What Happens when there is a Complaint?
Below is a summary of the process when a complaint is made against a UMC pastor for violating the Book of Discipline (BOD), including officiating a same-sex wedding. All quotes in this section come from the Book of Discipline (¶ 362 covers Complaint Procedures; ¶ 2701-2719 covers Judicial Administration).
The BOD does not yet include policies put forth in the Traditional Plan, as the BOD is only updated after the regular General Conference sessions every four years (the Traditional Plan was passed at a special session), and no such GC has been held since the Traditional Plan was passed, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Phase 1: Under the supervision of the Bishop
1) Complaint.
When someone perceives that a UMC pastor has violated the BOD, that person (the Complainant) submits a written, signed statement to the bishop.
2) Supervisory Response.
Upon receiving the complaint, the bishop must make a “pastoral and administrative” response to the person the complaint was received against (the Respondent). The goal of this response is to arrive at a “just resolution” for all parties involved. The complainant and the respondent may both have advocates participate with them, but neither may have legal representation present at this stage, as this is not yet a judicial proceeding.
The bishop must also inform the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) (the board that credentials and evaluates clergypersons) of the nature of the complaint, and of the clergyperson named.
The bishop must carry out the supervisory response process within 90 days of receiving the complaint. If the matter is not resolved within these 90 days, the bishop must either dismiss the complaint, or refer the matter to counsel (see Phase 2, below).
3) Just Resolution.
“A just resolution is one that focuses on repairing any harm to people and communities”. As part of the supervisory response, the bishop may bring in an impartial facilitator or mediator to work with the bishop, both parties involved, and any representatives for the parties involved. This process may involve agreements on confidentiality.
A just resolution process may occur at any time during the supervisory response period or the trial period. Any agreement reached by all parties is binding and concludes the complaint process.
4) Suspension.
The bishop and BOM may choose to suspend the respondent for up to 90 days, with full pay and benefits, if they decide it is necessary for the well-being of any parties involved (including the complainant, clergyperson’s congregation, or other context for ministry).
5) Supervisory Follow-up and Healing.
The bishop must “provide a process for healing within the congregation, annual conference, or other context of ministry if there has been significant disruption by the complaint... This can take place at any time during the supervisory, complaint, or trial process”.
Phase 2: Under the Judicial Council
6) Just Resolution in the Judicial Stage.
Like in the supervisory response phase, the judicial stage shall have as its purpose a just resolution of judicial complaints”. Also like in the supervisory response phase, a just resolution may be sought at any point in the process; it may include an impartial facilitator or mediator; it may involve confidentiality agreements; and any resolution is binding and concludes the complaint process.
7) Assigning Counsel for the Church.
The bishop appoints this counsel, who is a clergyperson, and who will represent the Church (not the complainant) moving forward. Counsel may appoint an assistant counsel, who may be an attorney, but who does not have a voice in the proceedings.
Once Counsel has been assigned, they draft the formal complaint. This complaint, along with any relevant materials and a list of witnesses, is provided to the committee on investigation, the complainant, the respondent and their counsel, and the bishop. The respondent has 30 days after receiving this copy of the complaint to submit a written response to the committee on investigation. The committee has 60 days after receiving their copy of the complaint to convene.
8) Assigning Counsel for the Respondent.
The respondent may select a clergyperson as their counsel. They may also select an assistant counsel, who may be an attorney, but who does not have a voice in the proceedings.
9) Committee on Investigation.
The role of the Committee on Investigation is to investigate the allegations and to determine if there is reason to move forward with the trial. The committee determines if there are grounds to support the charges, not whether the respondent is guilty.
The committee on investigation may request that the bishop suspend (with full pay and benefits) the respondent until the conclusion of the trial. The committee may have legal counsel provide advice; this person may not be the conference chancellor.
After reviewing the relevant materials and conducting any necessary interviews, the committee votes on whether to send the charges to trial. Five (out of nine) votes are required to move forward.
If the committee determines that there are not sufficient grounds to move to trial, it may either dismiss the complaint completely, or refer the case to the bishop for action.
If the committee determines that the complaint was not based on “chargeable offenses”, it may refer the complaint to the bishop for action.
If the committee determines that the charges should move forward, the complaint moves to trial.
10) Trial.
“Church trials are to be regarded as an expedient of last resort. Only after every reasonable effort has been made to correct any wrong and to adjust any existing difficulty should steps be taken to institute a trial”.
Trials are open, except for deliberations.
The Presiding Officer oversees the trial, much like a judge in a secular trial; they do not rule on the verdict. When the respondent is a clergyperson, that clergy’s bishop is responsible for designating another UMC bishop as the presiding officer in the case.
The Trial Court acts much like a jury in a secular trial. Thirteen trial court members are selected from a pool of thirty-five clergypersons from their annual conference.
The trial moves much like a secular trial. There are opening and closing statements; the respondent enters a plea; witnesses are sworn in; and evidence is presented. If the respondent pleads guilty, no trial takes place, but evidence may still be presented in order to determine the appropriate punishment.
Nine (out of thirteen) members of the trial court must vote to convict the respondent of the charges; anything fewer than nine votes leads to an acquittal. The findings of the trial court are final (subject to appeal).
11) Conviction.
If the respondent is convicted with nine or more votes from the trial court, penalties are considered. The resulting penalty requires a vote of at least seven (out of thirteen) members of the trial court.
Possible penalties include “remov(ing) the respondent from professing membership, terminat(ing) the conference membership, and revok(ing) credentials of conference membership, commissioning, ordination, or consecration of the respondent, suspend(ing) the respondent from the exercise of the functions of office, or (fixing) a lesser penalty”. The penalty assigned is effective immediately.
12) Appeals.
The respondent has 30 days to submit a written notice of, including grounds for, appeal. An appeal can only take place if either “the weight of the evidence (does not) sustain the charge” or if there were “errors of Church law as to vitiate the verdict and/or the penalty”. No new evidence or testimony may be presented in the consideration of an appeal.
How does the Traditional Plan impact all of this?
The Traditional Plan was scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BOD has not been updated to include the Traditional plan. There is debate as to whether the mandatory minimum penalties included in the Traditional Plan are in effect, due to this discrepancy.
How does the Protocol impact all of this?
The Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation requests complaints related to same-sex weddings “be held in abeyance beginning January 1, 2020 through the adjournment of the first conference of the post-separation United Methodist Church. Clergy shall continue to remain in good standing while such complaints are held in abeyance”. Currently, Bishop Lewis is the only bishop in the US to state publicly that she will proceed with complaints during this period. Any other complaints in the US are currently not moving forward, for whatever reason. The two complaints that have been made in the Virginia Annual Conference are moving forward under the process described in the 2016 BOD.
Current Complaints
There are currently two complaints against clergy for performing same-sex weddings moving forward in the United States. Both of those complaints are in the Virginia Annual Conference.
Rev. Drew Ensz
Drew has publicly named himself, and has publicly shared information about his process.
Two complaints were submitted against Rev. Drew Ensz for officiating a same-sex wedding, in September, 2019. During the supervisory response period of the process, the parties involved participated in 3 mediated just resolution sessions, but were not able to come to a resolution. After the third meeting with the bishop, she placed a gag order on all parties involved. At the end of the 90 day supervisory response period, Bishop Lewis extended the supervisory response period by 30 days, as described in the Book of Discipline. After 120, Bishop Lewis referred the matter to counsel. It has not moved forward since this point.
It has now been over 2 years since complaints were brought against Drew. His case is languishing, under a bishop who will neither dismiss the case, or move it forward. Several questions have arisen with regards to the legality of various aspects of the bishop and the Annual Conference’s handling of the case.
You can follow Drew’s case at https://www.facebook.com/EnszCase
Article in the Washington Post on Drew’s case, printed Feb 6, 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/02/06/methodist-minister-george-mason-university-could-face-discipline-over-officiating-same-sex-wedding/?fbclid=IwAR1oBp1RqpL40goqFuLbxRfXHfpj7NrZWXgK1YzDhEEQpPT20GqZyPSVn3g
Blog post by Drew for Hacking Christianity: https://hackingchristianity.net/2021/04/clergy-under-complaint-a-broken-process-guest-article.html
Second Case
This person has not yet publicly named themself.
It has come to our attention that Bishop Sharma Lewis is pursuing a complaint against a second clergy member of our Conference due to a formal complaint being filed for performing a same-gender wedding.