The following post is by blogger and church planter David Fischler. He writes frequently on topics related to mainline Protestantism at his blog, The Reformed Pastor.
David S. Fischler
A New Jersey native, David was born of Jewish parents and became a Christian in college after reading the Bible for the first time. He served as a United Methodist pastor for nine years (North Carolina Conference) and is now a pastor in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
David holds degrees from Rutgers University and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, N.C.). He is currently a Doctor of Ministry student at Trinity School for Ministry near Pittsburgh.
This opinion piece first appeared in a different form at The Reformed Pastor. Links below have been added by MethodistThinker.com — Ed.
-
The Wisconsin Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, via the trial and “punishment” of lesbian minister and same-sex union blesser Amy DeLong, has declared that the denomination’s Book of Discipline is merely a Book of Suggestions — and, by extension, that the views of the worldwide church that passes that Discipline every four years can be effectively ignored.
DeLong received only a slap on the wrist — a light 20-day jury-imposed suspension — though found guilty by a unanimous vote of presiding over a 2009 union ceremony at which a woman married another woman. Ceremonies celebrating homosexual unions are expressly prohibited in the UMC (¶341.6).
By a 12-1 vote, DeLong was acquitted on a second charge — being “a self-avowed practicing homosexual” — even though had she informed Wisconsin Conference officials two years ago that she was in a lesbian relationship. The Book of Discipline says self-avowed practicing homosexuals are disqualified from serving as clergy (¶304.3).
From the penalty argument by the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, counsel for the UMC
|
During the trial, that moral standard for UM clergy got lost in technicalities that may provide a road to chaos.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
DeLong’s counsel, the Rev. Scott Campbell, had argued during the trial that church investigators never asked the lesbian minister whether she engages in prohibited sexual activity, the church’s accepted definition for “practicing.” And DeLong declined to answer that question when church counsel the Rev. Tom Lambrecht posed it during her testimony….
“I don’t know if you’re being voyeuristic or just plain indecent, but there is no way, when you are trying to do me harm, that I’m going to answer and share the intimate, sacred details of our lives,” DeLong said.
What this comes down to is that, in acquitting DeLong, the jury of Wisconsin Conference clergy members decided to adopt the approach that has been used in other mainline churches for years to get around “fidelity in marriage/celibacy in singleness” standards.
The jury would not convict DeLong of being a practicing homosexual unless it had some kind of independent evidence of sexual conduct that is, under normal circumstances, impossible to obtain.
Make no mistake: Widespread adoption of this evidentiary standard will vitiate the UMC’s prohibition on sexually active homosexual clergy. It will be the means that liberals will use to frustrate the will of the church as a whole — unless a way can be found to stop them.
Indeed, the pro-homosexuality Reconciling Ministries Network in the UMC crows that the DeLong approach is the key, for now, that will enable any practicing homosexual clergy member to avoid conviction at a church trial.
The outcome on this charge appears to signal that it’s possible for gay and lesbian clergy to be out about their sexual orientation, as DeLong is, and not be prosecutable under the Incompatibility Clause as long as neither they nor anyone else documents the details of their sex lives.
As for presiding at union ceremonies for two people of the same sex, DeLong said she has every intention of continuing to do so, as the United Methodist News Service reported:
The Rev. Amy DeLong testified that she would not abide by The United Methodist Church’s ban against clergy officiating at same-sex unions.
“I can’t imagine doing that,” she said in testimony…during the penalty phase of the trial.
To put it plainly, Amy DeLong announced that she considers the Discipline’s strictures to be optional in her case — and the jury, by issuing a toothless suspension, effectively agreed.
DeLong (left) celebrates outcome with supporter (UMNS photo)
“I feel good about what the church has done,” DeLong later said, as quoted in the Journal Sentinel.
“I think we’ve sent a message that the United Methodist Church will not throw out its gay and lesbian people, and that it has opened the doors for a more inclusive church,” she said.
Oh, in addition to her 20-day suspension (the counsel for the UMC had asked that she be suspended indefinitely, pending her willingness to submit to the Discipline — see sidebar), the court imposed another wrist slap: DeLong must “initiate a written document outlining procedures for clergy in order to help resolve issues that harm the clergy covenant, create an adversarial spirit or lead to future clergy trials.”
If Amy DeLong were willing to submit the church’s boundaries, that could a short paper indeed. All it would need to say is: “To avoid harming the clergy covenant, creating an adversarial spirit, or precipitating church trials, United Methodist clergy should by abide by the will of the church as expressed in the Book of Discipline.”
But that is just what DeLong has made clear she will not do — and, based on recent reports in the denominational press (see here and here–PDF), DeLong apparently has the support of hundreds of clergy across the United Methodist Church.
Further, it would seem that performing homosexual unions is widespread in the Wisconsin Annual Conference. In trial testimony, the Rev. Richard Strait, chair of the conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry, said that if performing same-sex unions “were a heinous crime, there would be a whole lot of us in deep trouble.”
“A whole lot of us” is a telling phrase, suggesting that disobedience to the Discipline among Wisconsin Conference clergy and leaders is common.
What was really going on in the Amy DeLong trial was this: the Wisconsin Annual Conference (which in the person of the bishop appointed DeLong to her current position as director of Kairos CoMotion, an advocacy group that among other things seeks — surprise! — to repeal the prohibitions on sexually active homosexual clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions) is telling the rest of the denomination that it will not enforce the parts of the Discipline it doesn’t like. Expect other conferences to follow.
If this is not stopped, the collapse of the United Methodist Church as an even vaguely unified body cannot be far off.
I wonder how the Wisconsin Conference deals with clergy who have repeated DUIs or those who commit adultery or who shoplift? It would be interesting to compare those penalties against Ms. DeLong’s and see if there is any hypocrisy!
It takes only one little crack in the dam to give in to the pressure behind it and then all Gehenna breaks loose! The United Methodist Church is starting to crumble to the surrounding culture and by trying to be so much like the world, that there will soon be no difference!
Want to know why the United Methodist Church in the U.S. is a dying denomination? It is becoming too much like the world. In trying to remain culturally relevant, many are watering down the Scriptures. And the Lord will soon “vomit” it out of His mouth! (Rev. 3:16 NKJV).
We must certainly love sinners, but to allow the sin to continue without consequences is an injustice to all — the sinner and the denomination!
Rosey’s right — the church has conformed to the world.
Why 20 days? Why not 40? Forty might’ve been more productive.
In the meantime, we all need to spend the next 20 days in prayer for our church.
It is telling that Ms. DeLong was very much out front with her sexual orientation prior to the trial, but when asked a specific question (which she knew Rev. Lambrecht had to ask if she wasn’t going to be forthcoming about her status), she dodged the question and diverted the discussion.
One might reasonably assume that this was on the advice of her counsel. If so, her counsel, Rev. Campbell, is complicit in disingenuous legalistic maneuvering. Even if you ignore the sexuality issues with respect to breaching the Discipline and ignoring Scripture, are these the character traits we want in people who lead our church?
Is this the same kind of proof required for a philandering heterosexual male pastor? Or is there yet another double standard at work here?
In his famous Harvard Address in the late 70s (text here), Alexander Solzhenitsyn prophetically warned the West against the dangers of legality being substituted for morality in society, much less the church. He is being proven, once again, a prophet.
This is like activist judges who do not rule by what the law (or, in our case, the Bible and the Book of Discipline) say, but what they think the laws of the land should be instead. They make twist the actual laws, then try to force society (the church) to bend to their wishes.
This will backfire. Many of us would leave the UMC if this is what the UMC is to become. Indeed, many have left already.
A minimal search reveals the following timeline facts:
1) Amy Delong by her own admission has been in a “committed relationship” with another woman for 16 years.
2) Ms. DeLong entered ministry candidature in the Wisconsin Conference 14 years ago. Presumably, she went through the same screening procedures (psychological, Board of Ministry evaluation, acceptance by charge as candidate, etc.) as any other candidate.
3) She was appointed Executive Director of Kairos CoMotion in ’06. This is a UMC extension in the Wisconsin Annual Conference committed to changing Book of Discipline policy on homosexual clergy.
This adds up to the conclusion that everyone in authority in the Wisconsin Conference from the bishop on down knew about Ms. Delong’s sexual orientation, and indeed hired her as executive director of Kairos CoMotion purely because of that orientation.
This so-called trial, 36 retired UM bishops calling for changes in the sexual/moral standards in the Book of Discipline, and 77 clergy in Minnesota promoting similar changes will challenge the 2012 General Conference. Other annual conferences will now be emboldened to join in this alliance.
The impact of this on the polity of our Church will determine the continuation (or not) of Methodism in its founding traditions.
“Sin: 1. a) an offense against God, religion, or good morals b) the condition of being guilty of continued offense against God, religion, or good morals. 2. An offense against any law, standard, code, etc.” (From Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997.)
Dare I suggest a truly radical (as in getting back to a basic principle) course of action for General Conference 2012? Change the Book of Discipline so that it will state and affirm God’s law by changing “…homosexuality is incompatible” to “homosexual behavior is a sin.” That is the clear understanding given in Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments.
Has God changed His mind to conform to 21st century Western cultural notions? I don’t think so, and I wouldn’t want to chance my salvation by saying otherwise.
If the UMC or any other denomination is to truly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the “lost and marginalized,” then it must officially recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin, and deal with it as with all other sins.
How is it possible to willfully wallow in sin and still claim one’s personal salvation or to be in right relationship with Jesus Christ? Just askin’….
The same liberals — within and without the church — who’ve told us for decades that marriage is little more than an outdated social institution are now, suddenly, finding it critically important insofar as it can be granted to homosexuals. Anybody besides me detect a bit of hypocrisy there? Does this make anyone else suspicious regarding their true motives?
Is there any real doubt that marriage redefinition is just another goal in a long wish-list of sexual anarchists and sexual decontructionists? Does anyone think that the legacy of such folks, a least up to this point (i.e., the “shack-up” culture), has done anything but harm to both church and society? Considering their track record, why do we listen to these people? They create more carnage than can possibly be cleaned up. Are we too ignorant, too disinterested, or just too self-absorbed to speak out about these issues?
I noticed nowhere in media reports that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is divorced and living with his current girlfriend outside of wedlock. If a divorced conservative happens to speak out in favor of traditional marriage you can bet that the fact that he is divorced will be featured prominently in the story. Why wouldn’t the press mention Gov. Cuomo’s personal marital status with respect to how it might affect his judgment? (The double standard rears its ugly head yet again).
Despite his state’s poor economy, Gov. Cuomo instead put marriage redefinition as a top priority. Is it possible that some liberals have a latent desire (perhaps owing to their own bad experience) to destroy traditional marriage?
Editor’s note: The New York Daily News published a story in January 2011 about Gov. Cuomo’s live-in relationship with his girlfriend, noting that “nobody seems to mind that they’re not married.”
I don’t know what these bishops (who must be ignorant of the Word of God) are thinking. Obviously they have not read God’s Word., and the Bible says “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.”
I will leave the United Methodist Church if it approves practicing homosexuals in the pulpit. This is an abomination to God and His Word. The Bible is clear that the sexually immoral, including homosexual offenders, “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (Rev. 21:8, 1 Cor. 6. 9:10). Also read the first chapter of Romans.
No wonder United Methodist churches have lost so many people. The church is to hold forth the teachings of Christ as revealed in the scriptures. God does not approve homosexuality. How can we participate in this sin against God?
What’s wrong with the United Methodist Church is that many pastors do not preach the Word of God and allow God’s Holy Spirit to move freely in the church. If my husband was the D.S., I would go to every church in his district, listen to the pastor’s sermon, and if he is not preaching the Word of God and expounding upon it, I would report that church and pastor. The pastor would be required come in for a discussion to see if he is even saved. He would be given a chance to repent and preach God’s Word or he would be out of the ministry. It is this serious.
The people in leadership in the UMC who claim to be homosexuals and who say there is nothing wrong with that are out of line. They are deceived by satan himself. I wonder what would happen if these homosexuals in leadership in the church would pick up the Bible and read it?
God cannot and will not bless what is happening.
MethodistThinker.com stands out as a voice for Bible-believing, Bible-living Christians who happen to be Methodists. I am so encouraged that thoughtful, articulate people are speaking up in defense of traditional adherence to Scriptural principles.
I can only hope that our delegates to General Conference 2012 in Tampa are equally as strong and united in their efforts to preserve the integrity of the United Methodist Church, by re-stating — and reinforcing in the strongest possible terms — the Book of Discipline‘s statements on the practice of homosexuality.
As one who witnessed first hand what the pursuit of the homosexual agenda has done (and continues to do) to the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church, I sent my pastor a letter and told him I’m not going to be around to watch the UMC slowly circle the drain. If there’s no response to this from the wider church, then I have my answer.
The only thing we can do is talk with our checkbooks. That’s the lesson the doctrinally orthodox must learn if we are to have any chance at stopping this in its tracks.
I asked my pastor to forward my comments to the bishop and district superintendent. We’ll see if it gets any response from those in authority.