General Conference Coverage: The postponed 2020 General Conference will be held April 23–May 3.

Dawn Wiggins Hare speaks at the 2020 Pre-General Conference Briefing in Nashville, Tenn. Hare, top executive of the United Methodist Commission on the Status and Role of Women, helped lead a panel discussion about legislation to address the treatment of women and girls during the 2020 Pre-General Conference Briefing in Nashville, Tenn. Photo by Kathleen Barry, UM News.

Legislation

The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women presents 10 pieces of legislation to be considered by delegates at the General Conference of The United Methodist Church to be held in 2024 in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. 

The 10 pieces of legislation have been categorized into three different topics: Leadership, Sexual Ethics, Complaint Process Equity. We encourage you to click on each piece of legislation to read more.

View and download a pdf summary of GCSRW's legislative initiatives below in English, French, Portuguese, or Kiswahili.

Legislative summary résumé législatif resumo legislativo Sheria ya Mkutano Mkuu

Leadership

Petition # 20240-GA-¶4-C-G

Inclusiveness of the Church—The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, gender, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection. In The United Methodist Church, no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.

Submitted: 7/31/2019
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:

Petition # 20542-IC-R3443-G

We affirm that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, no is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 NIV.

Whereas, sexism continues to be a pervasive and systematic force within our church and our society; and

Whereas, sexism deprives the church and society of the opportunity to use the skills and talents that women have; and

Whereas, a General Commission on the Status and Role of Women 2007 survey of local churches in the United States found that only 55% of small churches and 62% of large membership churches have policies against sexual harassment; inclusive language studies are rare in local congregations with only 4% of laity and 31% of clergy indicating they use inclusive language when referring to God; and urban congregations more frequently have inclusive language studies, harassment policies, and diverse use of female lay persons (as Board of Trustees members and ushers, for example); 2017 survey found that only 53% of lay persons versus 86% clergy are familiar with local church policies against sexual harassment. Previous research by the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women continues to show that inclusive language studies are rare in local congregations with only 4% of laity and 31% of clergy indicating they use inclusive language when referring to God; and urban congregations more frequently have inclusive language when referring to God; and urban congregations more frequently have inclusive language studies, harassment policies, and diverse use of female lay persons (as Board of Trustees members and ushers, for example); and

Whereas, the Church remains committed to the eradication of sexual harassment against children, employees, volunteers, clergy and their families, and congregants. Yet sexual misconduct remains a serious problem in our conferences. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women 2017 survey indicates that more than 50% of clergy, lay persons and seminary students have reported experiencing some form of sexual misconduct, with 1 in 33 women experiencing sexual harassment in local church meetings and worship, and an alarming number of local congregations do not have policies, procedures, or training in place for laity clergy in stopping and preventing sexual harassment and misconduct; and how to report such conduct; and

Whereas, women comprise 58% 57% of the denomination’s membership but hold only one-fifth of the top leadership positions in the US annual conferences and as leaders are largely relegated to committees without much financial power like women’s ministry and advocacy, racial-ethnic concerns and youth ministry rather than committees that exert considerable influence and control over funding as well as the allocation of money in annual conference ministries, and women employed by general church agencies hold 77% of administrative and clerical support positions (Data from the General Council on Finance and Administration 2009; Women by the Number: issues November 2010, December 2010, January 2011, and March 2011; THE FLYER); and

Whereas, the Church continues to lose clergywomen from local church ministry into more welcoming forms of ministry, indicating a persistent, subtle, and often unchallenged sexism that denies women in The United Methodist Church the opportunity to participate fully and equally in all areas of the Church; and despite progress, research continues to show that clergywomen experience a limited positional power when leading a congregation in comparison with their male counterparts; and

Whereas, a General Commission on the Status and Role of Women 2017 Pay Equity survey found that though membership is comprised of 58% women, they made up 28.4% of clergy positions, with women clergy receiving on average a salary that is almost $4,000 less per year than their similarly situated male counterparts across regions and jurisdictions; and

Therefore, be it resolved, that the General Conference continue to commit itself to eradicating sexism in the church and that it affirm the work and tasks of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women and of the annual conference-related commissions and counterparts; and

Be it further resolved, that each annual conference commission or counterpart be given the financial backing to pursue projects that are aimed at educating the members of the local churches about the issues of sexism and at sponsoring the leadership events that enable the annual conference commission members to be better advocates for all who seek equity and inclusiveness; and

Be it further resolved, that each annual conference, United Methodist seminary, and all United Methodist-related institutions are called to have policies on sexual harassment and equal opportunity; and

Be it further resolved, that each annual conference and local congregation is called have policy, procedures, and training opportunities in place for lay and clergy in stopping and preventing sexual harassment and misconduct; and that progress to full compliance will be reported through the Episcopal Office to the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women at the Commission’s request. The Commission will be responsible to report to General Conference 2016; and

Be it further resolved, that bishops and cabinet members be mindful of pay equity disparities and work collectively within their respective conferences to eliminate pay inequities; and

Be it further resolved, that the General Conference support the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women as the advocacy and monitoring agency of women’s issues for increasing opportunities for females in leadership, promoting equality in filling decision-making posts, and fostering inclusiveness in all facets of The United Methodist Church.

Submitted: 7/31/2019
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:

Petition # TBD / R3442 (New legislation submitted in 2023)

Since the mid-1970s when the term “sexual harassment” was first recognized, the world has seen an evolution in awareness, laws and litigation, policies, advocacy, and international collaboration to eradicate sexual harassment in the workplace. In our own communities we have moved from debating whether or not sexual harassment is even a problem to witnessing women and men join together across national boundaries to address it in global settings, churches and ministries, and multinational workplaces.

Since the 1990s, sexual harassment is a recognized form of sexual violence and misconduct in our societies and in The United Methodist Church. The Church declared sexual harassment a sin against individuals and communities, and a chargeable offense against our clergy or laity. Critical to our understanding of the impact of harassment is the recognition that it is certainly an abuse of power over another, not only inappropriate sexual or gender-directed conduct.

Definitions

Beginning with the continuum of behaviors that includes sexual harassment: Sexual misconduct within ministerial relationships is a betrayal of sacred trust. It is a continuum of unwanted sexual or gender-directed behaviors by either a lay or clergy person within a ministerial relationship (paid or unpaid). It can include child abuse, adult sexual abuse, harassment, rape or sexual assault, sexualized verbal comments or visuals, unwelcome touching and advances, use of sexualized materials including pornography, stalking, sexual abuse of youth or those without capacity to consent, or misuse of the pastoral or ministerial position using sexualized conduct to take advantage of the vulnerability of another. It includes criminal behaviors in some nations, states, or communities.

Sexual harassment is a form of sexual misconduct. The Social Principles define it as “any unwanted sexual comment, advance or demand, either verbal or physical, that is reasonably perceived by the recipient as demeaning, intimidating, or coercive. Sexual harassment must be understood as an exploitation and abuse of a power relationship rather than as an exclusively sexual issue. Sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, the creation of a hostile or abusive working environment resulting from discrimination on the basis of gender” (¶ 161J).

To clarify further, it is unwanted sexual or gender-directed behavior within a pastoral, employment, ministerial (including volunteers), mentor, or colleague relationship that is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment or volunteer work or unreasonably interferes with the employee or volunteer’s performance. It can create a hostile, offensive environment that can include unwanted sexual jokes, repeated advances, touching, displays, or comments that insult, degrade, or sexually exploit women, men, elders, children, or youth.

Generally, anyone can be a target, and anyone can harass—women, men, youth, interns, volunteers, all racial/ethnic groups, any level of employee, clergy, or laity. In the learning place, it affects any students of either all genders, any grade, any teacher or professional, or any volunteer.

Businesses, governments, congregations, and organizations lose significant human and financial resources when harassment is permitted to devastate workers, customers, or members. It damages self-esteem, productivity, and ability to minister or earn wages. It can result in illness, absenteeism, poor performance, loss of promotions and opportunities. For students it can result in failure, absenteeism, isolation from peers, loss of self-esteem and learning potential, withdrawal from teams and groups, and illness. Families of the harassed and others in work, worship, and learning places are also victims of the hostile, intimidating environment harassment creates.

Harassment in the Church

In the church, harassment can occur between a staff person, pastor, committee or council chairperson, church school teacher or helper, student, camper, counselor, youth worker, volunteer, or chaperone, paid or unpaid. It can happen on the bus to camp, in a youth group or Bible study, on a church computer or in choir rehearsal. The devastating effects on persons when it happens in a faith community jeopardize spiritual life, theological meaning, and relationships. For some, the loss of a sense of safety and sanctuary can be permanent.

In 1990, the General Council on Ministries released the study mandated by General Conference in 1988 examining sexual harassment in The UMC. Then, half of the clergy, 20 percent of laity, nearly half of students, and 37 percent of church staff had had an experience of harassment in a church setting. Nearly 20 years ago we had much work to do to eradicate this form of sexual misconduct and violence.

Four quadrennia later, good work has been done toward the elimination of sexual harassment in the Church. Thirty-five annual conferences now assign oversight of harassment issues to a “team,” and many conferences require sexual misconduct awareness training for all clergy. Since the General Conference mandated sexual harassment policies in 1996, more and more churches of every size continue to report policies in place (in 2007: 34 percent of smallest and 86 percent of largest membership congregations have policies—up from 9 percent and 36 percent, respectively, in 1995). The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women has provided support and counsel to victims and church officials in hundreds of cases.

But the most recent surveys of our progress in eradicating sexual harassment (2005 and 20071) are very troubling: sexual harassment remains a significant problem for women and men, lay and clergy in our church settings, programs, and with church property (including computers and the Internet):

  • Awareness of the denomination’s policy on sexual harassment is relatively high (higher among clergy than laity), but awareness of the resources for victims and congregations is much lower.
  • While every local congregation is required to have a policy and procedure on sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, in 2007 only 34 percent of small and 86 percent of largest membership churches report that they do.
  • 90% of pastors clergy have attended at least one sexual ethics training course, but only one of four twenty-five percent of pastors clergy has have attended supplementary training.
  • More than three-fourths of the clergywomen and half of the laywomen had experienced sexual harassment in the Church (only a third of laymen had); the most commonly reported settings were church meetings and offices, and workplaces and social gatherings at seminary.
  • Perpetrators are most often men and increasingly laypersons in the local church. Clergy commit over a third of reported offenses. A significant change since the 1990 study was significant increases in the number of laity harassing laity, and laity harassing clergy.
  • Local churches were most likely to trivialize reports/complaints while seminaries and UM offices were more likely to move toward action against offenders.
  • Personal friends and relatives were most helpful to victims, while district superintendents, personnel officers, and seminary administrators were among the least helpful.
  • The most lasting negative effects were inability to work with the offender, emotional impacts, and worsened feelings about self and the church.
  • Smaller membership churches need resources and training specifically developed for their unique settings and dynamics.

In The United Methodist Church, constant vigilance is needed to keep effective, updated policies and procedures in all places in the church. Regular training of our lay and clergy leaders is a critical ongoing ministry of our church, with focus on the troubling use of “cyber-sex” (sexualized material in telecommunications) in church programs, with church property, or on church premises.

In 2006, a significant the first national symposium addressing sexual misconduct in The United Methodist Church, “Do No Harm,” was held. At that critical event, participants asked episcopal leaders to focus on clergy training, lay leadership training, and early intervention with problem clergy. Advocacy and intervention teams have been working in many conferences but not all, and every episcopal area needs to maintain working, effective channels and procedures. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women continues to host “Do No Harm” regularly and has subsequently developed an online resource called, “Do No More Harm” to provide guidance when there is a concern or complaint of sexual misconduct in The United Methodist Church. We need and are grateful for strong episcopal leadership across the Church who maintain our achievements and forcefully address existing barriers to a harassment-free denomination.

A Vision of God’s Hospitable Community

Sexual harassment destroys community. This alienating, sinful behavior causes brokenness in relationships—the opposite of God’s intention for us. From the first biblical stories of human community in the garden to the letters of Paul to the first Christian communities, we learn that all of us, both female and male, are created in the image of God, and thus have been made equal in Christ. We are called to be stewards of God’s community of hospitality where there is not only an absence of harassment, but also the presence of welcome, respect, and equality.

Therefore, the General Conference calls for intensified efforts worldwide to eradicate sexual harassment in the denomination and its institutions including these strategies:

  1. Episcopal leaders implement plans to address and eradicate sexual harassment in each episcopal area including regular, updated training of clergy, early intervention with problem clergy, and regular training of lay men and women, especially in smaller membership churches;.
  2. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, in collaboration with appropriate agencies (including the General Board of Discipleship’s Discipleship Ministries’ Safe Sanctuaries ministry), continue to develop and distribute resources to reduce the risk of abuse in local churches and increase United Methodists’ understanding and action on sexual harassment in church and society;.
  3. The General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, in collaboration with appropriate agencies, develop and distribute resources on sexual harassment specific to those in licensed and ordained ministry and to lay leaders, students, faculty, and administrators of United Methodist-related educational institutions;.
  4. Annual conferences throughout the connection will encourage their local and national governments to collect accurate data on the incidence and nature of sexual harassment in their workplaces, and encourage their national governments to adopt laws, policies, and procedures for eradicating sexual harassment;.
  5. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women continue to monitor and assess the Church’s progress in eradicating sexual harassment and will seek ways to report its findings to the Church on the specific areas to be strengthened within the life of the Church including policy development, prevention, education, and training;.
  6. The General Board of Church and Society and the General Board of Global Ministries advocate for laws that prohibit sexual harassment in US workplaces, and continue to provide resources to the denomination on international initiatives to eradicate harassment and other forms of violence against women;.
  7. The Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships work cooperatively with the World Council of Churches “Decade to Overcome Violence” (2001-2010); and.
  8. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women continue to conduct assessments of The United Methodist Church’s progress to eradicate this behavior from the Church worldwide.

For more information and resources, see The Book of Resolutions, 2012, “Sexual Misconduct Within Ministerial Relationships” (#2044) and the original text of this resolution in The Book of Resolutions, 2004, p. 155.

ADOPTED 1992
REVISED AND ADOPTED 2000, 2008, 2016
RESOLUTION #2045, 2008, 2012 BOOK OF RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION #37, 2004 BOOK OF RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION #31, 2000 BOOK OF RESOLUTIONS
See Social Principles, ¶ 161J

Submitted: 07/28/2023
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:

  • View Talking Points: English | Português | Français | Kiswahili

Sexual Ethics

Petition # 20593-IC-R9999-G

The United Methodist Church’s Social Principles clearly states, “sexual harassment must be understood as an exploitation of power relationship and interfering with the moral mission of the church.”

The Council of Bishops’ press release, “United Methodist leaders respond to #metoo and #churchtoo movement, states, “Council of Bishops affirmed, through its members, renewed commitment to addressing the systemic causes of sexual misconduct and abuse of power… The sin of sexual misconduct must be named by the Church at every level of ministry.” The Bishops pledge to do the right thing in every complaint received, including listening well to hear the story and developing a response, which holds persons accountable and offer healing for all affected to the extent of their ability.

Therefore, in the spirit of offering healing for all affected to the extent of our ability, on behalf of the General Conference, we sincerely apologize to the victims and survivors of sexual misconduct perpetrated by the leaders (clergy and lay) of the United Methodist Church for the harm they have done. We acknowledge it is spiritual violence when a ministerial leader commits sexual misconduct and it is a clear violation of sacred trust.

In addition, after this petition is passed by General Conference, the General Commission on General Conference shall read this resolution from the plenary floor repent of this sin. Additionally, every annual conference shall publicly read this resolution aloud at their 2021 annual meetings.

We encourage and support the reporting of sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment.  The abuse of inherent power in the leadership position will not be tolerated.

Information to the reporting process can be found at www.umsexualethics.org or from your annual conference.

http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/united-methodist-leaders-respond-to-metoo-and-churchtoo

Submitted: 7/31/2019
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:

Petition # 20541-IC-R2044-G

The abuse of power occurs when we use power to gratify our own needs rather than to carryout God’s sacred trust.  It happens when we refuse to own the responsibility of guardianship that comes with the privilege of power. . . until we understand that power is the responsibility to give, instead of the opportunity to take, we will continue to abuse it.”

            “There is little doubt that sexual misconduct in church and society is significant and troubling for our communities and congregations worldwide.  This unwanted behavior damages the moral environment where people worship, minister, work, and learn.  In 1996, the General Conference made a commitment to focus on sexual misconduct within the church and took action to address this brokenness and pain within The United Methodist Church” (The Book of Resolutions, 1996, p. 128; 2000, p. 135; 2004, p.150)

Sacred Trust, Power, and Responsibility

The Book of Discipline, 2012, ¶ 161F, declares all human beings have equal worth in the eyes of God. As the promise of Galatians 3:26-29 states, “you are all God’s children”; therefore, we as United Methodists support equity among all persons without regard to ethnicity, situation, or gender. In our congregations and settings for ministry, we seek to create an environment of hospitality for all persons, male or female, which is free from misconduct of a sexual nature and encourages respect, equality, and kinship in Christ.

Those in positions of authority in the church, both clergy and lay, have been given much responsibility, vested with a sacred trust to maintain an environment that is safe for people to live

and grow in God’s love.  Misconduct of a sexual nature inhibits the full and joyful participation of all in the community of God. Sexual misconduct in church and ministry settings impedes the mission of Jesus Christ. Ministerial leaders have the responsibility not only to avoid actions and words which hurt others, but also to protect the vulnerable against actions or words which cause harm.

As our children, youth, and adults come to worship, study, camps, retreats, and schools of mission, they bring a heightened awareness of the issues of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, incest, rape, and sexual assault. Ministerial leaders have the responsibility

not only to avoid actions and words that hurt others, but also to protect the vulnerable against actions or words that cause harm. In the safety and sanctity of the church’s settings, we as  church leaders, both clergy and lay, paid and volunteer, must be held to the highest standard of conduct as we lead, provide guidance and support, and work with children, youth, and adults in

ministry settings. Sexual misconduct in any form is a violation of the membership and ordination vows we take as laity and clergy in The United Methodist Church. Sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, and sexual harassment are chargeable offenses both for clergy and laity per The Book of Discipline, ¶ 2702.

Definitions

Sexual misconduct within ministerial relationships is a betrayal of sacred trust. It is a continuum of sexual or gender-directed behaviors by either a lay or clergy person within a ministerial relationship (paid or unpaid). It can include child abuse, adult sexual abuse, harassment, rape or sexual assault, sexualized verbal comments or visuals, unwelcome touching and advances, use of sexualized materials including pornography, stalking, sexual abuse of youth or those without capacity to consent, or misuse of the pastoral or ministerial position using sexualized conduct to take advantage of the vulnerability of another. In includes criminal behaviors in some nations, states, and communities.

Sexual harassment is a form of sexual misconduct and is defined in ¶ 161(Book of Discipline, 2012) in the Social Principles.  To clarify further, it is unwanted sexual or gender-directed behavior within a pastoral, employment, ministerial (including volunteers), mentor, or colleague relationship that is so severe or  pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment or volunteer work or unreasonably interferes with the employee or volunteer’s performance by creating a hostile environment that can include unwanted sexual jokes, repeated advances, touching, displays, or comments that insult, degrade, or sexually exploit women, men,

elders, children, or youth.

Sexual abuse is a form of sexual misconduct and occurs when a person within a ministerial role of leadership (lay or clergy, pastor, educator, counselor, youth leader, or other position of leadership) engages in sexual contact or sexualized behavior with a congregant, client, employee, student, staff member, coworker, or volunteer (1996 Book of Resolutions, p. 130). It can include coerced or forced sexual contact (including those unable to give informed

consent), sexual interaction or contact with children or youth, and sexual exhibitionism or display of sexual visuals or pornography.

Sexualized behavior is behavior that communicates sexual interest and/or content. Examples include, but are not limited to displaying sexually suggestive visual materials; use of pornography in church programs on or with church property, making sexual comments or innuendo about one’s own or another person’s body; touching another person’s body; touching another person’s body/hair/clothing; touching or rubbing oneself in the presence of another person; kissing; and sexual intercourse. Sexualized behavior can be a form of sexual misconduct when this behavior is unwanted by the recipient or witness, is a violation of society’s or the Church’s law, breaks the sacred trust in the ministerial role, or violates the vows taken at membership or ordination.

The continuum of behaviors called sexual misconduct within the ministerial relationship represents an exploitation of power and not merely “inappropriate sexual or gender-directed conduct.” Sexual misconduct in any form is unacceptable in church and ministry settings whether it is clergy-to-lay, lay-to-clergy, clergy-to-clergy, lay-to-lay, staff-to-staff, staff-to-volunteer, volunteer-to-volunteer, or volunteer-to-staff. Anyone who works or volunteers under the authority or auspices of the Church must be held to the highest standards of behavior, free of sexual misconduct in any form.

Those in Ministerial Roles

Both laity and clergy fill ministerial roles in our Church. In addition to clergy or professional staff, any United Methodist may fill a ministerial role by participating in ministries including, but

not limited to:

  • leading and participating in lay servant ministries;
  • counseling or leading events for children, youth, and adults;
  • teaching and leading in church schools for children, youth, and adults;
  • counseling victims of violence, domestic violence, or sexual abuse;
  • counseling couples about marriage, divorce, or separation;
  • leading in worship as speaker from the pulpit, liturgist, communion server, or usher;
  • volunteering to chaperone trips, work camps, or special events;
  • working in Walks to Emmaus and Chrysalis retreats;
  • mentoring;
  • supervising church staff members; and
  • working with computers, websites, and the Internet in church property/programs.

Progress and Troubling Trends

The General Conference not only has mandated adoption of policies in our churches, conferences, agencies, and schools, it called for training, advocacy practices, and surveys of progress as a denomination conducted by the General Commission on the

Status and Role of Women.

Now twenty years after General Conference first committed to the elimination of sexual misconduct in the Church (1988), good work has been done:

  • Thirty-five annual conferences now assign oversight of sexual misconduct issues to a “team”;
  • Many conferences require sexual misconduct awareness training for all clergy, lay leadership, and appointees;
  • The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women has provided support and counsel to victims and church officials in hundreds of cases.

Work remains to be done. Recent findings show the experiences of leadership of the Church on many levels—local church, seminary, annual and general conferences in particular:

  • Awareness of the denomination’s policy on sexual misconduct is high, but awareness of the resources for victims and congregations is much lower.
  • Harassment is still a significant problem:  well over three-fourths of the clergy (men and women) and half of the lay women ha d experienced sexual harassment in the Church (about one third of laymen).
  • Holding offenders accountable, removing errant pastors, lay staff, or volunteers as needed, and requiring counseling, training, and supervision before resumption of ministerial roles are remedial steps our episcopal and superintending leader should use;
  • Follow-up on situations of misconduct so that appropriate and effective remediation is achieved so that the behavior stops, does not reoccur, and relationship and ministry are returned to wholeness as much as possible;
  • Placing justice for victims above protection of offenders, including pastors, is an equally pressing need;
  • With this global Internet age and the growing use of computers by clergy and laity has come more frequent reports of the use of pornography and sexualized materials by laity and clergy within church programs or with church computers or property.

Progress in four areas is not adequate:  prevention, education, intervention and healing.  Additional work is now needed:

  1. Resources for various constituencies addressing prevention, education, intervention, and healing after lay or clergy sexual misconduct (including the United Methodist website on sexual ethics www.umsexualethics.org);
  2. Updated training (initial, follow-up, and advanced) for the various constituencies within the church, including education on the prevention and the use of pornography, its destructive impact on users, and its potential for abuse in or with church programs or property;
  3. Implementation of models for intervention and heling in order to provide a consistent and thorough response when complaints are initiated;
  4. Development of a model for ongoing assessment of policies, practices, and responses of conferences;
  5. Appropriate handling of the presence and involvement of legally convicted sexual offenders in local congregational activities and ministry;
  6. Opportunities for annual conferences to share their resources and experience.

Therefore be it resolved, that The United Methodist Church renews its stand in opposition to the sin of sexual misconduct within the Church worldwide.  It further recommit all United Methodists to the eradication of sexual misconduct in all ministerial relationship, and calls for:

  1. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, to continue to convene and coordinate a cooperative interagency group to address the areas of prevention, education, intervention, and healing including a representative of the Council of Bishops, the General Boards o Discipleship, Higher Education and Ministry, Global Ministries, Church and Society, the General Council on Finance and Administration, the Division on Ministries with Young People, and representative of annual conference Response/Crisis Teams and Safe Sanctuary Teams (each agency member responsible for his or her own expense and a share of the expense of the annual conference representatives);
  2. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women be provided resources sufficient to develop/distribute resources for leaders of lay events and programs with the church in order to help train and equip them to raise this important issue with laity (including lay servants, lay leaders, Christian educators, persons in mission, leaders in School of Christian Mission, Walks to Emmaus, Chrysalis, and leaders of events with young people);
  3. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, through the interagency group, to ensure that resources for laity and clergy in ministerial roles are identified and promoted for use in conferences, districts or clusters, and local congregations;
  4. The Council of Bishops to reaffirm its commitment to preventing and eradicating sexual harassment, abuse, and misconduct in the church through education, training, and sharing of resources.  Each episcopal area will implement policies, procedures, and ongoing plans to coordinate person involved in prevention and intervention, including but not limited to:  district superintendents, boards of ordained ministry, boards of laity, advocates, intervention and healing teams, trained mediators, and staff-parish relations committees;
  5. United Methodist-related schools of theology to provide training on the prevention and eradication of sexual harassment, abuse and misconduct within the ministerial relationship;
  6. Annual conference boards of ordained ministry to provide education (entry level, follow-up, advanced) for all appointed clergy, local pastors, and commissioned members.  Annual conferences are also encouraged to provide similar education and training for those employed in ministerial leadership;
  7. Episcopal areas to require that all clergy, local pastors assigned laity, and commissioned members appointed in each annual conference have regular, up-to-date sexual ethics training to be in good standing for appointment;
  8. The General Board of Church and Society to continue to advocate for just laws that address or counter sexual harassment and abuse in our larger societies.

Sacred Trust, Power, and Responsibility

The Book of Discipline, 2016, ¶ 161F, declares all human beings have equal worth in the eyes of God. As the promise of Galatians 3:26-29 states, “you are all God’s children”; therefore, we as United Methodists support equity among all persons without regard to ethnicity, situation, or gender. In our congregations and settings for ministry, we seek to create an environment of hospitality for all persons, male or female, which is free from misconduct of a sexual nature and encourages respect, equality, and kinship in Christ.

Those in positions of authority in the church, both clergy and lay, have been given much responsibility, vested with a sacred trust to maintain an environment that is safe for people to live and grow in God’s love.  Misconduct of a sexual nature inhibits the full and joyful participation of all in the community of God. Sexual misconduct in church and ministry settings impedes the mission of Jesus Christ. Ministerial leaders have the responsibility not only to avoid actions and words which hurt others, but also to protect the vulnerable against actions or words which cause harm.

As our children, youth, and adults come to worship, study, camps, retreats, and schools of mission, they bring a heightened awareness of the issues of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, incest, rape, and sexual assault.  In the safety and sanctity of the church’s settings, we as  church leaders, both clergy and lay, paid and volunteer, must be held to the highest standard of conduct as we lead, provide guidance and support, and work with children, youth, and adults in ministry settings. Sexual misconduct in any form is a violation of the membership and ordination vows we take as laity and clergy in The United Methodist Church. Sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, and sexual harassment are chargeable offenses both for clergy and laity per The Book of Discipline, ¶ 2702.

Definitions

Misconduct of a sexual nature within ministerial relationships is a betrayal of sacred trust. It is a continuum of sexual or gender-directed behaviors by either a lay or clergy person within a ministerial relationship (paid or unpaid). The continuum of behaviors within the ministerial relationship represents an exploitation of power and not merely “inappropriate sexual or gender-directed conduct. Misconduct of a sexual nature in any form is unacceptable in church and ministry settings whether it is clergy-to-lay, lay-to-clergy, clergy-to-clergy, lay-to-lay, staff-to-staff, staff-to-volunteer, volunteer-to-volunteer, or volunteer-to-staff. In some states, nations, and communities, sexual relationships between clergy and parishioners is a criminal offense.  Anyone who works or volunteers under the authority or auspices of the Church must be held to the highest standards of behavior, free of sexual misconduct in any form.

  Misconduct of a sexual nature for clergy is listed in ¶2702.1 “A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference (¶370), local pastor, clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may be tried when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in ¶2702.4) with one or more of the following offenses: . . . (h) sexual abuse; (i) sexual misconduct including the use or possession of pornography, (j) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and /or sexual harassment; (k) racial or gender discrimination;. . .”

Misconduct of a sexual nature for a professing member is listed in ¶2702.3 “A professing member of a local church may be charged with the following offenses, and if so, may choose a trial:. . .(e) sexual abuse; (f) sexual misconduct; (g) child abuse; (h) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and/or sexual harassment; (i) racial or gender discrimination;. . .”

Sexual Abuse: Sexual abuse is a form of misconduct of a sexual nature and is defined in ¶161I (Book of Discipline, 2016) in the Social Principles.  It also includes Sexual assault as defined in ¶161J (Book of Discipline, 2016) in the Social Principles.  Sexual Abuse includes penetration of the victim’s body, also known as rape, sexual assault, fondling and unwanted touching, forcing a victim to perform sexual acts, such as oral sex or penetrating the perpetrator’s body and sexual abuse of youth or those without capacity to consent. 

Sexual Misconduct: Sexual Misconduct is a form of misconduct of a sexual nature that uses sexualized verbal comments or visuals, unwelcome touching and advances, use of sexualized materials including pornography, stalking, or misuse of the pastoral or ministerial position using sexualized conduct to take advantage of the vulnerability of another.   The misconduct regarding use of pornography is further defined in ¶161Q (Book of Discipline, 2016) in the Social Principles.

Sexualized behavior is behavior that communicates sexual interest and/or content. Examples include, but are not limited to displaying sexually suggestive visual materials; use of pornography in church programs on or with church property, making sexual comments or innuendo about one’s own or another person’s body; touching another person’s body; touching another person’s body/hair/clothing; touching or rubbing oneself in the presence of another person; kissing; and sexual intercourse. Sexualized behavior can be a form of sexual misconduct when this behavior is unwanted by the recipient or witness, is a violation of society’s or the Church’s law, breaks the sacred trust in the ministerial role, or violates the vows taken at membership or ordination.

Child Abuse: Child Abuse includes but is not limited to Child Sexual Abuse.  Child Sexual Abuse is sexual activity with a minor and does not need to include physical contact between a perpetrator and a minor.  Some forms of child sexual abuse includes exhibitionism or exposing oneself to a minor; fondling; intercourse; masturbation in the presence of a minor, or forcing the minor to masturbate; obscene phone calls, text messages; producing, owning, or sharing pornographic images of children; sex with any kind of a minor including vaginal, oral, or anal; sex trafficking.

Sexual Harassment:  Sexual harassment is a form of misconduct of a sexual nature and is defined in ¶ 161(Book of Discipline, 2016) in the Social Principles. To clarify further, it is unwanted sexual or gender-directed behavior within a pastoral, employment, ministerial (including volunteers), mentor, or colleague relationship that alters the conditions of employment or volunteer work or unreasonably interferes with the employee or volunteer’s performance by creating a hostile environment that can include unwanted sexual jokes, advances, touching, displays, or comments that insult, degrade, or sexually exploit anyone within the life of the Church.

 Those in Ministerial Roles

Both laity and clergy fill ministerial roles in our Church. In addition to clergy or professional staff, any United Methodist may fill a ministerial role by participating in ministries including, but

not limited to:

  • leading and participating in lay servant ministries;
  • coordinating and/or leading events for children, youth, and adults;
  • teaching and leading in church schools for children, youth, and adults;
  • leading in worship as speaker from the pulpit, liturgist, communion server, or usher;
  • volunteering to chaperone trips, work camps, or special events;
  • working in Walks to Emmaus and Chrysalis retreats;
  • mentoring;
  • supervising church staff members; and
  • working with computers, websites, and the Internet in church property/programs.
  • participation in Stephen Ministries

 Progress and Troubling Trends

The General Conference not only has mandated adoption of policies in our churches, conferences, agencies, and schools, it called for training, advocacy practices, and surveys of progress as a denomination conducted by the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women.

Work remains to be done. Recent findings show the experiences of leadership of the Church on many levels—local church, seminary, annual and general conferences in particular:

  • Awareness of the denomination’s policy on sexual misconduct is high, but awareness of the resources for victims and congregations is much lower.
  • Awareness of policy by members and guests continues to be low.
  • Harassment is still a significant problem:  well over three-fourths of the clergy (men and women) and half of the lay women had experienced sexual harassment in the Church (about one third of laymen).
  • Holding offenders accountable, removing errant pastors, lay staff, or volunteers as needed, and requiring counseling, training, and supervision before resumption of ministerial roles are remedial steps our episcopal and superintending leader should use in every case;
  • Accountability for follow-up on situations of misconduct so that appropriate and effective remediation is achieved, so that the behavior stops, does not reoccur, and relationship and ministry are returned to wholeness as much as possible;
  • Placing justice for victims above protection of offenders, including pastors, is an equally pressing need;
  • With this global Internet age and the growing use of computers by clergy and laity has come more frequent reports of the use of pornography and sexualized materials by laity and clergy within church programs or with church computers or property.

Progress in four areas is not adequate:  prevention, education, intervention and healing.  Additional work is now needed:

  1. Resources for various constituencies addressing prevention, education, intervention, and healing after lay or clergy sexual misconduct (including the United Methodist website on sexual ethics www.umsexualethics.org);
  2. Updated training (initial, follow-up, and advanced) for the various constituencies within the church, including education on the prevention and the use of pornography, its destructive impact on users, and its potential for abuse in or with church programs or property;
  3. Implementation of models for intervention and healing to all affected, in order to provide a consistent and thorough response every time when complaints are initiated;
  4. Development of a model for ongoing assessment of policies, practices, and responses of conferences;
  5. Appropriate handling of the presence and involvement of legally convicted sexual offenders in local congregational activities and ministry;
  6. Opportunities for annual conferences to share their resources and experience. (see www.umsexualethics.org)

Therefore be it resolved, that The United Methodist Church renews its stand in opposition to the sin of sexual misconduct within the Church worldwide.  It further recommits all United Methodists to the eradication of sexual misconduct in all ministerial relationship, and calls for:

  1. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, to continue to convene and coordinate a cooperative interagency group to address the areas of prevention, education, intervention, and healing including a representative of the Council of Bishops, the General Boards of Discipleship, Higher Education and Ministry, Global Ministries, Church and Society, the General Council on Finance and Administration, Wespath, UMM, UMW, and representatives of annual conference Response/Crisis Teams and Safe Sanctuary Teams (each agency member responsible for his or her own expense and a share of the expense of the annual conference representatives);
  2. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women be provided resources sufficient to develop/distribute resources for leaders of lay events and programs with the church in order to help train and equip them to raise this important issue with laity (including lay servants, lay leaders, Christian educators, persons in mission, leaders in School of Christian Mission, Walks to Emmaus, Chrysalis, and leaders of events with young people);
  3. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, through the interagency group, to ensure that resources for laity and clergy in ministerial roles are identified and promoted for use in conferences, districts or clusters, and local congregations;
  4. The Council of Bishops to reaffirm its commitment to preventing and eradicating sexual harassment, abuse, and misconduct in the church through education, training, and sharing of resources.  Each episcopal area will implement policies, procedures, and ongoing plans to coordinate person involved in prevention and intervention, including but not limited to:  district superintendents, boards of ordained ministry, boards of laity, advocates, intervention and healing teams, trained mediators, and staff-parish relations committees;
  5. United Methodist-related schools of theology to provide training on the prevention and eradication of sexual harassment, abuse and misconduct within the ministerial relationship;
  6. Annual conference boards of ordained ministry to provide education (entry level, follow-up, advanced) for all appointed clergy, local pastors, and commissioned members.  Annual conferences are also encouraged to provide similar education and training for those employed in ministerial leadership;
  7. Episcopal areas to require that all clergy, local pastors assigned laity, and commissioned members appointed in each annual conference have regular, up-to-date sexual ethics training a minimum of once every four years to be in good standing for appointment;
  8. The General Board of Church and Society to continue to advocate for just laws that address or counter sexual harassment and abuse in our larger societies.

Submitted: 7/31/2019
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:

Petition # TBD / R2045 (New legislation submitted in 2023)

Since the mid-1970s when the term “sexual harassment” was first recognized, the world has seen an evolution in awareness, laws and litigation, policies, advocacy, and international collaboration to eradicate sexual harassment in the workplace. In our own communities we have moved from debating whether or not sexual harassment is even a problem to witnessing women and men join together across national boundaries to address it in global settings, churches and ministries, and multinational workplaces. 

Since the 1990s, sexual harassment is a recognized form of sexual violence and misconduct in our societies and in The United Methodist Church. The Church declared sexual harassment a sin against individuals and communities, and a chargeable offense against our clergy or laity. Critical to our understanding of the impact of harassment is the recognition that it is certainly an abuse of power over another, not only inappropriate sexual or gender-directed conduct. 

Definitions 

Beginning with the continuum of behaviors that includes sexual harassment: Sexual misconduct within ministerial relationships is a betrayal of sacred trust. It is a continuum of unwanted sexual or gender-directed behaviors by either a lay or clergy person within a ministerial relationship (paid or unpaid). It can include child abuse, adult sexual abuse, harassment, rape or sexual assault, sexualized verbal comments or visuals, unwelcome touching and advances, use of sexualized materials including pornography, stalking, sexual abuse of youth or those without capacity to consent, or misuse of the pastoral or ministerial position using sexualized conduct to take advantage of the vulnerability of another. It includes criminal behaviors in some nations, states, or communities. 

Sexual harassment is a form of sexual misconduct. The Social Principles define it as “any unwanted sexual comment, advance or demand, either verbal or physical, that is reasonably perceived by the recipient as demeaning, intimidating, or coercive. Sexual harassment must be understood as an exploitation and abuse of a power relationship rather than as an exclusively sexual issue. Sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, the creation of a hostile or abusive working environment resulting from discrimination on the basis of gender” (¶ 161J). 

To clarify further, it is unwanted sexual or gender-directed behavior within a pastoral, employment, ministerial (including volunteers), mentor, or colleague relationship that is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment or volunteer work or unreasonably interferes with the employee or volunteer’s performance. It can create a hostile, offensive environment that can include unwanted sexual jokes, repeated advances, touching, displays, or comments that insult, degrade, or sexually exploit women, men, elders, children, or youth.

Generally, anyone Anyone can be a target, and anyone can harass—women, men, youth, interns, volunteers, all racial/ethnic groups, any level of employee, clergy, or laity. In the learning place, it affects any students of either all genders, any grade, any teacher or professional, or any volunteer. 

Businesses, governments, congregations, and organizations lose significant human and financial resources when harassment is permitted to devastate workers, customers, or members. It damages self-esteem, productivity, and ability to minister or earn wages. It can result in illness, absenteeism, poor performance, loss of promotions and opportunities. For students it can result in failure, absenteeism, isolation from peers, loss of self-esteem and learning potential, withdrawal from teams and groups, and illness. Families of the harassed and others in work, worship, and learning places are also victims of the hostile, intimidating environment harassment creates. 

Harassment in the Church 

In the church, harassment can occur between a staff person, pastor, committee or council chairperson, church school teacher or helper, student, camper, counselor, youth worker, volunteer, or chaperone, paid or unpaid. It can happen on the bus to camp, in a youth group or Bible study, on a church computer or in choir rehearsal. The devastating effects on persons when it happens in a faith community jeopardize spiritual life, theological meaning, and relationships. For some, the loss of a sense of safety and sanctuary can be permanent. 

In 1990, the General Council on Ministries released the study mandated by General Conference in 1988 examining sexual harassment in The UMC. Then, half of the clergy, 20 percent of laity, nearly half of students, and 37 percent of church staff had had an experience of harassment in a church setting. Nearly 20 years ago we had much work to do to eradicate this form of sexual misconduct and violence. 

our quadrennia later, good work has been done toward the elimination of sexual harassment in the Church. Thirty-five annual conferences now assign oversight of harassment issues to a “team,” and many conferences require sexual misconduct awareness training for all clergy. Since the General Conference mandated sexual harassment policies in 1996, more and more churches of every size continue to report policies in place (in 2007: 34 percent of smallest and 86 percent of largest membership congregations have policies—up from 9 percent and 36 percent, respectively, in 1995). The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women has provided support and counsel to victims and church officials in hundreds of cases. 

But the most recent surveys of our progress in eradicating sexual harassment (2005 and 20071) are very troubling: sexual harassment remains a significant problem for women and men, lay and clergy in our church settings, programs, and with church property (including computers and the Internet): 

  1. Awareness of the denomination’s policy on sexual harassment is relatively high (higher among clergy than laity), but awareness of the resources for victims and congregations is much lower.

  2. While every local congregation is required to have a policy and procedure on sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, in 2007 only 34 percent of small and 86 percent of largest membership churches report that they do. 

  3. Ninety percent of pastors clergy have attended at least one sexual ethics training course, but only one of four twenty-five percent of pastors clergy has have attended supplementary training. 

  4. More than three-fourths of the clergywomen and half of the laywomen had experienced sexual harassment in the Church (only a third of laymen had); the most commonly reported settings were church meetings and offices, and workplaces and social gatherings at seminary. 

  5. Perpetrators are most often men and increasingly laypersons in the local church. Clergy commit over a third of reported offenses. A significant change since the 1990 study was significant increases in the number of laity harassing laity, and laity harassing clergy. 

  6. Local churches were most likely to trivialize reports/complaints while seminaries and UM offices were more likely to move toward action against offenders. 

  7. Personal friends and relatives were most helpful to victims, while district superintendents, personnel officers, and seminary administrators were among the least helpful. 

  8. The most lasting negative effects were inability to work with the offender, emotional impacts, and worsened feelings about self and the church. 

  9. Smaller membership churches need resources and training specifically developed for their unique settings and dynamics.

In The United Methodist Church, constant vigilance is needed to keep effective, updated policies and procedures in all places in the church. Regular training of our lay and clergy leaders is a critical ongoing ministry of our church, with focus on the troubling use of “cyber-sex” (sexualized material in telecommunications) in church programs, with church property, or on church premises. 

In 2006, a significant the first national symposium addressing sexual misconduct in The United Methodist Church, “Do No Harm,” was held. At that critical event, participants asked episcopal leaders to focus on clergy training, lay leadership training, and early intervention with problem clergy. Advocacy and intervention teams have been working in many conferences but not all, and every episcopal area needs to maintain working, effective channels and procedures. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women continues to host “Do No Harm” regularly and has subsequently developed an online resource called, “Do No More Harm” to provide guidance when there is a concern or complaint of sexual misconduct in The United Methodist Church. We need and are grateful for strong episcopal leadership across the Church who maintain our achievements and forcefully address existing barriers to a harassment-free denomination. 

A Vision of God’s Hospitable Community 

Sexual harassment destroys community. This alienating, sinful behavior causes brokenness in relationships—the opposite of God’s intention for us. From the first biblical stories of human community in the garden to the letters of Paul to the first Christian communities, we learn that all of us, both female and male, are created in the image of God, and thus have been made equal in Christ. We are called to be stewards of God’s community of hospitality where there is not only an absence of harassment, but also the presence of welcome, respect, and equality. 

         Therefore, the General Conference calls for intensified efforts worldwide to eradicate sexual harassment in the denomination and its institutions including these strategies: 

  1. Episcopal leaders implement plans to address and eradicate sexual harassment in each episcopal area including regular, updated training of clergy, early intervention with problem clergy, and regular training of lay men and women, especially in smaller membership churches;.

  2. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, in collaboration with appropriate agencies (including the General Board of Discipleship’s Discipleship Ministries’ Safe Sanctuaries ministry), continue to develop and distribute resources to reduce the risk of abuse in local churches and increase United Methodists’ understanding and action on sexual harassment in church and society;.

  3. The General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, in collaboration with appropriate agencies, develop and distribute resources on sexual harassment specific to those in licensed and ordained ministry and to lay leaders, students, faculty, and administrators of United Methodist-related educational institutions;.

  4. Annual conferences throughout the connection will encourage their local and national governments to collect accurate data on the incidence and nature of sexual harassment in their workplaces, and encourage their national governments to adopt laws, policies, and procedures for eradicating sexual harassment;.

  5. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women continue to monitor and assess the Church’s progress in eradicating sexual harassment and will seek ways to report its findings to the Church on the specific areas to be strengthened within the life of the Church including policy development, prevention, education, and training;.

  6. The General Board of Church and Society and the General Board of Global Ministries advocate for laws that prohibit sexual harassment in US workplaces, and continue to provide resources to the denomination on international initiatives to eradicate harassment and other forms of violence against women;.

  7. The Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships work cooperatively with the World Council of Churches “Decade to Overcome Violence” (2001-2010); and.

  8. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women continue to conduct assessments of The United Methodist Church’s progress to eradicate this behavior from the Church worldwide. 

For more information and resources, see The Book of Resolutions, 2012, “Sexual Misconduct Within Ministerial Relationships” (#2044) and the original text of this resolution in The Book of Resolutions, 2004, p. 155. 

ADOPTED 1992
REVISED AND ADOPTED 2000, 2008, 2016
RESOLUTION #2045, 2008, 2012 BOOK OF RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION #37, 2004 BOOK OF RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION #31, 2000 BOOK OF RESOLUTIONS
See Social Principles, ¶ 161J

Submitted: 07/28/2023
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:

  • Talking Points: English | Português | Français | Kiswahili

Petition #20594-IC-R9999-G

“We affirm that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons.... We reject all sexual expressions that damage the humanity God has given us as birthright” (Social Principles, ¶ 161FH).

For nearly two decades, the global people called United Methodist have strengthened our understanding and practice of sexual ethics. We have adopted policies and procedures to guide behavior and address brokenness. We have trained, educated, and surveyed lay and clergy leaders of our denomination, conferences, and our congregations. We have spent significant resources in addressing the brokenness from sexual misconduct, from healing individuals and congregations to holding the Church accountable through legal proceedings.

As a resource to the Church, the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women takes very seriously its role to alert our leaders, conferences, and congregations of developments in our societies that call us to intensified concern and action. One such concern today is the expansion of the use of pornography, and its appearance in church programs, through the use of church computers and technology, or on church property.

Definition of Pornography

While definitions may vary, the 2016 Book of Resolutions offers the following:

“Pornography is sexually explicit material intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal that often portrays violence, abuse, coercion, domination, humiliation, or degradation. In addition, any sexually explicit material that depicts children is pornographic.” (2016 Book of Resolutions, “Pornography and Sexual Violence,” p. 126.)

The global expansion of wireless Internet and telecommunications provides limitless availability to pornography. Schools, businesses, and governments are struggling with the use of pornography by employees or students with the organization’s equipment.

The National Center for Sexual Exploitation published these troubling indicators in 2017 in the United States:

  • 93% of boys and 62% of girls see pornography during adolescence;
  • 64% of 13-24 year olds actively seek out pornography each week or more often;
  • 88% of the scenes from 50 of the most popular pornographic videos contained physical violence, and 49% contained verbal aggression;
  • 46 separate studies studies report that exposure to pornography increases risk of committing sexual offenses and enabling rape myths;
  • Girls aged 14-19 who view pornography are at a higher risk of becoming victim to sexual harassment and assault;
  • Viewing pornography creates negative body images for women and more critical attitudes in men of their sexual partner;
  • Women viewing pornography are more likely to be susceptible to believing rape myths;
  • Marital rape is more likely when a partner has been viewing pornography;
  • Probability of divorce doubles when a partner has viewed pornography.
  • (National Center on Sexual Exploitation, “Pornography and Public Health: Research Summary,” http://endsexualexploitation.org/wp-content/uploads/NCOSE_Pornography-PublicHealth_ResearchSummary_8-2_17_FINAL-with-logo.pdf, August 2, 2017). The use of pornography continues to increase as it becomes more accessible (via the Internet, for example), and allows more immediate, realistic, and anonymous sexual contact and gratification (through chat rooms, real-time videos). Research shows it is not an “innocent activity.” It is harmful and is generally addictive. Persons who are addicted to pornography are physiologically altered, as is their perspective, relationships with parishioners and family, and their perceptions of girls and women. Persons who are addicted to pornography must be held accountable for the impact of their behavior, yet they also need prayer, care, and therapy. Those laity and clergy in ministerial roles within our churches, conferences, and agencies are just as susceptible to pornography addiction as anyone else.

In the Harmfulness of Pornography, Robert Brannon shares the following, now confirmed in social science research:

  • a majority of people in the US believe that some “pornography” (such as eroticized rape scenes) influences some men toward real-life sexual aggression;
  • young male viewers of pornography become more likely to believe “all women want to be raped”; and
  • women are portrayed as stereotypical bodies and sex objects.
     

Pornography in the Church

A disturbing trend in the Church is the use of pornography by clergy and lay employees and volunteers, even using computers and other equipment owned by or housed within churches and church-related organizations. We are aware of reports of adults sharing pornographic materials with children and youth during church activities, camps, or programs. But beyond being saddened, shocked, and dismayed by these reports, how do we raise awareness among congregational, conference, agency, school or cabinet leaders, and what do we do to identify, stop, prevent, and then heal from recurrence in our communities of faith?

The United Methodist Church declares that the use of pornography in church programs, on church premises or with church property by persons in ministerial roles (lay and clergy) is a form of sexual misconduct, a chargeable offense for laity and clergy in The United Methodist Church.

The General Conference recommends and urges the following actions:

  1. that cabinets and boards of ordained ministry include these issues and ministry concerns in sexual ethics training for candidates, appointed pastors, local pastors, and retired pastors;
  2. that bishops, cabinets, and chancellors should lead in updating the sexual ethics policies and procedures of conferences and congregations to include use of pornography as a form of sexual misconduct;
  3. that laity in positions of leadership in conferences, congregations, agencies, and schools should receive updated training on issues of sexual ethics, including current trends and ways to help persons addicted to pornography;
  4. that congregational, annual conference, and agency leaders should receive training on the issues of pornography, especially Internet pornography, and should enact strict oversight of church-owned computers and technology, including periodic technology audits.
  5. that seminaries and boards of ordained ministries should provide training to help clergy and lay professionals-in-training avoid addictive or harmful behaviors and to minister effectively with persons addicted to pornography by including issues of sexual misconduct, including pornography, in ethics and ministries courses and training for all students; and

Resources: The Social Principles, ¶ 161F, H, and Q; United Methodist website on sexual ethics, www.umsexualethics.org; Resolution on “Pornography and Sexual Violence,” 2016 Book of Resolutions, and Resolutions on “Pornography” and “Sexual Misconduct Within Ministerial Relationships,” 2008 Book of Resolutions.

See Social Principles, ¶ 161F and 161Q.     

Submitted: 7/31/2019
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:

Complaint Process Equity

Petition #TBD / ¶362 (New legislation submitted in 2023)

Delete current ¶362 and replace with:

¶ 362. Complaint Procedures

  1. Ministerial Review – Ordination and membership in an annual conference in The United Methodist Church is a sacred trust. The qualifications and duties of local pastors, associate members, provisional members, and full members are set forth in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, and we believe they flow from the gospel as taught by Jesus the Christ and proclaimed by his apostles. Whenever a person in any of the above categories, including those on leaves of all types, honorable or administrative location, or retirement, is accused of violating this trust, the membership of his or her ministerial office shall be subject to review. The primary purpose of the ministerial review is to resolve any violations of this sacred trust in such a way that God’s work of justice, reconciliation, and healing may be realized.
  2. Definition of Complaint – A complaint is a written and signed statement claiming misconduct as defined in ¶ 2702.1.[1] When a complaint is received by the bishop, both the person making the complaint and the person against whom the complaint is made will be informed in writing of the process to be followed at that stage. When and if the stage changes, those persons will continue to be informed in writing of the new process in a timely fashion.
  3. Primary Purpose – This review shall have as its primary purpose a just resolution of any violations of this sacred trust, in the hope that God’s work of justice, reconciliation and healing may be realized in the body of Christ. A just resolution is one that focuses on repairing any harm to people and communities, achieving real accountability by making things right as far as possible, and bringing healing to all the parties. Special attention shall be given to a timely disposition of all matters, and ensuring that cultural, racial, ethnic, and gender contexts are valued.
  4. Supervision—In the course of the ordinary fulfillment of the superintending role, the bishop or district superintendent may receive or initiate complaints about the performance or character of a clergyperson. The person filing the complaint and the clergyperson shall be informed by the district superintendent or bishop of the process for filing the complaint and its purpose.
  5. Supervisory Response Process – The supervisory response of the bishop is pastoral and administrative and shall be directed toward a just resolution among all parties. It is not part of any judicial process. The supervisory response shall be carried out by the bishop or the bishop’s designee in a timely manner, with attention to communication to all parties regarding the complaint and the process. At the determination of the bishop, persons with qualifications and experience in assessment, intervention, or healing may be selected to assist in the supervisory response. The bishop also may consult with the staff/pastor-parish relations committee, the district committee on superintendency for the district superintendents, appropriate personnel committee, or other persons who may be helpful
    a. Upon receiving a written and signed complaint, the bishop shall, within 90 days, carry out the supervisory response process outlined below.
    b. When the supervisory response is initiated, the bishop shall notify the chairperson of the board of ordained ministry that a complaint has been filed, of the clergyperson named, of the general nature of the complaint, and, when concluded, of the disposition of the complaint.
    c. At all supervisory meetings no verbatim record shall be made and no legal counsel shall be present.
    d. The person making the complaint shall have the right to choose a person to accompany him or her with the right to voice.
    e. The person against whom the complaint was made may choose a person to accompany him or her with the right to voice.
    f. Within 90 days after the receipt of the complaint, the bishop shall conclude the supervisory response process by:
    i. Dismissing the complaint with the consent of the cabinet giving the reasons therefore in writing, a copy of which shall be placed in the clergyperson’s file; or
    ii. Initiating a mediated attempt to produce a just resolution; or
    iii. Referring the matter to the counsel for the Church as a complaint.
  6. Just Resolution Process – A just resolution process is one that focuses on repairing any harm to people and communities, achieving real accountability by making things right as far as possible, and bringing healing to all the parties. In appropriate situations, processes seeking a just resolution may be pursued. A process seeking a just resolution may begin at any time in the supervisory, complaint, or trial process. Procedures for achieving a just resolution agreement shall include:
    a. To focus on repairing harm to people and communities, all parties shall have opportunity to name and acknowledge the harm that has occurred.
    b. After all parties agree to enter a just resolution process, the bishop, the person filing the complaint, the respondent, and each of their support persons shall sign a written agreement outlining the just resolution process, including any agreements on confidentiality, which will be used in creating the final just resolution agreement.
    c. Special attention shall be given to ensuring that cultural, racial, ethnic, and gender contexts are valued throughout the process in terms of their understandings of fairness, justice, and restoration.
    d. The just resolution process shall include the use of a trained, impartial, third-party facilitator.
    e. The just resolution process shall be completed within 90 days from the date the bishop initiates the process.
    i. If resolution is achieved, a written statement of resolution, including any terms and conditions, shall be signed by all the parties and all the parties shall agree on any matters to be disclosed to any third parties.
    ii. If resolution is not achieved, the bishop shall:
    1. Dismiss the complaint with the consent of the cabinet giving the reasons therefore in writing, a copy of which shall be placed in the clergyperson’s file; or
    2. Refer the matter to the counsel for the Church as a complaint.
    f. The entire process leading to a signed just resolution agreement shall be reviewed by the Administrative Review Committee (¶ 636) prior to the final disposition of the complaint.
    g. A just resolution agreement, agreed to and signed by all parties, shall be the final disposition of the complaint.
  7. Suspension – When deemed appropriate, to protect the well-being of the person making the complaint, the congregation, annual conference, other context for ministry, and/or clergy, the bishop, with the recommendation of the executive committee of the board of ordained ministry, may suspend the person from all clergy responsibilities, but not from an appointment, for a period not to exceed 90 days. With the agreement of the executive committee of the board of ordained ministry, the bishop may extend the suspension for only one additional period not to exceed 30 days. During the suspension, salary, housing, and benefits provided by a pastoral charge will continue at a level no less than on the date of suspension.[2] The person so suspended shall retain all rights and privileges as stated in ¶ 316 (licensed pastors), ¶ 321 (associate members), ¶ 329 (deacons), or ¶ 334 (elders). The cost of supply of pastoral leadership during the suspension will be borne by the annual conference.[3]
  8. Supervisory Follow-up and Healing -
    a. The bishop and cabinet shall provide a process for healing within the congregation, annual conference, or other context of ministry in which the offense occurred. This process may include sharing of information by the bishop or the bishop’s designee about the nature of the complaint without disclosing the name(s) of the complainant(s) or alleged facts which may compromise any possible forthcoming administrative, judicial, or just resolution process. When facts are disclosed, due regard should be given to the interests and needs of all concerned, including the respondent and complainant who may be involved in an administrative or judicial process. This process for healing may include a just resolution process or other professionally-led processes which address unresolved conflicts, support for victims, and reconciliation for parties involved. These healing processes may take place at any time during the supervisory, complaint, or trial process.
    b. The bishop may choose to deploy a trained Response/Intervention/Care Team. Team members often have expertise and training in specific areas of trauma and are ready to be deployed by the bishop or bishop’s designee to facilitate the process of healing.
  9. Abeyance – A complaint may be held in abeyance with the approval of the Board of Ordained Ministry if civil authorities are involved or their involvement is imminent on matters covered by the complaint. The 3 statuses of complaints held in abeyance shall be reviewed at a minimum of every 90 days by the bishop and the executive committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry to ensure that the involvement of civil authorities is still a valid impediment for proceeding with the resolution of a complaint. Abeyance of a complaint may be terminated by either the bishop or the Board of Ordained Ministry. The time in which a complaint is held in abeyance shall not count toward the statute of limitations. A clergyperson shall continue to hold his or her current status while a complaint is held in abeyance.
  10. Time Limitation – All original time limitations in ¶ 362 may be extended for one 30-day period upon the consent of the complainant and the respondent.

Submitted: 07/28/2023
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

____

[1] See Judicial Council Decisions 763, 777. 79.

[2] See Judicial Council Decision 776. 81.

[3] See Judicial Council Decisions 534, 836.

Petition #TBD / ¶636 (New legislation submitted in 2023) 

¶ 636. Conference Administrative Review Committee

… Its only purpose shall be to ensure that the disciplinary procedures for discontinuance of provisional  membership (¶ 327.6), involuntary leave of absence (¶ 354), involuntary retirement (¶ 357.3), or administrative location (¶ 359), or a just resolution process (¶ NEW 362.6) are properly followed. Additionally, if in the event of unresolved issues related to medical leave (¶ 354.4) a fair process hearing (¶ 361.2) occurs, the administrative review committee shall ensure that fair process was followed. The entire administrative process leading to the action for change in conference relationship and any just resolution process shall be reviewed by the administrative review committee…. 

Submitted: 07/28/2023
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Petition #20543-IC-R2043-G

Resolution #2043 Response Team Ministry for Sexual Misconduct

Introduction: Misconduct of a sexual nature committed by laity and clergy is an ongoing problem throughout the Church. Three percent of women attending church in any given month reported being sexually harassed or abused by a clergy person at some point in their adult lives according to a nationwide study (Diana Gar-land, “The Prevalence of Clergy Sexual Misconduct with Adults: A Research Study Executive Summary, 2009”;http://www.baylor.edu/clergysexualmisconduct/index.php?id=67406, accessed 16 July 2010).  Continued revelations about mishandlings violations of boundaries of  by religious leaders across all faith communities offer a sobering reminder to United Methodists to face our own abuse crisis (M. Garlinda Burton, “United Methodists Need to Face Abuse Crisis: A UMNS Commentary,” umc.org 2010; http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=1wL4KnN1LtH&b=5259669&ct+8437677&tr=y&auid=6486686,accessed 14 June 2010). The United Methodist Church averages between 140 and 500 known cases of clergy sexual misconduct annually in the US alone (Sally Badgley Dolch, Healing the Breach: Response Team Intervention in United Methodist Congregations, Doctor of Ministry, Wesley Theological Seminary, 2010, pp. 131-32). Council of Bishops issued a joint statement with The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women naming sexual misconduct as a sin and committing to hold persons accountable and offering healing in response to complaints received (http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/united-methodist-leaders-respond-to-metoo-and-churchtoo). The most recent Sexual Harassment survey in The United Methodist Church revealed significant increases in sexual harassment perpetrated by laypersons (Gail Murphy-Geiss, “Sexual Harassment in the United Methodist Church,” Chicago: General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, 20052017). The responsibility for handling these complaints rests with our judicatory leaders who.Bishops and district superintendents are responsible for ensuringe that the church responds to allegations of sexual misconduct by either a lay or clergy person within a ministerial relationship, attending to both accountability andprocedural justice or pastoral concern. In the church’s response to misconduct, there can be no true procedural justice in the absence of pastoral concern just as there can be no true pastoral concern without procedural justice. The dual needs of procedural justice and pastoral concern both are far better met addressed by a team effort than by one individual. A full account of justice-making requires the involvement of different persons in distinct roles throughout a process of disclosure, adjudication, and healing. A trained Response/Intervention/Care Team is comprised of persons approved by the bishop who are equipped to understand trauma and grief with expertise in specific areas of trauma and ready to be deployed by the bishop or bishop’s designee to facilitate the process of healing mandated by the Book of Discipline.

Definition: Response Teams are called into a situation of trauma in order to promote the possibility of healing for the congregation, staff, and the individuals involved. Response Team ministry provides a way for judicatory leaders to enable effective assessment, intervention, training, and resourcing of for congregations and staff experiencing events affecting congregational health by enlisting a group of persons with training, expertise, and resources in specific areas of ministry. Members may be paid or unpaid. The Response Team is not called to any judicial or disciplinary processes for legal resolution of a situation. The Response Team is called into action by the bishop or bishop’s designee, often a district superintendent, and is accountable to the bishop. The Response Team is not called to any judicial or disciplinary processes for legal resolution of a situation and is not a part of any investigation.

Disciplinary Mandate to Provide for Healing: The bishop and cabinet are mandated to “provide a process for healing within the congregation” or other ministry context as part of the supervisory response (¶ 363.1f, Book of Discipline 20122016) and judicial process (¶ 2701.4.c). The Discipline also allows for the use of a Response Team to provide pastoral care when handling and following-up on a complaint: the bishop may select “persons with qualifications and experience in assessment, intervention, or healing” to assist during the supervisory response (¶ 363.1b, Book of Discipline 20122016). These persons may perform distinct roles, such as individual support for the accused, and individual support for the congregation, and families affected. These roles are in addition to any interim appointment made in accordance with the Book of Discipline 20122016, ¶ 338.3. In all cases, the bishop initiates and guides the church’s response to ministerial sexual abuse. Effective use of a Response Team can lessen legal liability and promote justice. When victims feel that the church is attending to their needs and seeking a thorough process for justice-making, they are more likely to continue engaging the church in problem- solving and resolution rather than reactively pursuing civil procedures (e.g., suing the conference). Spreading the work of pastoral care and justice-making among several persons, each with a distinct role, also reduces real and perceived conflicts of interest. A trained and ready Response Team, assembled in a timely manner, can assist the bishop with the holistic task of justice-making. The United Methodist Church commends the use of Response Teams in cases of sexual misconduct by ministerial leaders and urges judicatory leaders to train and employ them Only 18 annual conferences in the US maintain an active, trained Response Team (“Active” is defined as having responded to more than one congregation within a three-year period. Six additional conferences used a Response Team once between 2007 and 2009. Sally B. Dolch, Healing the Breach). Between 2007 and 2009, these teams responded to 156 incidents, averaging nearly three cases per conference per year. Extrapolating this data to all jurisdictions, we estimate that an additional 112 cases of ministerial sexual misconduct are handled by annual conferences in the US every year without the assistance of a Response Team. We urge bishops, district superintendents, chancellors, and other conference leaders in The UMC to seek out training in the use of a Response Team, to organize and provide for training Response Team personnel, and to employ these teams as partners in the healing ministry required when someone in leadership violates the sacred trust of ministry through sexual misconduct.

The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women provides training for the development and use of Response Teams and offers a network for trained Response Team coordinators throughout our denomination. For more information on how judicatory leaders and Response Teams may collaborate in promoting congregational healing, see When a Congregation Is Betrayed: Responding to Clergy Misconduct by Beth Ann Gaede and Candace Reed Benyei (Herndon, VA: Alban Institute, 2006, pp.102-16) and the “GuidetoUsingaResponseTeam,” http://umsexualethics.org/ConferenceLeaders/Response Teams.aspxResponse Teams at http://umsexualethics.org/response-teams/.

Submitted: 7/31/2019
Petitioner: Dawn Wiggins Hare, General Secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women

Additional Resources:


View legislative items from 2016

United Methodist Communications is an agency of The United Methodist Church

©2024 United Methodist Communications. All Rights Reserved