When A Methodist Pastor Withdraws the Welcome to Gays and Lesbians

The Administrative Council Meeting

The July Administrative Council Meeting (I think it’s now supposed to be called the Church Council, but who knows, that comes from Toms), was coming up on the 22nd of July. In discussions with the Chairperson, he’d suggested I come and address the issue. I explained I considered our having a statement a “settled issue.” I explained I thought it was a matter specifically for consideration by the Council, and whether they intended to abdicate their role in governing the church to any given pastor at a point in time.

I explained to Marty during this conversation that it was arrogant of the Pastor to disregard the vote by the Administrative Council, and unilaterally remove the statement without any consultation or explanation. I also explained it was intellectually dishonest for him to be constantly changing his story about his reasons, and to finally cite two Judicial Council rulings which do not apply. I make no apologies for that, but I later received an email from Marty (which I believe to have been primarily dictated by Toms) claiming I had called Bruce Toms an arrogant liar, and tell me, “I will not place this item on the agenda nor will I yield the floor to you during the July 22 meeting, and respectfully ask you that you not attempt to speak.”

Now, anyone who knows me, knows this was the equivalent of waving a red cape in front of a bull. So I showed up.

All along I had said that our statement violated the Discipline only if there was a group listed that was not welcome at Palma Ceia United Methodist Church. Well, Bruce Toms made it clear that he had no problem making that case, and citing a specific group that was NOT welcome. At the end of the meeting he got up and explained some questions had been raised about our welcome statement. He was going to discuss it (and oh, he’d clearly spent a bit of time preparing a PowerPoint presentation to go along with his presentation), but was not seeking any resolution or vote, that it was a settled issue.

I’d like to note that in describing the contents of the PowerPoint, I must rely solely on my recollections. The presentation was made in an open meeting of the Church Council, and as such, should be a part of the proceedings, and thus available to any member (according to Toms’ vaunted Discipline). However, despite two requests, he’s refused to provide the file, and will offer no explanation about why.

He then started out by saying that the discussion be had without having a discussion about homosexuality…so there it was, the unwelcome category.

He started with what I’m sure he hoped was a heartwarming story about how he’s experienced homosexuality in his own family. According to him his sister has been in a long-term lesbian relationship since high school, and he has a lesbian niece. I assume it to be the typical, “I have gay friends/family, I love them, so I can’t be a bigot,” speech. What I most noticed was he didn’t ever note the, “but I love them just same” part. I found that very interesting.

He went on to display slides showing the single line from the Discipline which is the infamous line, “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”¹ He failed to show the second sentence following this one which says, “We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.” He failed to show the language from the immediately preceding paragraph which says, in part, “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.” Notice any similarities to our adopted Statement of Welcome?

He failed to show the language in the introductory paragraph to that section, which says, “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.” He neglected to show ¶ 162.III. THE SOCIAL COMMUNITY “We deplore acts of hate or violence against groups or persons based on race, color, national origin, ethnicity, age, gender, disability, status, economic condition, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious affiliation.”

In his efforts to make his case that Judicial Council Rulings 847 and 871 applied, he noted the numbers, and explained them, as saying they prohibit identifying with third-party organizations, and proceeded to display several statements of welcome from four or five Reconciling Ministries Churches. Tom’s then displayed our statement again, and asked the group to note their similarity.

He noted his requirement of his Vows of Ordination to maintain the order of the church, but he didn’t note, 335. Requirements for Admission to Full Connection and Ordination as Elder— Provisional (C)(4) “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.”

He also had a screen capture of a website called gaychurch.org, and showed a page where we were listed as a welcoming church. Now this site is nothing more than a listing by geographic area. Yet he made it a point to contact that site, and have us removed as an affirming church. In our original meeting after he removed the statement, he’d taken exception to me calling him a bigot in my original email to him. I apologized, but given that action, I withdraw the apology. The only motivation for having our listing on that site removed would be animus, and a wish to withhold a public welcome to gay people.

The Response of The Committee

Bill Josey, perpetual Chairperson of the Personnel Committee, made a few comments in explaining the history of the resolution, but frankly, they were complete and utter bullshit. He started out his story by characterizing the simple four-page resolution as a “manifesto.” He went on to say that when it was submitted it was, “roundly defeated…roundly defeated,” and that he and Marty Peate, as a show of good-faith, had re-written the language, and offered the modified resolution.

So, let’s see what’s was a lie in his Josey’s statement. First off, it was a very formal, well written, and fairly concise resolution, and was titled as such. As church resolution’s go, it was fairly short. The language of the statement of welcome was somewhat more inviting than the rather clinical language used throughout the Discipline, but I had pointed out that it included all the same categories used throughout the Discipline. The 2011 Council had voted to accept the resolution, pending a revision to the welcome statement to exactly match the language of the Discipline, which is all that Bill Josey and Marty Peate did.

During that 2011 meeting, nearly 15 people spoke in favor of the resolution, Josey and James spoke vigorously against. Most certainly, the majority of the meeting was taken up in the discussion and votes on the resolution, yet, it was stated by Toms that there was no mention of it in the minutes of that meeting. How strange?

Nothing else was said by anyone, so I have to assume they have decided to abdicate their duties and responsibilities to Toms, and I fail to see why they continue to even meet.

As For Me

I am as close as I’ve ever come in my 54 years of leaving the Methodist Church. There is another Methodist Church not too far away, Hyde Park United Methodist, which is a welcoming church. In fact, I have been told they were/are going through the reconciling process, but that was some time back. Not far from PCUMC is a Presbyterian Church which I might consider. The Presbyterian Church, as a whole, has moved further on the issue of inclusiveness than the Methodists have.

On the other hand, those who know me best know what a hard-head I can be, and it’s really not like me to walk away from an issue I feel strongly about, and this is one of those cases. I don’t want an ugly fight to hurt the church, but there is more behind this than just the one issue of the welcoming statement. It seems that the majority of the folks at this church now have some beef with this new Pastor, and many have told me they hope I’ll stay and fight the battle for what they believe to be the right thing.

I made an effort to get the Administrative Council to address the issue, and have tried to handle it informally with a new District Superintendent, Dr. Walter E. Monroe, Jr. He just referred me back to the local church, so I presume the next step is to take it up with the Office of the Bishop. As I noted, a few years ago, he would have had Timothy Whitaker on his side. Now I realize that the hierarchy of any organization (the United Methodist Church included), tends to first, work to protect the institution, but a new Bishop here in Florida may not be as homophobic as Timothy Whitaker.

1. ¶ 161.II. THE NURTURING COMMUNITY (F), 2012 Discipline of the United Methodist Church.  ↩