, and will not be persuasive at the 2019 General Conference.
Our Mission Incarnates the Gospel
Carter’s fourth reason for why the church will remain united is because, “Our global mission incarnates the Gospel across the world.” True enough, the church does do this, but will it be able to do so in the future? Carter’s presentation ignores the hard realities of a denomination in decline. U.S. membership, worship, and giving (adjusted for inflation) are all falling. Annual conferences and districts are being forced to merge. And local churches are closing or, in some cases, leaving or exploring how to leave the denomination.
Ironically, Carter notes in this section of his video that, “Division is sometimes a distraction and often a destructive reality that keeps us from taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth.” But he fails to address the reason for “division” and the “destructive reality” that it has become. Not once in his video does he acknowledge “ecclesial defiance” has forced upon us the destructive reality of division.
Here, the video lacks credibility, and borders on being platitudinous. Bishop Carter never addresses how the church will remain united when a minority wing of it in the U.S. (with the approval of some of his episcopal colleagues) finds it perfectly acceptable to defy the will of General Conference, our Discipline, and now our Judicial Council.
Young People are for Unity and LGBTQ Accommodation
According to the video message, another reason we will remain united is because, “Younger generations are passionate about the unity of the church,… and are also much less likely to see LGBTQ experience as a divisive issue.”
First, there is no survey to back-up Carter’s claim that younger United Methodists are “passionate about the unity of the church.” One assumes that he has had many positive encounters with “younger generations,” but this counts only as anecdotal information. Again, there is no survey to tell us about the level of passion for church unity among 18-39 years old (or for any age cohort for that matter).
Carter then points his viewer to a Pew Religious Landscape Survey (apparently a 2014 study, in the video he does not specify) to substantiate his claim that “younger generations are… much less likely to see LGBTQ experience as a divisive issue.” True, it does show UM GenXers and Millennials are more inclined than older generations to say, “homosexuality and same-sex marriage should be accepted.” But the survey is not nearly the clincher he thinks it is.
The Pew study is of United Methodists living in the U.S. We are a global church with nearly half of our members living in Africa, Europe, and The Philippines. And since the average age of a UM member in Africa and The Philippines is significantly younger than those in the U.S., it is almost certainly the case there are more 18-39 year olds living in these regions than in the U.S. (some would say substantially more).
The church is growing rapidly in Africa and The Philippines, and their members’ views on the practice of homosexuality and same-sex marriage are closely aligned with our church’s teachings. Therefore, Carter must contend with the distinct possibility that the majority of the younger generation in the UM Church actually does “see LGBTQ experience as a divisive issue.”
Bishop Carter’s video will no doubt have greater receptivity in Miami, Key West, and Palm Beach than it will in African churches in Harare, Abuja, and Kinshasa.
Whatever the case, the implication of Carter’s observation is faulty. The church should not change its sexual ethics and teachings on marriage based on what surveys tell us U.S. “younger generations” feel or believe about the practice of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The church does not do theology or ground its ethics in surveys.
A Massive Centrist Experience
Carter’s sixth reason the church will remain united is his observation that, “There is a massive centrist experience [in the UM Church] that is often unrepresented in our media, our dialogues, our blogs, our discernments.” I am not sure what a “massive centrist experience” actually is, but there is no demonstrable evidence suggesting it will keep the church united.
According to the video message, centrists are now “finding their voice,” which begs the question, “What took them so long?” Additional questions seem worth asking. Have the so-called centrists failed to recognize the downward trajectory of the denomination for the past 45 years? Were they not paying attention when the Call to Action Report revealed a sense of malaise in the church and lack of trust for its denominational leaders? Were they unaware of the intense debate over sexual ethics that has exercised the wider culture and our church for many years?
This Centrist group, it is contended, “is the deep, rich, center of The United Methodist Church.” Carter goes further by saying that from his “experience” it is “the great majority of our denomination.”
In all actuality, it is “the great majority of our denomination” who have – for the last 40 years – affirmed the biblical and historical teachings on marriage and sexuality.
If Carter’s wide-spread hypothetical center exists, it has a lot of catching up to do. To date, it has failed to recognize the critical challenges facing the church, failed to organize a response, and at this late date, is just now “finding [its] voice.” And to propose what? The video message does not say, and yet this ill-defined center will supposedly keep the church united.
Division is Costly
Finally, Carter says the church will remain united because, “We want to avoid the structural harm that would divert resources to the legal pursuit of division.” No one, of course, wants to “divert resources to the legal pursuit of division,” but this is neither a good reason for why, nor a guarantee that, the church will remain united.
Those who believe resources will not be diverted or expended just because we remain united are not paying attention to the Mainline Protestant landscape. The United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America could all claim they remain “united,” but their unity has come at a staggering price. All of these denominations are losing members, experiencing dramatic declines in worship attendance, and, yes, hemorrhaging “resources.” At least two of them have spent millions of dollars in “resources” in the “legal pursuit” of compelling unity.
Carter’s final argument (it is not a reason) for unity is the epitome of the institutional case for it: we need to remain united because to do anything else would be too costly. This essentially calls us to take comfort in institutional inertia. There is no realistic plan offered for how to hold the institution together. One wing believes it is justified in ecclesial disobedience. Another wing thinks the disobedience is an invitation to institutional anarchy. Presumably, the “massive centrist experience” thinks a united church should just sit loose when it comes to sexual ethics and marriage, allowing annual conferences, local churches, and clergy to do what they think is best in their own eyes.
Disappointingly, in the end, Bishop Carter’s video is a barely concealed endorsement of the Connectional Table’s “A Third Way” plan. In closing, a few points should be made about the ill-fated “Third Way” plan. First, the plan never made it to the floor of the 2016 General Conference. Its promoters were willing to table a vote on it because they knew it would be defeated. Second, the vast majority of the delegates attending the called 2019 General Conference are those who attended in 2016. They will be no more inclined to approve such a plan then than they were in 2016. And third, many progressives justifiably deride such a plan as a “Jim Crow” proposal for LGBTQ people. Even if such a plan passed, they would continue to advocate for change through acts of ecclesial disobedience. And of course some progressive bishops will countenance their defiance, and some will even encourage it. And all the while, more people – and whole congregations – will leave the church and take their resources with them.
According to the news reports, The Committee on a Way Forward has been tirelessly attempting to cobble together some kind of a plan to present to the entire denomination. As one of the moderators for the group – and now and advocate – Bishop Carter’s video message has got to be disheartening to the commission members who have been laboring in good faith for a sustainable and fruitful future that would respect the consciences of all parties concerned. By failing to even recognize the challenges facing the church, and offering no realistic plan for contending with them, the video message is little more than an institutionally pragmatic and platitudinous plea for unity… for the sake of unity.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jun 5, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
The Boards of Ordained Ministry of both the New York and Pacific Northwest Annual Conferences have announced they will not abide by recent rulings of The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the denomination’s final arbiter of church law.
In 2016 both boards, along with five others, had voted to ignore portions of the Book of Discipline when it came to recommending openly gay candidates for ordained ministry. But this April, in two separate decisions (1343 and 1344), the Judicial Council ruled such evasions are unlawful.
In unprecedented moves, both boards said they would not abide by the Judicial Council’s decisions.
The Pacific Northwest Annual Conference Board of Ordained Ministry reaffirmed its position that it “will continue to give all candidates [including LGBTQ candidates] equal consideration [in the ordination process].”
In a brief statement, the New York Annual Conference Board of Ordained Ministry responded: “We reaffirm our statement from March 1, 2016, in its entirety.” In part, that statement read, “Sexual orientation and gender identity are not and will not be considered in the evaluation of candidates by the Board of Ordained Ministry.”
Later that year, the New York Board recommended for commissioning and ordination clergy candidates who had come out as gay in an open letter to the UM Church just days before the 2016 General Conference. Bishop Jane Allen Middleton commissioned and ordained them at the 2016 New York Annual Conference.
The New York board’s action was immediately challenged, but Middleton ruled, “The Board of Ordained Ministry 
is not required to ‘ascertain’ whether a candidate meets the qualifications for candidacy and ordained ministry, including whether or not she or he is exhibiting ‘fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness’ or is a ‘self-avowed practicing homosexual.'”
The Judicial Council, at its April 2017 meeting, countermanded Middleton’s decision. The Council wrote, “[church law] prevents a Board of Ordained Ministry from ignoring [a clergy candidate’s] statements of self-disclosure about any action that violates any portion of church law as is the case for… persons who [self avow] their homosexuality.”
To date, neither Bishop Thomas Bickerton nor Bishop Elaine Stanovsky, respectively the episcopal leaders in the New York and Pacific Northwest Annual Conferences, have responded to their boards’ decisions to defy the will of the denomination’s General Conference, Discipline, and now it’s highest judicial body.
“By now,” said the Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News, “it is obvious progressives in the church are trying to accomplish by fiat what they have failed to accomplish through the church’s time honored processes established by General Conferences. And even worse, it is a very sad day when bishops fail to publicly call upon clergy serving on our boards of ordained ministry to abide by the rulings of our judiciary.”
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
Financial Challenges in Yellowstone
pursuing deacon’s credentials in the Rio Texas Annual Conference, but now says they have transcended male or female in terms of gender identity.
During the clergy session of the Iowa Annual Conference, the executive committee of the board of ordained ministry announced, “[It] would discern the call to ministry of all candidates without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, or age and would not consider sexual orientation or gender identity to be sufficient reasons, on their own, to deny any candidate’s ability to live up to our United Methodist standards for fitness, readiness, and effectiveness in ministry.”