This episode shows that despite all the high-profile antics of individuals defying our covenant standards, we have not reached the place where theologically liberal United Methodists enjoy free rein to say and do whatever they want in defiance of what they call our “discriminatory” disapproval of sex outside of man-woman marriage. Not even in as notoriously radicalized an annual conference as Northern Illinois.

Within the United Methodist Church, great fanfare and enthusiastic, polarized reactions have followed various publicity stunts by a vocal minority within our denomination of “disobedience” or “non-conformity” to the UMC’s official policies affirming biblical boundaries for sexual self-control.

However, significant setbacks or reversals for this disobedience movement do not always garner as much attention.

So it seems worth noting the cancellation of a gay-affirming ordination policy for Chicago-area United Methodists. You may have missed this, as it was announced during 2016 Christmas vacation.

Outside of the Western Jurisdiction, the Northern Illinois Conference, headquartered in Chicago, may be the most extreme of all United Methodist regions in its degree of theological radicalization. (Although alternative cases could be made for the New York or New England Conferences.) It was not long ago that its bishop, Joseph Sprague (now retired), notoriously denied the virgin birth, miracle-performing ministry, eternal divinity, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. None of this went too far for the conference’s dominant “progressive” faction nor for Sprague’s close allies in the Reconciling Ministries Network, which is also based in Chicago. Few who were at the 2016 General Conference could forget the unhinged moment of belligerent Northern Illinois clergy delegate Gregory Gross taking to the microphone to — without basis — accuse the presiding bishop of “telegraphing votes”(something for which, to my knowledge, Pastor Gross has never publicly apologized, despite being called out by other delegates across the theological spectrum). The list goes on.

It was unsurprising in May 2016 when this conference’s board of ordained ministry (the body charged with reviewing ordination candidates, among other things) released “An open letter to The United Methodist Church” announcing that it would follow the lead of a couple other rapidly declining conferences in adopting a formal policy in open defiance of the denomination’s longstanding ban on ordaining “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.” The key part of this policy read as follows:

“We publicly affirm that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and straight candidates will be given equal consideration and protection in the candidacy process. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not and will not be considered in the evaluation of candidates by the Board of Ordained Ministry of the Northern Illinois Conference.”

Such language obscures the distinction made in official UMC policies between homosexually inclined people (a group which includes orthodox Christians committed to lifelong celibacy) and homosexual practice. But the intent of disregarding the UMC’s biblical standards was clear enough.

But because a lone, courageously faithful pastor in that conference named Scott Field was willing to challenge that policy, the case has come for review to the Judicial Council.

As part of her relevant decision, released on December 31, Northern Illinois Bishop Sally Dyck declared, “The Board of Ordained Ministry’s statement is out of order.” This key part was buried at the bottom of the second page of her four-page ruling, taking up only 48 of the 1,371 total words.

Now Bishop Dyck hardly deserves special credit. To be fair, the Northern Illinois Conference was already radicalized when she arrived in 2012, and the board of ordained ministry members who unanimously approved this schismatic ordination policy would have been nominated by her predecessor, Bishop Hee-Soo Jung, per ¶635 of the Discipline. But bishops ultimately bear great responsibility for the spiritual climate of the areas they lead after they have been there for four-and-a-half years, as Bishop Dyck has been in Chicago.

Field should not have had to be the one to challenge this ordination policy. But after there was no real correction of this “open letter” of which I am aware, Field made a motion in the conference clergy session to challenge this new Northern Illinois ordination policy by simply requiring that all ordination candidates in the area be properly screened for meeting “the minimum standard for licensed or ordained ministry of ‘fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness,’ with marriage as defined by The United Methodist Church, ‘the union of one man and one woman’ (Discipline, ¶¶ 161B, 304.3, 330.5(c)3, 335(c)3).” The majority of Northern Illinois clergy voted down the motion to follow the very standards of the UMC Discipline these clergy had themselves voted to uphold as a condition of their being ordained in the first place. Field requested a bishop’s decision of law in response to the rejection of this motion, asking for a ruling by the bishop on if the board of ordained ministry is “required to ascertain” if clergy candidates meet the standards of either fidelity in heterosexual marriage or celibacy, and if the board has any right to affirm a clergy candidate believed to fall outside of these two acceptable categories.

Read More

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]