Maybe I can help with your take on this…Folks on both sides of this protest are eager to throw around the word “covenant” and the Book of Discipline. The Discipline outlnes some very solid definitions of what it means to be a Methodist, what it means to operate as Methodist Church, and what those expectations/doctrine/teachings of that ministry should be. It provides solid consequences should that we miss that mark. Any time one steps away from this, there are some real consequences.

To assume that these clergy are breaking their covenant in this act, is not accurate. I have had a recent debate with a rather outspoken proponent of stripping clergy credentials from those who take actions like this.

In that discussion, I used a classic ethics illustration. Let me abridge and share it here; A doctor is walking down one side of the street blissfully unaware of the world around him, until his bliss is interupted by the wails of a dying child across the street. Seeing the seriously injured child slowing dying on the other side of the street, the doctor chooses to do nothing but watch her die. Obviously when the authorities arrive they arrest the man. But the doctor claims innocence. He claims that he could not cross the street legally for their was no cross walk in site. His defense fails and he is punished.

Now the question remains, why was he punished? He was punished because he had a duty and a responsibility to cross the street regardless of the presence or absence of a crosswalk.

As Methodist Clergy we have the same ethical responsibilities. Some would argue, that on one side of the street are God’s children seperated from the full ministry, and life, of the church. They struggle and hurt. The argument continues and points out that we, as clergy, stand across the street and see the situation. We, like the doctor, can assess the situation correctly, but do nothing. We do nothing because tof a lack of a crosswalk (or in real life the Discipline prevents it).

There are some that believe the covenant represents the clergy responsibility of living out our mission as United Methodists (“To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world”), and that our full covenant is expressed only when it complies with the Gospel and that mission. If the restriction on Clergy, or any other Discipline provision or requirement, prevents them from fully living out the Gospel and mission of the church, shouldnt they challenge it? (Just as was done when the issue of Racism, and Women’s Clergy arose in the middle part of the last century?)

Additionally, they are doing so within the covenant itself. In the way of a second illustration: You and I enter into a legally binding covenant or contract. If one or both of us, break the terms of that covenant or contract, it doesnt nullify the covenant. In the end, we go to court and deal with the reprecussions of the broken contract. At the same time, the court gets a chance to verify that the covenant or contract, and all its terms are legal and true. I see these dissenting clergy as living out their dissention within the covenant itself.

Many believe that the scriptural support for any condemnation of the modern understanding of homosexuality is unfounded (in fact, most point out that the word wasnt in the Bible before 1958), and there is a plethora of data that would support this. Sadly, from the foundation of our puritan roots we have focused on this issue so completely that when you here the word “christian” one of the first few associations that many make is “homophobe”. I would prefer the conversation move to this arena, rather than that of the clergy covenant, for two reasons 1.) the clergy is not the church and 2.) when people in the church took an honest assesment, walkthrough, study, or discussion of the issue of homosexuality and the church, most would realize that what we think we know, we dont… and what we believe the church should be about… is, in many aspects, an understanding that we may have or are capable of moving beyond.