Why Are Ultra Conservative United Methodists Going After Bishop Talbert?

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 9:17 pm

In a July 19, 2012 letter drafted and endorsed by ultra conservative members of the unofficial United Methodist "Renew and Reform Coalition" groups (Good News, Renew, Confessing Movement within the UMC, Lifewatch, Transforming Congregations and United Methodist Action), the Council of Bishops is being asked to "publicly censure" Bishop Melvin Talbert and "file a formal complaint against him under ¶ 2702 (e) [disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church in violating his responsibility to uphold that order and discipline], ¶ 2702 (f) [dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church], and ¶ 2702 (g) [engaging in behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor]."

They state that "Bishop Melvin Talbert made the following comments on May 4, 2012, at the Love Your Neighbor Tabernacle in Tampa, Florida:
     The derogatory rules and restrictions in the Book of Discipline
     are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and
     obedience. Thus the time has come for those of us who are faithful
     to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to do what is required of us…

     The time has come to join in an act of Biblical obedience. I call on
     the more than 1,100 clergy [who have signed marriage initiatives] to
     stand firm in their resolve to perform marriages for same-sex couples
     and to do so in the course of their normal pastoral duties, thus
     defying the laws that prohibit them from doing so…

     The time for talking is over. It's time for us to act in defiance of
     unjust words of derogatory discrimination and laws that are doing
     harm to our GLBT [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered]
     sisters and brothers."

(Click here to listen to all of Bishop Talbert's comments from May 4, 2012)

In addition, the letter calls for "the executive committee of the Council of Bishops request that those retired and active bishops who stood with Bishop Talbert as he called for disobedience to the Book of Discipline issue specific statements repudiating Bishop Talbert's call to perform same-sex unions, and should they fail to do so, publicly censure them for their actions.

The real agenda for this group is simply stated in one paragraph of the letter:
     "We are deeply concerned that Bishop Talbert has undercut
     that very discipline and order, by encouraging dissension,
     disunity and disobedience, and advocating anarchy and chaos
     in response to the actions of the 2012 General Conference,
     taken after focused prayer, study, and holy conferencing."

What is incorrectly implied by this statement is that the United Methodist Church has somehow achieved consensus, unity and complete loyalty to the prejudicial treatment of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) clergy and laity in our denomination who faithfully serve God in and through the church every day. What I believe is really intended by this letter, is to silence any dissent or disagreement within a denomination that was built around democratic principles of discerning the will of God together through Holy Conferencing. If they cannot achieve this false unity of conformity by legislative means at General Conference, narrow and selective interpretations of scripture and veiled threats of defunding the UMC (see letter signer, Rev. Tom Harrison's statement about his congregations apportionments in a recent UMCom article); then they will continue to use the churches structure and processes of judicial complaint in an attempt to intimidate both Bishops and clergy into silence and conformity.

Where is the United Methodist Church on unity around the issues of LGBT bias and inclusion? That is probably best summarized by the UMCom (United Methodist Communications) article, "Delegates cannot agree they disagree on sexuality" written about a compromise, substitute petition submitted by the Revs. Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter at General Conference 2012. For me, two quotes summarize where we are:
     "Many feel we need to take a strong stand against homosexuality,"
     said the Rev. James Howell, of the Western North Carolina Annual
     (regional) Conference "What matters is God's will. We have said
     for a long time we do not condone homosexuality, but they are here,
     they are in our delegations, they are serving our churches. They keep
     coming back… there is a kind of miracle in that."

     The Rev. Maxie Dunham (a signer of the letter calling to censure
     Bishop Talbert) of the Kentucky Annual (regional) Conference spoke
     against the substitution saying, "It leaves out good teaching. There
     is no reason at all to state we disagree, because we disagree about
     almost everything, he said.

If Maxie Dunham is to be taken at his word, then it appears that Bishop Talbert's statement that "the time for talk is over" was more of an observation of our UMC reality then a call to disobedience.

On May 3rd at General Conference, Council of Bishops president Rosemarie Wenner spoke to the LGBT United Methodists present on behalf of the Council, saying, "You have been hurt by actions of General Conference and by the polity of the United Methodist Church. I feel your pain. We see your pain." And then speaking to everyone at GC 2012, "We ask you, gathered here, to join us in that commitment to Holy Conferencing and to steps toward unity which help us to recognize the divisions we are in."

For some of us, myself included, Bishop Talbert's statements at the Love Your Neighbor Tabernacle on May 4th may have done more for taking "steps toward unity which help to recognize the divisions we are in," than anything that took place in the political posturing that was taking place on the floor of General Conference. His words were meant to encourage a group of 1,100 of us clergy who have already decided that the only way we can stay and serve within our beloved United Methodist Church, is by being obedient to our call to serve the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the people we have the privilege to be appointed in service with; even if that obedience puts us at odds with policies (polity) of the denomination that even the Council of Bishops agrees cause "pain" to some of our United Methodist sisters and brothers.

When our Council of Bishops meet this fall to discuss the letter coming from the far right of our church, I hope they will consider Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience!
     1)   I hope they will remember the Pharisees who tried to use
           threats and intimidation to silence Jesus and force a false unity
           of beliefs through coerced conformity upon their congregants.
           I'll hope they will remember Jesus' words found in Luke 19,
           "Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, 'Teacher,
           rebuke your disciples!' 'I tell you,' he replied, 'if they
           keep quiet, the stones will cry out.'" Censuring is a rebuking!
           And when they tried to trap him using the rules of his day,
           Jesus responded with the "Great Commandment as the 
           basis for all of the laws of God: Jesus said, "Love the Lord
           your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
           with all your mind. This is the first and 
greatest commandment.  
           And the second is like it, love your 
neighbor as yourself. 
           All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments"
           (Matthew 22:35-40).

     2)   I hope our Bishops will remember our Wesleyan heritage of
           our "Three Simple Rules: Do no harm. Do all the good
           you can. Stay in love with God;" and, our connectional  
           practice of "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, in
           all things, charity."

     3)   I hope our Bishops feel free of the intimidation of threats
           and charges to speak and do what is in their hearts and
           minds according to the Grace of God. Reason and
           Experience coming together in an act of God's Grace for
           others. In other words, I hope they are able live out in
           leadership what they asked of all of us at General Conference:
           "to join… in that commitment to Holy Conferencing and to
           steps toward unity which help us to recognize the divisions
           we are in." Remembering that forced conformity has and never
           will equate or work out to the kind of unity God calls us
           toward.

The letter calling for censure of retired Bishop Melvin Talbert and the Bishops who stood with him, is nothing short of an attempt to keep our Bishop's hands and tongues tied. It's trying to force the Council of Bishops to take sides, rather than allowing them to speak their hearts and minds. As issues of Biblical interpretation; the validity of God's Grace being available to all; and, the roles and monitoring of how the church and society marginalize others based on sexual orientation, race, gender and gender expression continue to divide us… I want to have a group of Bishops that are free to lead, not bound by fear and intimidation. So I hope you will join me in keeping our United Methodist Bishops in prayer and committing to work to create a space in our church where the Spirit can truly be free to do its work of guidance and creativity. I'm praying in hopes that the sanctifying and perfecting Love and Grace of God may take hold of our Bishops and thereby our beloved community, the United Methodist connection, and take us all to new places of hope and faithfulness!

              Rev. Steve Clunn, Love Your Neighbor Coalition Coordinator

9 Responses to “Why Are Ultra Conservative United Methodists Going After Bishop Talbert?”

  1. TJ Says:

    While the three rules are enshrined in the BOD, this idea isn't: "our connectional practice of "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity."

  2. Merry Watters Says:

    Steve – you stand tall in your measured, articulate response to the General Conference's failure to respond in generosity of spirit to the portion of the church yearning to draw the circle wider, especially in regards to our GLBT sisters and brothers.
    Thanks for modeling contemporary prophecy for all of us.

  3. Steven Smith Says:

    I hope the Council of Bishops will remember that the UMC owes its existence to the willingess of Wesley and Coke to "undercut the very discipline and order" of the Church of England.

  4. Patricia Hine Says:

    Work that you are doing on behalf of us lifelong gay UMC'ers is appreciated. The time has long since come and gone when we should be spending time on this issue. There is MUCH more to be done on our world to heal God's people/planet. If the church (any church) wants to be relevant, it cannot exclude the voices and lives of anybody. It is shameful what the UMC-right groups are doing. Hang in there, MSFA! This is the first bit of edgy action within the UMC that has interested/pleased me in a long time. Unfortunately, my partner no longer wants any part of church because of this mess, and now we're working in our community Occupy-Interfaith-group, with only limited local church connection. I wonder how many other LGBTQ's are feeling this way too? Thanks again!

  5. Pastor Joe Grasser Says:

    The BOD seems to take presedence over the Bible for those conservatives. Can we no longer express our opinions and beliefs even if they are different, so very sad.

  6. Lois Wagner Says:

    This is a well-written, thoughtful article. I very much appreciate the attempt to discern the reasons-behind-the-stated-reasons for the call for censure. I hope and pray that the council of bishops is equally as thoughtful in their response to the letter.

  7. Cynthia Astle Says:

    MFSA Friends, I plan to reprint this on United Methodist Insight. Let me know if there's any reason why I shouldn't. Thanks so much.
    Cynthia Astle

  8. Tom Lambrecht Says:

    Steve, thanks for your article.
    As a signer of the letter, I simply want to say that our intent is not to silence discussion on this issue.  Rather, we want to ensure that discussion (or holy conferencing) takes place within the agreed-upon parameters of our clergy and lay covenant within the Book of Discipline.  There is a difference between expressing disagreement with the position of the church (which we would in general support) and calling for disobedience to the policies of the church (which we have of course said is out of bounds).
    Given the entrenched nature of our respective opinions on the issue of how the church is to minister to GLBT persons, I am not optimistic that we will be able to resolve our differences.  However, I am willing to keep talking.  But we must recognize that Bishop Talbert's call for disobedience to the order and discipline of the church is schismatic, fostering deeper division between us.  Such an approach is highly ironic and unacceptable coming from a bishop, who is charged to be an agent of unifying the church, rather than dividing it.  It is also much more unacceptable coming from a bishop, who is charged with upholding the Book of Discipline, to find him essentially renouncing its authority.
    There is room for disagreement within The United Methodist Church.  But active movements for disobedience tear at the fabric of unity in our church and render the covenant we have agreed to uphold meaningless.  We are fast approaching a time when "everyone does what is right in his/her own eyes" and the church splinters into a thousand pieces.  In my view, that would be a tragedy.

  9. Levi Says:

    If they UMC were to agree to LGBT clergy and marriage, then it would have to leave the Bible as the divine inspired word of God.  1 John 1, the Word became flesh.  You quote Luke, but Ignore Romans, 1 Corinthians, Leviticus, James, etc.  If the UMC leaves the Bible as the inspired word of God then how can it still be a Christian denomination?

National Office: WE'VE MOVED! Reach us at our new home:
23 East Adams Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226 * tel: 313.965.5422 ext. 121 *email: mfsa@mfsaweb.org