Lomperis screenshot
United Methodist Insight Screenshot
Special to United Methodist Insight
The “Juicy Ecumenism” commentary posted Feb. 17, 2021 titled “Time for New Complaints, Charges Against Renegade UMC Clergy?” was written by John Lomperis, director of the ad hoc unofficial, conservative United Methodist Action of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. He also is a lay delegate to General Conference from the Indiana Annual Conference. His views expressed in his commentary go against the spirit of the United Methodist North Central Jurisdiction (NCJ) delegates, including a majority of jurisdictional delegates of the Indiana Conference.
Lomperis begins, “As we await and plan next steps for the United Methodist Church… Is the time soon coming where this work will include new complaints and charge(s) against renegade UMC clergy who betraying our denomination’s prohibitions of clergy committing sexual immorality or officiating at pastorally harmful same-sex weddings?” Notice it’s a question, not a statement, and truly not the sentiments of the vast majority of North Central Jurisdiction delegates including a majority of the Indiana jurisdictional delegation.
Lomperis writes: “Remember, our governing Book of Discipline’s biblical standards on such matters remain binding church law. Only General Conference has authority to change or impose a denomination-wide moratorium on any part of church law. As noted, at least in many places, accountability has continued will continue until General Conference can actually adopt the Protocol.”
What he does not mention is that the Pew Research Center’s findings, even as far back as the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study, stated that 60 percent of United Methodists in the United States said homosexuality should be accepted by society. That percentage continues to grow, as Pew reposted findings on the issue in 2019. The majority of American United Methodists, not just clergy, disagrees with the Book of Discipline’s interpretation of Scripture “on such matters” and of the current wording and practices of The United Methodist Church when it comes to the issue of homosexuality as presented in the Book of Discipline.
Because of their disagreement with the church’s current stance, 80 percent of the North Central Jurisdiction delegates of “call on NCJ laity, clergy, Annual Conferences and bishops to covenant to a moratorium on complaints, charges and trials related to officiating same gendered weddings and LGBTQIA+ identity and credentialing.” They signed and adopted such a moratorium November 9, 2019, in reaction to the 2019 special session of General Conference at which severely punitive restrictions were adopted. Lomperis declined to sign.
When he states that “Only General Conference has authority to change or impose a denomination-wide moratorium on any part of church law,” he fails to recognize that the majority of the NCJ delegation was calling for, not imposing a moratorium on church law pertaining to complaints, charges and trials as the denomination sorts out and moves forward toward resolution to our disagreements on this issue.
Lomperis then continues in four pages to “correct three common misunderstandings.” The final misunderstanding is that “our denomination has no legal moratorium on enforcing church law, on sexuality or anything else.” He points out that since our denomination has no such “legal” moratorium on enforcing church law, let conferences enforce the prohibitions against homosexuality. He states: “if General Conference decision on separation was again subject to a major delay, this would remove the most pressing reasons for restraint in filing complaints.”
He argues: “If ministers choose to commit such betrayals, they have no right to feel safe, secure, and protected in their bad behavior. They display an extreme lack of integrity, and selfishly hurt the church.” Nowhere is mentioned the hurt The United Methodist Church continues to inflict upon a whole group of LGBTQ+ United Methodists who, because of their openness about their sexuality, are barred from being fully accepted into the church that has loved and nurtured them.
Nowhere is mentioned the hurt that a church trial causes, not only one who has been charged for non-compliance with church law on this issue but also with the hurt inflicted by a church trial on the church when news of the trial hits the secular news media.
Lomperis’ commentary ends with his offering his services “to coach and assist in filing complaints against (so-called) liberal United Methodist ministers who betray our church by (so-called) recklessly violating the (so-called) biblical morality standards they vowed as their ordination to uphold.”
What he does not say is that the whole process of church trials to remove ministers who officiate in the weddings of gays and lesbians who may very well be members of their congregation, or gays and lesbians who pursue ordination or are appointed as pastors, are extremely costly both monetarily (in the tens-of-thousands-of-dollars) and emotionally to the annual conference conducting the trial.
The vast majority of United Methodists would probably want their church tithes and offerings going to the mission, ministry and outreach of the church rather than to pay for costly church trials because a pastor is ministering to the needs of his or her members. It’s only a matter of time that these issues will be resolved once General Conference is permitted to meet again. What’s the rush?