• Home
  • About
  • Original reporting
  • Podcasts

MethodistThinker.com

News, commentary, source documents, podcasts, history, prayers

Feeds:
Posts

In GBCS article, UM elder argues against celibacy for single clergy

June 30, 2010 by Editor

For the second time in less than a year, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), an official agency of the denomination, has published an article arguing that sexual relationships outside the covenant of marriage are not necessarily improper.

“An Ordained Single Woman and the Discipline,” published June 7 as part of the “Sex and the Church” series in GBCS’ weekly Faith in Action online newsletter, contends that sexual relationships should not be off-limits for unmarried UM clergy.

Last August, the controversial series featured an article by Unitarian “sexologist” Debra Haffner who wrote that one can have “a moral, ethical sexual relationship” regardless of “whether one is married or single, 16 or 35 or 80, gay, bisexual or straight.”

The current article, written by a divorced, female United Methodist elder, takes issue with language in the United Methodist Book of Discipline that states that a failure to remain “celibate in singleness” is a “chargeable offense” for UM clergy (¶2702.1). The writer, who is not identified by GBCS, asserts that the exchanging of covenant wedding vows is not necessarily “a dividing line between moral and immoral” sexual relations.

[The] demand for celibacy [on the part of] an unmarried clergyperson leaves little room for the heart’s search to find a home in our human world.

We are extraordinarily confused by years of theological tradition and imaginative biblical reflections on: the “perpetual” virginity of Mary; a supposedly celibate Jesus; …and effusively generous women errantly assumed to be asking for forgiveness from some sexual sin….

Yet, I can’t look at this great creation of such deep, creative erotica as found in an orchid, the mossy green of the deep forest…a passion of a thunderstorm, a hill of daffodils…the rich textures of rock and sand or the…sun setting across the city in the evening announcing a coming nighttime of dreams without wondering what if… [final ellipsis in original]

I cannot look at this great creation without wondering where we might find ourselves if we insisted that rather than “just say no,” we explored what expressions of rich, loving, abundant, heart-filled, kind, honest, truly mutual, vulnerable human sexuality might look like.

Though our delusions are rich, I think we all know that a wedding and its exchanged promises are not the dividing line between moral and immoral sex…. To label true expressions of intimate, sexual love of our unmarried ethical leaders as innately “immoral” seems a bit off….

What if within this context of the 21st century, we focused on the way that good sex, within a trusted relationship, is mutually healing, mutually humbling, touching, mutually vulnerable, connected to God’s deep and powerful mysterious grace?…

What if we determined that our sexual expressions of this love is [sic] part of God’s creative, wild, abundant abandon, and part of a “for God so loved this fecund, creative, wildly [sic], passionate, colorful, diverse, energy-filled world.”

Imagine a Church that talked like this…. Imagine a Church without the attitude that a wedding or a hymen is the dividing line between moral and immoral….

Imagine how many of those things that everyone is afraid of — embodied in a fearsome rule such as that in Discipline ¶2702.1 — would dissolve as we began to truly govern ourselves knowing when “moral sex” is ready to be manifested with a partner and when it is not.

In an “editor’s note” preceding the article, Faith in Action editor Wayne Rhodes noted that the author of the column requested “that it be printed anonymously due to the strong opinions expressed and the nature of the Disciplinary strictures on her role as an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church.”

∞

Responding to the article via a letter to the editor, North Georgia Conference layman Mark Smith criticized the General Board of Church and Society for acting as “a willing conduit for unbiblical, nontraditional and unwise views on sexuality.” By publishing such a piece, “GBCS continues to be a lightning rod for denominational division,” he wrote.

Mr. Smith also characterized the writer of the column as demonstrating “narcissistic myopia in supposing that she’s presenting a new, more positive perspective on sexuality.”

What her article [advocates] — libertine sexual practices, and among unwed Methodist clergy, no less — is exactly what Jesus warned against and is exactly what the ancient Israelites were told by God to resist…. And it is precisely what has wreaked untold havoc on our own society — the major victims being women and children — since the sexual revolution of the 1960s….

We don’t lessen sin by supposing it to be something else or by using creative language to explain it away. That’s what children do. We are supposed to aspire to spiritual maturity.

The Rev. Jim McConnell

Another letter to the editor, from the Rev. Jim McConnell, a retired clergy member of the Texas Annual Conference, argued that the Book of Discipline’s moral guidelines for UM clergy, including those governing appropriate sexual behavior, are “important and necessary standards for clergy and models and guides for lay persons.”

He said such standards reinforce key “biblical and traditional values of restraint, boundaries and covenant.”

[Restraint] is at least in part an expression of love because it denies self for the sake of another….

Boundaries protect the vulnerable. They also help keep those of us in positions of power or authority from inappropriate behavior that would injure others or ourselves….

Covenant expresses caring, dependability, and faithfulness…. God has repeatedly covenanted with God’s people and said something like: “You can count on me and I am counting on you!” The marriage relationship is described as a covenant and I believe expresses the same kind of thing. A husband or wife says, “You can count on me and I am counting on you!”

∞

In launching the “Sex and the Church” series last year, Bishop Deborah Kiesey (Dakotas Conference), president of the General Board of Church and Society, and Jim Winkler, the board’s chief executive, issued a joint statement saying the series would “help provide needed education to our children and ourselves.”

The “Sex and the Church” series is overseen by Linda Bales Todd, director of the Louise and Hugh Moore Population Project at the General Board of Church and Society.

∞

Paragraph 2702.1 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline reads as follows:

A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference, local pastor, clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may be tried when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in ¶2702.4) with one or more of the following offenses: (a) immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage; (b) practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings, including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies; (c) crime; (d) failure to perform the work of the ministry; (e) disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church; (f) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church; (g) relationships and/or behavior that undermine[s] the ministry of another pastor; (h) child abuse; (i) sexual abuse; (j) sexual misconduct or (k) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and/or sexual harassment; or (l) racial or gender discrimination.


Related posts
• Board of Church and Society sex-ed writer: Sex outside of marriage can be ‘moral, ethical’
• United Methodist Church facing health bill fallout
• Why the United Methodist Church cannot condone homosexuality
• ‘Church and Society’ decries pro-life amendment to health bill
• ‘Church and Society’ urges repeal of ‘conscience’ rule for healthcare workers
• Update on the ‘Church and Society’ court case
• ‘Church and Society’ withdraws support for Freedom of Choice Act

Related articles and information
• UM Judicial Council backs clergy dismissal over affair | Linda Bloom, UMNS (April 27, 2010)
• Adolescent sexuality: What every 21st-century parent needs to know | Debra Haffner, GBCS’ Faith in Action newsletter (Aug. 31, 2009)
• Sex and the single minister | Debra Haffner, The Huffington Post (Aug. 24, 2009)
• Anyone who works under the authority or auspices of the Church must be held to the highest standards of behavior, free of misconduct in any form | UMSexualEthics.org
• Christianity elevates sexual morality (a historical overview of the Christian church’s stance on sexual relations) — Chapter 3 of How Christianity Changed the World | Alvin Schmidt (Zondervan, 2004 — via Google Books)

Share:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Posted in Book of Discipline, Ethics, Holiness, Social Issues, United Methodist Church | Tagged UMC, United Methodist Church | 10 Comments

10 Responses

  1. on June 30, 2010 at 7:34 am Joseph A Rech

    Paragraph 2702.1 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, quoted above, tells me that any number of our so-called leadership should be tried and removed from their positions.

    The progressives are coming out, politically and religiously, and they should be treated accordingly — not for their ideology but for what they advocate and do under their ideology.


  2. on June 30, 2010 at 9:00 am Matt O'Reilly

    The telling phrase in the anonymous article was “to truly govern ourselves.” This, along with other divisive issues in the UMC, is a matter of who or what will be authoritative: Scripture? The Church? Personal preference?

    When we become ministers (and members, though to a lesser degree) we are giving the church permission to tell us how to live. Those who refuse to live within the disciplinary standards of the church should do the honorable and appropriate thing: namely, surrender their credentials and leave the denomination.


  3. on June 30, 2010 at 1:28 pm Bob Rempfer

    The (of course) anonymous author says: “What if we determined that our sexual expressions… [are] part of God’s…abandon, and part of a ‘for God so loved this…world.'”

    It begs the question: Does each and every person have permission, indeed God’s blessing, to self-determine their sexual expression?

    What of the recently arrested Joran van der Sloot? By all accounts, he self-determined his sexual expression: he became a predator. If we are free to self-determine our sexual expressions, Joran has done nothing wrong. He determined who he was and acted consistently. No limits, no judgments.

    Sexual expression is indeed a personal choice. But to assume therefore that God’s good gift can be casually divorced from marriage is ludicrous. Celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage are guardrails that produce God’s best.

    I thought we got over the “free love” philosophy in the 60s.


  4. on June 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm Anonymous

    I have been upset by just about every post in the “Sex and the Church” series and I am at a loss why more renewal groups haven’t said and done more to counter the flatly unMethodist junk being posted by the GBCS.

    As a local pastor and a candidate for ordination, I am happy to abide by the Book of Discipline. I would expect those on staff at a general board of the church to be equally willing to abide by the BOD as well.


  5. on July 2, 2010 at 11:41 am Anonymous

    Folks are leaving my UM church in large part because of their strong disappointment with GBCS and some of the UM leadership who are convinced that breaking out of the moral guidelines of the Discipline is somehow a noble cause in and of itself.


  6. on July 2, 2010 at 1:11 pm Anonymous

    Scripture is quite clear about sex outside the marriage. God doesn’t make up rules just to be a party pooper. He wants the best for us. Sex outside the marriage is not what is best.

    We confuse “loving relationships” with how we “feel” at the moment. Love has and never will be defined as a feeling. Love is being committed to the well-being of another. If you’re not willing to marry the person with whom you want to have sexual relations there is nothing loving about it. It is self-centered.

    My husband and I had sex prior to marriage. We had a difficult period of our marriage as a result. I always felt his love for me was based on what he got from me sexually. For many years, we could never get to a place of “true intimacy” that a couple needs to feel secure. Today we worked through that and we have a marriage beyond belief.

    My husband and I both saw what damage sex outside the marriage caused us. I would not trade what we have today for any sexual pleasure of the moment.

    I now understand why God has given us guidelines for sexual behavior. Either you trust HIM or you make your own rules. If you make your own, you’ll pay a price.


  7. on July 2, 2010 at 5:38 pm Anonymous

    GBCS needs to support their views from Scripture. If they can’t then maybe their just touting humanistic self-centered opinions inspired by Satan in his effort to destroy followers of Christ.

    Views that can’t be scripturally supported should be rejected.


  8. on July 5, 2010 at 3:08 pm Roger

    GBCS leaders have been attacking Biblical principles and the polity of the United Methodist Church for a long time.

    I wonder: Have those who commented above (especially those who didn’t give their names) been active in writing letters to their district and conference leaders about how our higher officials act?

    In the last days one of the tactics of Satan is to wear people down (or out). This onslaught by our own administrative personnel needs to be challenged via the UMC’s leadership structure and its judicial parameters. Who will be a “Nehemiah” and to confront these false teachers, or a “Daniel” willing to face the lions on the prowl?


  9. on July 7, 2010 at 7:42 pm Anonymous

    How can GBCS allow someone to teach against the Bible? Sex outside of marriage is WRONG! The Bible says it’s wrong.

    You are treading on dangerous territory. Have you not read the Bible and what it says about leading people down the wrong road?


  10. on September 15, 2010 at 7:40 am Joey Witcher

    Lord Jesus, please save us from ourselves!!!!



Comments are closed.

  • This blog was active from 2008-2013. It is no longer updated.
  • ThinkerSeek

  • Prayer

    We have sinned and done wrong. All this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not given attention to your truth.

    We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. O LORD, forgive!

    (Adapted from Daniel 9)

    Terry Teykl's Acts 29 Prayer Guide (PDF)

  • Categories

    • Bishops
    • Book of Discipline
    • Camp Meeting
    • Christian/Methodist History
    • Church Development
    • Church Growth
    • Church Renewal
    • Disaster Relief
    • Discipleship
    • Doctrine
    • Ethics
    • Evangelism
    • General Conference
    • Holiness
    • Judicial Council
    • Laity
    • Lay Speaking Ministries
    • Leadership Development
    • Media
    • Missions
    • MThinker General Annoucements
    • North Georgia Conference
    • Ordination
    • Podcasts
    • Politics
    • Prayer
    • Preaching
    • Revival
    • Sermons
    • Social Issues
    • Southeastern Jurisdiction
    • Stewardship
    • UM Higher Education
    • United Methodist Church
    • United Methodist Men
    • United Methodist Women
  • Archives

    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
  • Archives - general conference

    • 1996 – Denver
    • 2000 – Cleveland
    • 2004 – Pittsburgh
    • 2008 – Fort Worth
    • 2012 – Tampa
  • Header image of "Le Penseur" ("The Thinker") is via flickr — used with permission of innoxiuss. Image adapted for this site by Gideon.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy