By Jeremy Rebman
June 17, 2022
At this year’s clergy session of the Florida Annual Conference, all 16 candidates for provisional deacon’s and elder’s orders were not approved for commissioning. To my knowledge, this has never happened in our conference, and perhaps not in any other. Understandably, this has caused grief and confusion.
At the heart of this controversy is the commissioning of two practicing homosexual persons, in violation of our shared covenant set forth in The United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline. The leadership of the Florida Conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry wittingly advanced these candidates knowing clergy who remain committed to the UM Church’s ordination standards could not, in good conscience, vote for them. The sole remaining traditionalist on the board planned to make a motion at the clergy session that candidates for commissioning be voted on individually, not as a slate. He alerted conference officials of his intention so they would be able to prepare the ballots needed should his motion pass.
This was all in the background when a retired clergy person made a motion to vote on the candidates as a whole, in their various categories. This was confusing at first, since this is how the conference typically conducts the process. Clergy members reasonably wondered why a motion would be necessary to proceed as the clergy session has always done so in the past.
It became clear this was an orchestrated plan; the bishop was expecting the motion. Allies were also ready with prepared statements in support of it, and paper ballots were at hand for the vote. While speeches against the motion were made, it prevailed in the end, successfully preempting the motion to consider each candidate individually. The expectation was that all the candidates would be approved together. Surely, proponents of the scheme reasoned, an overwhelming majority of clergy members would vote to approve all the prospective ordinands even if they were troubled by the two who were in clear violation of the UM Church’s ordination standards.
However, the voting threshold is very high for matters of ordination – three quarters of the conference’s clergy members must vote for the candidates. To the dismay of those who orchestrated the plan, they fell short by five percent. And even after a motion to reconsider, they were still short by three percent. Consequently, all 16 candidates were not approved for commissioning.
Some centrist-progressive clergy members blamed their traditionalist colleagues for this historic and sad event, but in reality, the scheme backfired on its proponents. Their attempt to use 14 of the candidates as leverage for two was a profile in timidity. Rather than advocate the courage of their convictions on behalf of the two candidates, they risked – and sacrificed – the approval of the other 14.
Also, in a moment of extraordinary irony, Florida Bishop Ken Carter ruled a motion “out of order,” because “it violates our polity.” The motion was to allow local pastors and supply pastors to vote at the clergy session. He seemed willing to allow a violation of our polity in one case, but not in the other.
To the surprise of conference leadership, there were self-described “centrists” who refused to approve the candidates. As one centrist shared, he is in favor of changing the UM Church’s ordination standards but believes that change should happen through General Conference action. Admirably, he voted his conscience, having vowed to uphold the Discipline.
Still, some people claim the debacle is an example of traditionalists standing in the way of progress. In addition to blaming them for the fiasco, some centrist-progressives are asking traditionalists, “Why don’t you just leave?” In fact, the annual conference later passed a resolution complaining that some clergy who voted against the candidates plan to leave the denomination anyway.
And traditionalists do want to leave. For the past few years conference leaders have made it abundantly clear the so-called “big tent” they tout is not big enough for those who hold to the theological and ethical convictions outlined in the Book of Discipline. Traditionalists are seen as out-of-step and in the way of the “progressive” trajectory of the conference. While many of them are willing to leave and concede the denomination to centrist-progressives, they are still not prepared to violate their good faith convictions as long as they remain in the UM Church.
Traditionalists do want to leave, but many local churches are unable to disaffiliate under paragraph 2553 of the Discipline. For instance, while I am grateful that the church I serve (First Methodist Church of Vero Beach) is nearly through the disaffiliation process, I am keenly aware there are many churches for whom the unfunded pension liability payment, the additional year of apportionments, and the insurance requirements pose insurmountable obstacles.
Conference leadership, under the guidance of Bishop Carter, could offer an exit ramp that is similar to the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation by negotiating a comity agreement under paragraph 2548.2. This would be the surest way for the majority of the conference’s clergy members to eventually ratify their progressive agenda. Instead of complaining about traditionalist standing in the way of progress, offer them reasonable and financially fair terms to exit the UM Church. Such an offer would avoid a similar fiasco at next year’s annual conference.
Who is truly standing in the way of progress?
The Rev. Jeremy Rebman is president of the WCA-Florida Regional Chapter, an elder in The United Methodist Church, and lead pastor of First Methodist Church of Vero Beach, Florida.