When A Methodist Pastor Withdraws the Welcome to Gays and Lesbians

Item 2-The Power of Preacher

Also in the meeting, Rev. Toms read the charge of the Senior Pastor from the Discipline. I am not sure the exact passage he used, but the charge is repeated (as the Discipline often does). I find it first in Section IX. The Ordained Elder in Full Connection ¶ 332. Ministry of an Elder— Elders are ordained ministers who, by God’s grace, have completed their formal preparation and have been commissioned and served as a provisional member, have been found by the Church to be of sound learning, of Christian character, possessing the necessary gifts and evidence of God’s grace, and whose call by God to ordination has been confirmed by the Church. Elders are ordained to a lifetime ministry of Word, Sacrament, Order, and Service. By the authority given in their ordination, they are authorized to preach and teach the Word of God, to provide pastoral care and counsel, to administer the sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion, and to order the life of the Church for service in mission and ministry. The servant leadership of the elder, in both parish and extension ministries, is expressed by leading the people of God in worship and prayer, by leading persons to faith in Jesus Christ, by exercising pastoral supervision, and by ordering the Church in mission in the world.

It occurs again in ¶ 340. Responsibilities and Duties of Elders and Licensed Pastors— 1. The responsibilities of elders are derived from the authority given in ordination. Elders have a fourfold ministry of Word, Sacrament, Order, and Service and thus serve in the local church and in extension ministries in witness and service of Christ’s love and justice. Elders are authorized to preach and teach the Word, to provide pastoral care and counsel, to administer the sacraments, and to order the life of the church for service in mission and ministry as pastors, superintendents, and bishops.

He seems to be using the excuse that it is not consistent with the Discipline, and therefore does not support the proper “order” of the church, as he’s required to do as part of his vows of ordination.

Item 3 – Inconsistent with the Discipline

He asked the purpose of the statement, and I explained it was to condense the lengthy and scattered language of the Discipline, and make the statement readable.

He indicated that, under the statement related to “order the life of the church,” he had the authority to remove the statement because it was in violation of the Discipline. He explained that the General Conference is the only body authorized to make such statements, and that the local church cannot interpret the Discipline or make other statements related to the contents of the Discipline, or otherwise speak on behalf of the church.

I pointed out a lengthy and more ambiguous statement that is on the website that “all are welcome,” and asked from where within the Discipline that statement originated. He stated that was just a common statement often used, but I’d suggest, under Toms’ rules, it too violates the authority of the Discipline since that statement is not specifically in the Discipline.

However, and unfortunately for Rev. Toms, the primary elements of our statement of welcome are indeed in the Discipline, something we worked hard to ensure. They occur in multiple places throughout the discipline:

¶ 161. II. THE NURTURING COMMUNITY “Language of a derogatory nature (with regard to race, nationality, ethnic background, gender, sexuality, and physical differences) does not reflect value for one another and contradicts the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

F ) All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights insured and to be protected against violence.

¶ 335(c)(4) which notes that people up for ordination have to “Provide evidence of your willingness to relate yourself in ministry to all persons without regard to race, color, ethnicity, national origin, social status, gender, sexual orientation, age, economic condition, or disability.”

I’d like to point that in 2011, when the Administrative Council adopted the statement, the Pastor then, Kevin James, was also opposed to the resolution, and spoke out vigorously. James had, just prior to his appointment at PCUMC, served for several years as a District Superintendent. The Bishop of the Florida Conference at the time was Timothy Whitaker. Whitaker was the “go-to-guy” when anyone in the media wanted a statement from the anti-gay arm of the Methodist Church. As such, I can not fail to believe that had James, someone very familiar with the Discipline, had any sense that the Statement so violated the Discipline that he could simply overrule the Council, he would not have done so.

Item 4 – Violates Judicial Council Rulings 847 and 871

Later, in discussing the situation with the Chairperson of the Administrative Council, Marty Peate, Marty explained the preacher had explained to him that our statement violated two Methodist Judicial Council Rulings. (The Judicial Council is sort of the Supreme Court of the United Methodist, and rules on issues of church law related to the application of the Discipline.) It took me several requests to Marty, and finally to the preacher to discover which two they were citing, since I was not aware of any rulings (nor was anyone else) that would preclude a local church from having such a statement.

When I finally called the preacher to get the information, he cited these two. These two rulings are related to affiliating with third-party organizations such as the Reconciling and Confessing Movements. 847 deals only with Annual Conferences, so it’s applicable only in that it’s referenced in 871. 871 does apply to local churches, but I pointed out to him that we were not, nor had we gone through the process, nor had their been any discussion of our church becoming a Reconciling Church. In fact, our statement actually comes up a bit short, and would not qualify us as a Reconciling Ministries church.

I pointed this out to him, and asked how he thought they applied. He simply did not respond. There was dead silence on the phone. It was amazing, but I suspect it was related to the fact that he knew, if anyone had read the rulings, as I obviously had, he was being intellectually dishonest.