In his 2006 essay on homosexuality, the United Methodist Church and the church universal, Bishop Timothy Whitaker wrote the following about the pastoral responsibility of United Methodist pastors/churches:
“What is necessary is not to bar certain persons from membership, but to maintain the public teaching and pastoral guidance of the church so that persons are lovingly directed away from practices the church believes are not consistent with the divine purpose for the sake of their growth in grace.”
Bishop Whitaker writes in terms not of what he recommends, sees, or prefers as the best or ideal outcome, but of what is necessary. I am translating the word necessary as “required” or a “must have” or “must do” thus leaving no option for another church or pastoral course of action. On the other hand, he recognizes that faithful United Methodists disagree on the topic, even as all are bound to obey the Discipline. However, can the Discipline fairly be interpreted to require the type of pro-active position he advances, as opposed to refraining from doing those things that are banned by the Discipline? It seems to me that requiring this action challenges pastoral integrity. It is one thing to dissent from teachings and yet uphold and enforce them. However, to be required to take the further step of enacting a Bishop’s supported means of upholding the Discipline, when such disciplinary statement(s) does not outline a specific course of action or enforcement, except as to ordination and same-sex unions or ceremonies, is a violation of the conscience as formed in faith; of academic freedom in the study of science, pyschology, sociology, and medicine; and freedom as to non-essential matters. By use of the term “non-essential” I’m not referring to the Disciplinary language on the topic, but of a specific interpretion of pastoral duty when no concensus of pastoral duty, apart from the disciplinary prohibitions, exists.
The 2004 United Methodist Book of Discipline provides, among other things:
Paragraph 2702-1:
1. A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference (¶368), local pastor,14 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,15 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 undermines the ministry of another pastor;16 (h) child abuse;** (i) sexual abuse;17 (j) sexual misconduct** or (k) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and/or sexual harassment; or (l) racial or gender discrimination .
Is Bishop Whitaker meaning to either imply or state outright that United Methodist pastors who fail to lead homosexual persons out of same-sex practices may or should be considered for the filing of a chargeable offense, under perhaps sections (d), (e) or (f)? If so, the most likely section would seem to be (d) failure to perform the work of the ministry — since Bishop Whitaker seeems to be claiming that his “necessary” claim should be a vital part of ministerial duties.
Your opinion, thought or musing?
Joel Betow
Stroud, Oklahoma USA