Revisionist covenant-breakers defend themselves by calling such a stance “legalism” or by saying they, on their own or with their small cabal of compatriots, have acquired a better handle on the Holy Spirit’s leading (which, in matters of sexuality, is in direct contradiction with the revelation of Scripture). They are being “prophetic” because they are doing what feels right to them and what is against the stated explicit beliefs of historic Christian faith and the official position of their own denomination.

The United Methodist Church in the United States recently suffered mass clerical disobedience in Pennsylvania, which has since led to anecclesiastical trial that found a pastor guilty of disobedience. In addition, retired Bishop Melvin Talbert also incited controversy for his participation in a same-sex ceremony in Alabama, which has already received a response from the Council of Bishops. In short, the UMC has been afflicted by a rash of clergy reneging on their ordination vows.

I speak as one outside United Methodism, but who has been covering this series event with keen interest. I find the entire position of the disobedient clergy to be quite curious, since pastors are supposed to be examples of faithfulness and loyalty for their congregants.

As a postulant myself, I have been thinking quite a bit on the matter of ordination, covenants, and responsibility. Part of the responsibility of preparing for ordained ministry is to look at the oaths I will take before I say them, because I’ll have to answer for them if I commit to them. This is not to be taken lightly, especially when one studies the Scriptures’ warnings about teaching and authority. In fact, older ordination liturgies used to include a calling down of curses upon oneself for failure to fulfill oaths! Some parts of the world still use such language today, and for worthy reasons. It’s the sort of thing that one approaches with prayer and fasting, not an eye-roll and a shrug of the shoulders.

My point in bringing all this up is not because I want to somehow alter the language of ordination covenants for a different denomination, but because I am astonished by the levity with which these activist-pastors break the promises they’ve made before God and man. I would expect a United Methodist to hold to the Book of Discipline in good faith just as I would expect any other breed of Christian to be loyal to their creeds, confessions, and canons.

Revisionist covenant-breakers defend themselves by calling such a stance “legalism” or by saying they, on their own or with their small cabal of compatriots, have acquired a better handle on the Holy Spirit’s leading (which, in matters of sexuality, is in direct contradiction with the revelation of Scripture). They are being “prophetic” because they are doing what feels right to them and what is against the stated explicit beliefs of historic Christian faith and the official position of their own denomination.

But this is simply an unacceptable position for pastors or even Christians. Human beings are not free-floating monads who have the power to create their own moral laws. Communions should be united around Truth. Pastors should be instilling the fear and love of God in their congregations and the world around them. Moreover, clergy are responsible for the deposit of faith entrusted to them and must be willing to lay down their lives for it. One cannot help noticing that revisionist sympathizers worry more about hurt feelings and job security, not so much the cultural backlash against inconvenient Christian ethical beliefs.

This seems a harsh charge, but United Methodists are facing a crisis of integrity at this very historic moment. Their clergy are openly and flamboyantly defying the 10 Commandments of God. Perhaps they weren’t lying when they first took their vows; we might quibble over the idolatry of contemporary sexual mores. We will let those parts of the Decalogue pass. Today, I refer to the fourth commandment, taking the Lord’s name in vain.

“They’re not swearing,” you may contest. But they have sworn! They haven’t cussed, but they swore an oath. In their typical insight, classical manuals of moral theology associated oath-breaking with blasphemy, not just lying. This is because an oath is a commitment to something in the name of God. His name is on the line, from the juridical “So help me God” to the lengthy ordination liturgies.

United Methodist pastors promised to God that they would uphold the covenant of the Discipline. God’s not some insensible force or fickle character who can be coaxed to ignore a broken covenant before Him. He has mercy for the repentant, but this open, almost giddy defiance is a blight to the pastoral office and shows no hint of turning back. It belies a failure of integrity, which extends to more than just one portion of ministry. For the spiritual well-being of clergy and laity alike, the revisionist activists need to be held accountable for their broken promises.

Inconsiderate? Perhaps, but not if such limits are for our own good and for the preservation of truth and holiness, which are inseparable from love. Methodists, with their commitment to Christian holiness, have a strong heritage in this vein of discipleship. Like St. Augustine of Hippo, Methodists realize that the law was given that grace may be sought, and grace was given that the law may be obeyed in an increasingly holy life.

Lord willing, I expect to be held to the similar standards for my soul’s health, my parish’s spiritual safety, and the sake of Christ’s Church. His Bride is not my ethical plaything. The whole controversy is sad, but these are the last gasps of desperation from ailing revisionist factions of the UMC.

Barton Gingerich is an IRD Fellow. He graduated in 2011 from Patrick Henry College with a B.A. in History. He now attends Reformed Episcopal Seminary and serves as a Fellow at St. Mark’s Reformed Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. This article first appeared on the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s blog and is used with permission.