Code of Ethics
14/11/23 01:25
In the United Church of Christ all persons with ministerial standing are expected to abide by the UCC Ministerial Code. The Code is a living document that has been revised over the course of my ministry. Copies of the current version of the code are supplied to every authorized minister, often as part of regular boundary training. In our current setting, we are required to undergo boundary training every three years as part of maintaining our standing within the church as ordained ministers. In our church, ordination is a covenant that is undertaken for life, but is subject to the discernment of the community. Through a system of Committees on the Ministry, the United Church of Christ maintains relationship with all ordained ministers. Standing as a minister involves submitting to the discipline of the church and the Committee on Ministry.
The Ordained Ministerial Code addresses specific commitments to spiritual practices, growth in faith, attending to physical and mental health, accepting responsibility for debts, refraining from abusive behavior, honoring family commitments, participating in the wider church, minister impartially, steward church funds and property, and behaving honorably in relationship with other ordained ministers. The document covers ethical issues such as sexual behavior, acceptance of gifts, maintaining boundaries with individuals and communities, attributing the sources of words and ideas and the use of technology and social media.
Like all professional codes of ethics, the emphasis of the code is upon responsible behavior. It does not specify specific responses to breaches of the code. Discipline of ministers is undertaken by Committees on the Ministry in consultation with representatives of the wider church.
For several years I served as the chair of a sexual misconduct task force that investigated allegations of abuse by ministers in our denomination. The work was challenging and sometimes daunting. There were time when our investigations involved receiving testimony from persons who had been seriously injured by the behavior of clergy. There were occasions when we recommended the suspension of ministerial standing for clergy persons. Over the course of our careers, both Susan and I served on Committees on the Ministry and were involved in disciplinary behavior in regards to our colleagues. These assignments were very difficult and while we sought to be fair and responsible to our duties, we felt a sense of relief when we completed our terms of service and were happy to turn those responsibilities over to others. It is tough work.
I have been reflecting on the Ministerial Code recently for a couple of reasons. The first is that I recently completed another round of boundary training that involved a review of the code and its requirements of ordained ministers. The second reason is not related to ordination or ministry, but rather to the legal profession. The United States Supreme Court yesterday released its first ever set of ethics rules governing its nine justices. The “code of conduct” is the first time in the history of the court that there has been a written set of rules about the behavior of justices. Justices in lower courts have been governed by ethics codes since at least 1973, and the Supreme Court issued a “statement on ethics principles and practices” earlier this year.
The introduction to the code of conduct refers to long-standing unwritten ethical rules. The problem with unwritten rules, however, is that they are impossible to enforce. Actually the new code has no mention of how rules might be enforced. It is clear that the release of the statement on ethics principles and practices and the ethical code are in response to public outcry over the behavior of the justices. The justices are at least aware that their ethics are a matter of public concern.
Among the rules outlined are circumstances under which justices should disqualify themselves from participation in a case including bias or prejudices as well as financial or other interest affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
The code raises significant issues in relationship to sitting Justice Clarence Thomas who has received significant undisclosed financial benefits from his relationship with conservative activist Harlan Cow including annual expensive holidays, private jet transport, payment for private schooling of a relative, the purchase of a home for a family member, and the forgiveness of a loan for the purchase of an expensive recreational vehicle. The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered issuing subpoenas for Mr Crowe and another judicial activist, Leonard Leo, for a list of benefits they have provided to Supreme Court justices and their relatives.
The Code of Conduct will not quell the criticism directed at the Supreme Court and it will not restore the public trust, which according to polls is at an all-time low.
I am aware of how difficult it is to restore trust when ethical violations have resulted in injury to people. When a minister violates the trust of a congregation, the pain and distrust can last for generations. This is especially evident in the case of clergy sexual misconduct which for generations was covered up in the church and only recently has been brought to public awareness. Even though many church organizations have been required to pay substantial financial claims to victims of abuse, the exchange of money does not undo the wrongs that have been committed. There is no substitute for the prevention of abuse. Once abuse has occurred, the pain and distrust remains and after the fact responses cannot restore trust.
It remains to be seen whether or not the damage to the public trust caused by unethical behavior on the part of Supreme Court justices can be restored, but I am certain that it will take more than the publication of a code of ethics. I doubt that trust can be restored as long as there is no disciplinary action in regards to breaches of ethics. The erosion of public trust is a threat to the stability of our democracy which is based on a system of checks and balances between different branches of government. When one of those branches erodes public trust, the entire system is weakened.
I am not a legal expert. I do not have solutions for the problems of trust of the Supreme Court. What I do know is that I have a deep obligation to the ethical standards of my vocation. I take those standards very seriously. A regular review of the Ministerial Code is a part of my life as a minister and will remain so for the rest of my life. I hope that justices of the Supreme Court treat their ethical code with similar respect.
The Ordained Ministerial Code addresses specific commitments to spiritual practices, growth in faith, attending to physical and mental health, accepting responsibility for debts, refraining from abusive behavior, honoring family commitments, participating in the wider church, minister impartially, steward church funds and property, and behaving honorably in relationship with other ordained ministers. The document covers ethical issues such as sexual behavior, acceptance of gifts, maintaining boundaries with individuals and communities, attributing the sources of words and ideas and the use of technology and social media.
Like all professional codes of ethics, the emphasis of the code is upon responsible behavior. It does not specify specific responses to breaches of the code. Discipline of ministers is undertaken by Committees on the Ministry in consultation with representatives of the wider church.
For several years I served as the chair of a sexual misconduct task force that investigated allegations of abuse by ministers in our denomination. The work was challenging and sometimes daunting. There were time when our investigations involved receiving testimony from persons who had been seriously injured by the behavior of clergy. There were occasions when we recommended the suspension of ministerial standing for clergy persons. Over the course of our careers, both Susan and I served on Committees on the Ministry and were involved in disciplinary behavior in regards to our colleagues. These assignments were very difficult and while we sought to be fair and responsible to our duties, we felt a sense of relief when we completed our terms of service and were happy to turn those responsibilities over to others. It is tough work.
I have been reflecting on the Ministerial Code recently for a couple of reasons. The first is that I recently completed another round of boundary training that involved a review of the code and its requirements of ordained ministers. The second reason is not related to ordination or ministry, but rather to the legal profession. The United States Supreme Court yesterday released its first ever set of ethics rules governing its nine justices. The “code of conduct” is the first time in the history of the court that there has been a written set of rules about the behavior of justices. Justices in lower courts have been governed by ethics codes since at least 1973, and the Supreme Court issued a “statement on ethics principles and practices” earlier this year.
The introduction to the code of conduct refers to long-standing unwritten ethical rules. The problem with unwritten rules, however, is that they are impossible to enforce. Actually the new code has no mention of how rules might be enforced. It is clear that the release of the statement on ethics principles and practices and the ethical code are in response to public outcry over the behavior of the justices. The justices are at least aware that their ethics are a matter of public concern.
Among the rules outlined are circumstances under which justices should disqualify themselves from participation in a case including bias or prejudices as well as financial or other interest affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
The code raises significant issues in relationship to sitting Justice Clarence Thomas who has received significant undisclosed financial benefits from his relationship with conservative activist Harlan Cow including annual expensive holidays, private jet transport, payment for private schooling of a relative, the purchase of a home for a family member, and the forgiveness of a loan for the purchase of an expensive recreational vehicle. The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered issuing subpoenas for Mr Crowe and another judicial activist, Leonard Leo, for a list of benefits they have provided to Supreme Court justices and their relatives.
The Code of Conduct will not quell the criticism directed at the Supreme Court and it will not restore the public trust, which according to polls is at an all-time low.
I am aware of how difficult it is to restore trust when ethical violations have resulted in injury to people. When a minister violates the trust of a congregation, the pain and distrust can last for generations. This is especially evident in the case of clergy sexual misconduct which for generations was covered up in the church and only recently has been brought to public awareness. Even though many church organizations have been required to pay substantial financial claims to victims of abuse, the exchange of money does not undo the wrongs that have been committed. There is no substitute for the prevention of abuse. Once abuse has occurred, the pain and distrust remains and after the fact responses cannot restore trust.
It remains to be seen whether or not the damage to the public trust caused by unethical behavior on the part of Supreme Court justices can be restored, but I am certain that it will take more than the publication of a code of ethics. I doubt that trust can be restored as long as there is no disciplinary action in regards to breaches of ethics. The erosion of public trust is a threat to the stability of our democracy which is based on a system of checks and balances between different branches of government. When one of those branches erodes public trust, the entire system is weakened.
I am not a legal expert. I do not have solutions for the problems of trust of the Supreme Court. What I do know is that I have a deep obligation to the ethical standards of my vocation. I take those standards very seriously. A regular review of the Ministerial Code is a part of my life as a minister and will remain so for the rest of my life. I hope that justices of the Supreme Court treat their ethical code with similar respect.
