As I sit down to write these words, the Reverend Benjamin Hutchinson and his partner, Monty, are getting married today in the Cass County Courthouse in Western Michigan. As they do this, Reverend Hutchinson has been forced to resign as pastor of Cassapolis UMC. What a juxtaposition of emotions these two people must be feeling right now.
Following the details of all this the best that I can, I have been moved to remember the exhortation of the late Bishop Rueben Job in his chapter in the book, Finding Our Way (Abingdon Press, 2014), a plea to suspend all retributive actions between now and General Conference, so that propaganda and reactionary thinking will not infect the discernment process required of General Conference delegates with regard to human sexuality.
I reiterate his exhortation, not simply because I read it in the book, but because Bishop Job was one of the Christian leaders I most respect–in both the substance and spirit of his faith. Much of this was from afar, but Jeannie and I were blessed to know him and his wife, Beverly, during our years at The Upper Room in Nashville. I have not known anyone who manifested a kinder and gentler spirit than Rueben–and who loved Christ and the Church more than he did. I cherish his influence and friendship.
I would never presume to put words in Bishop Job’s mouth, but I am willing to put his words into mine, and hopefully perpetuate his view–one that I own on a day when I believe it is needed. I put it this way: it is a day to suspend the sorrow.
Some will immediately respond by saying, “To suspend retributive actions violates the existing Book of Discipline–case closed.” There is no way to dispute that, but I do not believe a “case closed” approach includes everything we need to be taking into account these days, and I do not believe it generates the spirit we sorely need in the days preceding General Conference.
I have no institutional authority to speak into this complex and controversial issue, but I am willing to say, as Christians before me have said in the past as they spoke to thorny problems: “the love of Christ constrains me.” My soul is stirred by the testimony to love by the great cloud of witnesses, now including the likes of Rueben Job.
I urge a suspension of retributive actions based on the fact that all people on the spectrum of opinion are agreed that the General Conference must deal with the double-talk and restrictive nature of the current Book of Discipline. In spirit our agreement has already “convened” General Conference in the soul of the United Methodist Church. We do not serve our soul well by acting retributively prior to the actual General Conference itself. We only trouble the waters without anyone stepping into them to be healed.
Moreover, to act retributively is to assume in advance how the General Conference will legislate the 2016 Book of Discipline. And the fact is, we do not know how revised statements will read. How sad it would be to realize we took actions ten months prior to General Conference to prohibit clergy from serving the Church in ways that would then be allowed in whatever way the General Conference effects our position and future.
If the General Conference finds a way forward and preserves unity, we will have what so many hope for–a new set of regulations for The United Methodist Church that are more gracious than the current ones. If, however, it maintains the current language, or perhaps even tightens that language, then many of us will have what we need to decide our future relative to the post-2016 UMC.
In the meantime, it is not disrespectful or disobedient to our current Book of Discipline to suspend action using statements we all agree will be changed some way next May. We have, in effect, already suspended them by our agreement that they must be reviewed and revised.
Returning to Bishop Job’s exhortation, I share his sentiment that the better way for us in the coming months is to pray, pray, and pray some more–rather than follow a trail of tears blazed by words and actions that erode our discernment. We have elected our delegates to General Conference. Our “job one” is to intercede for them, asking (in the words of the hymn) that God will “grant them wisdom, grant them courage” for the living of these days.
If we do this, rather than divert our energy to enforcing statements we already concede will somehow change, we will arrive in Portland wiser, stronger, better, and more loving. Do we not believe that is better than getting there through a swamp of retribution?
Bishop Job offered this challenge in his chapter–one that I own and repeat today: “To give up the gods we have made, will require a deep humility, an incredible trust in God, and the courage to lose everything, and to die to everything else for what is the primary call of our lives ”
God, may it be so! For us all.
And in keeping with the overarching spirit that has moved me to write this post, I say to Benjamin and Monty, “God bless you as you are married today. May you continue to love and serve God, trusting that the One who began a good work in you, will bring it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus.
Oboedire 
Steve, I understand your perspective, however I disagree with your application.Until the next General Conference defines our future course of action, we have a clear covenant that ordained clergy agree to uphold (and state an oath of acceptance). A covenant that governs what the church does in the name of Christ’s kingdom, and governs what the clergy member does in the name of the church.To unilaterally state that the covenant no longer applies because there is a contentious issue is a violation of the covenant-guiding relationship — why enter a covenant at all if it is not binding!I do not see it as retributional, if one violates a covenant, the covenant was broken by the violation not by the subsequent response. The current focus is on the aspect of the covenant related to same-sex restrictions. However, If the church ignores that aspect of the covenant what right would the church have to enforce violations of other aspects of the covenant governing clergy behavior? The standards outlined in the Discipline must all be followed, or none are applicable. Individual jurisdictions (let alone individual members) don’t have the right to remain connect to the whole if they are going to choose which standards to uphold and which standards to ignore. I think back to a very appropriate line from a movie about questions during prohibition. A reporter asked the federal agent what he thought about prohibition and whether drinking should be allowed. The response was “what I think doesn’t matter, prohibition is the current law of the land, and until the law is changed I have sworn to uphold that law with every means I have available to me.” Later in the move, on the day the act repealing prohibition went into effect, the same reporter asked the same federal agent what he would do now. The agent responded “I think I will go have a drink.” For the UMC, the current law of the land is the Book of Discipline. Until that law changes, the duty and obligation of our clergy members is to uphold the Discipline. If and when the Discipline changes, only then can we open the discussion on how to change what the clergy can or can’t do. respectfully, Gary Carruthers From: Oboedire To: clutchgrc@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 12:37 PM Subject: [New post] Editorial: Suspend the Sorrow #yiv9590937992 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv9590937992 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv9590937992 a.yiv9590937992primaryactionlink:link, #yiv9590937992 a.yiv9590937992primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv9590937992 a.yiv9590937992primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv9590937992 a.yiv9590937992primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv9590937992 WordPress.com | jstevenharper posted: “As I sit down to write these words, the Reverend Benjamin Hutchinson and his partner, Monty, are getting married today in the Cass County Courthouse in Western Michigan. As they do this, Reverend Hutchinson has been forced to resign as pastor of Cassapol” | |
Drew is correct. Any action that knowingly violated the vows one took at ordination and which the church has voted continually for the past 40 years to uphold is one that should be held accountable. Just because the church may decide in the future that something is acceptable does not make it any less disobedient in the present to act against it. This is why we have long been far from “United” within Methodism.
It is time to simply recognize this rather than continuing to be a house divided. http://jmsmith.org/blog/talbert
Drew is right.
“If, however, it maintains the current language, or perhaps even tightens that language, then many of us will have what we need to decide our future relative to the post-2016 UMC.”
It sounds as if there will be a part of the church that has “what we need to decide our future” whichever way it goes. And I hope we can all find His peace in that.
Praising God for the bigger picture we so blindly fail to see: the transformation of broken lives channelled through this humble servant , sinner, saved by grace, called by God, equipped by the Holy Spirit, just like me. As followers of Christ, restoration of lives and the bonds of love trump the retributions and discord we face day in and day out. I am saddened for the UM church, once again, and the real message this delivers. However, I am strengthened and encouraged by this servant of God’s courage and faithful dedication to his call to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. No doubt, God will continue to use him to do just that. God’s blessings!
Excellent post, Steve. Picking up for UM Insight.
When a Roman Catholic priest falls in love and gets married, he forfeits his privilege to serve as a priest. That’s not retributive. That’s a choice. So is this.