I recently got a link for the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church for their report on the recent meeting of the Council of Bishops. This is the meeting that called for charges be brought against Bishop Talbert for conducting a same-sex ceremony in Alabama. This post has some more details.
Before the ceremony Talbert informed the Council President and the bishop of Northern Alabama (where the ceremony was to be held) of what he intended to do. Both of them requested he not do the ceremony. He did it anyway. That's why the Council of Bishops want him charged with "undermining the ministry of a colleague." The other recommended charge is the more obvious "conducting a ceremony to celebrate the marriage of a same-gender couple."
It appears the full Council voted to approve this recommendation to bring charges. The vote tally isn't recorded. However, it is the "offended" bishop and/or the Council President who must actually bring charges, which are taken to the much more liberal Western Jurisdiction where the decision of what to do with Talbert is made.
The full resolution the Council voted on is more than a statement that they didn't like what Talbert did. While they say Talbert is in clear violation of the Book of Discipline and therefore charges should be brought, they also say the denomination as a whole and (more importantly) the Council of Bishops are "not of one mind" on the issues around homosexuality. The resolution includes a recommendation "for a task force to lead honest and respectful conversations regarding human sexuality, race and gender." Yeah, we get to be "studied." Again.
The Council also discussed the letter that requested the bishops stop holding trials. There were two responses from observers at the meeting. One was from Good News the conservative counterpart to Reconciling Ministries Network (the folks working for gay inclusion and other progressive issues). Good News is against a moratorium on trials. They essentially said if we don't have obedience to the Book of Discipline there will be chaos and anarchy. So, yeah, obedience trumps love. A very Power way of looking at it.
The other response was from Amy DeLong, a pastor who was put on trial in 2011 for conducting a same-sex ceremony and for being a lesbian in relationship. She is also against the moratorium. All it does, she says, is push the issue under the rug. We will be a divided church until we deal with the exclusionary language.
I disagree with DeLong because we can't officially change the policy until 2016 with no guarantee that it will happen then. If we continue the trials we'll get a public relations black eye, we'll lose a lot of good pastors, and we'll lose a lot of members.
Three other clergy are facing charges that might go to trial.
* Rev. Thomas Ogletree officiated at the wedding of his gay son.
* Rev. Sara Thompson Tweedy is accused of being a lesbian in relationship.
* Rev. Stephen Heiss officiated at several same-sex weddings, including that of his daughter.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
An apology
I wrote about a panel discussion I attended yesterday in which there were only five of us in attendance. When I wrote that yesterday evening I was rather dismissive of people letting a little storm keep them home. The news this morning was full of stories about how that storm was not at all little, spawning perhaps over 60 tornadoes and causing 8 deaths. Though there wasn't much damage where I was, either at the church in Ferndale or at home (though there were some huge puddles in the streets on the way home), elsewhere in the Detroit area there were a lot of downed branches and tens (hundreds?) of thousands without power.
I apologize for being dismissive.
I apologize for being dismissive.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Judicial Council Rulings
Three weeks ago I was at the Dedicated Reconciling United Methodists Fall Potluck and Program. The speaker was Bill Ritter who talked about his personal experiences with homosexual issues in the churches he served. As part of his talk he said the October meeting of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church was about to get underway and a few issues concerning gays would be on the docket. Ritter also said the Council of Bishops now has a distaste for conducting church trials for pastors who conduct same-sex marriages or civil unions.
I hadn't heard anything in the news or in any of my usual sources. Then a few days ago my dad sent me a link to a letter, which prompted me to go searching for the judicial rulings. I'll get back to the letter later. On to the rulings of interest with my attempt to decode the legalese:
Decision 1250: The Western Jurisdiction (Colorado and west) declared that when a pastor is brought to trial for conducting a same-sex ceremony the maximum penalty shall be one day. Those who promoted the declaration essentially said: You conducted a same-sex ceremony? Oh, darn, you get a day off.
The Judicial Council ruled that the Book of Discipline says the only people who can determine a penalty as a result of a trial is the jury at that trial.
Decision 1254: The California-Pacific Annual Conference (southern California, southern Nevada, Hawaii) declared they support another Western Jurisdiction declaration that calls on pastors to "operate as if the statement in Para. 161F does not exist."
I had to look this up to see which statement in the Book of Discipline is meant. Paragraph 161F is a long one, but this case could only refer to one big statement: "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." That one is the foundation for all the nasty stuff, the ban on gay clergy who are not celibate, the ban on clergy performing same-sex ceremonies, and the ban on such ceremonies in our churches. So if this one is to treated as if it doesn't exist, all three bans are to be ignored. The bishop for the conference declared it legal.
Those who support the declaration say the statement is in the Social Principles section and because of that does not have the force of law. Blessing a same-sex union should correspond to another Social Principle that says war is bad, yet various church leaders sometimes declare war as justified and suffer no consequences when blessing a soldier before deployment. Alas, there was a ruling a few years ago that says the incompatibility clause is the lone exception that must be seen as church law, not a guiding principle.
The Judicial Council thought it odd that they were not ruling on the Western Jurisdiction's declaration (no one filed a complaint on the jurisdiction), but on the conference's support of the jurisdiction's declaration. Even so, they ruled on the issue before them.
Since the conference didn't "renounce" the statement in the Book of Discipline and didn't take action itself (it only called on churches in the conference to take action) their declaration is legal. The bishop did the right thing.
This decision does have a dissent. They wrote that a bishop's ruling, if not opposed by the Judicial Council, will be seen as law and bishops are not allowed to change church law.
Decision 125: The New York Annual Conference adopted a resolution titled "Commendation of Those Who Have Taken a Stand for Justice." It is commendations of individuals who have provided care for same-sex couples, have performed ceremonies for same-sex couples, and who have faced formal complaints for those actions. The Council was asked to rule on the legality of the resolution.
The Judicial Council says they get a lot of complaints similar to this one. And this ruling is the same as all the others. Such a resolution is a declaration that the signers disagree with current church law and hope to have it changed. That is permissible. It is also quite distinct from actually breaking church law or calling on others to break the law.
The ban on performing same-sex ceremonies will be on public display starting tomorrow. Rev. Frank Schaefer of Iona, Pennsylvania will be put on trial for officiating at his son's wedding in Massachusetts in 2007. Sheesh, how can a dad say no? So, yeah, a father put his career on the line because he loves his son who happens to be gay. This article in the UK Progressive tells Schaefer's story and provides a bit of history. It also summarizes what's wrong with this picture:
At General Conference last year, once the vote to repeal the "incompatibility" clause (see above) went against us, retired Bishop Melvin Talbert declared it to be "wrong and evil… it no longer calls for our obedience." He called for Biblical obedience to the love of God to supersede the Book of Discipline's bans. He has now put actions behind his mouth. At the end of October, he officiated at a same-sex ceremony at the United Church of Christ in Center Point, Alabama. That's right, the ceremony was not in a United Methodist Church but was led by a United Methodist bishop.
The national Council of Bishops met for their fall meeting last week and got all worked up over this. They called for charging Talbert. Alas, the news article didn't say by what means the entire Council came by that call.
The whole matter now goes to the Western Jurisdiction, because that was where Talbert served. The bishops of the jurisdiction are the ones who actually bring the charge. And this could get interesting because it is the Western Jurisdiction that called for ignoring the key phrase in the Book of Discipline (see above).
The various bans related to gay people were very much on the minds of the bishops. There's the trial that starts tomorrow. In support of Shaeffer, 36 Methodist clergy and 9 more from other denominations presided over a same-sex ceremony. And UMC church in Cambridge, Mass. has invited gay couples to hold weddings there to be officiated by their pastor. These incidents are only the ones listed in the news article. There are a lot more that aren't reported because everyone involved is just fine with it.
Now back to that letter my dad sent me. Yesterday I was able to view the link he sent. Alas, today that link is "unavailable." So I searched for another source. This one includes commentary.
The letter was written by Rev. Thomas Frank from Missouri. He was asked to consult in Schaeffer's trial. Frank calls on the bishops to stop the trials. Yeah, our opposition will file complaints against pastors who disobey the Book of Discipline but it is up to the bishop to decide what to do with the complaint. It doesn't have to go to trial. In addition, the Bishops can act on their own (or as a group, I suppose) between sessions of the General Conference (which next meets in 2016) when there is peril to the denomination. And the immediate peril is a split in the denomination.
Frank lays out his reasons to not conduct more trials. They're expensive, divisive, and damage the church's image. Besides, we're a church, not an episode of "Law and Order." We're not discussing criminal acts.
This afternoon I attended "Faith and the LGBTQ community," a panel discussion held at First United Methodist Church of Ferndale. Alas, there were only five of us and not even the whole panel was there. A good deal of the problem was the various news sources had the drumbeat going about nasty storms and the possibility of tornadoes. Yeah, it stormed during the program and we probably extended our talking while waiting for the worst of it to blow over. But there were no alerts to seek shelter. As for the panel, there were last-minute conflicts, such as one of them starting a new job.
So the five of us served as the panel for each other. We told our stories of why we're interested in a discussion about the acceptance of gays in the church. Alas, it was like preaching to the converted. Even so, it was worthwhile and important.
One of the original panelists in attendance was Bob Schoenhals, the pastor of the church and very much on our side. He helps organize the First Sunday inclusive services.
The other original panelist caught my attention. His first name is Harry and I don't remember the rest. He is a Catholic priest, but is independent of the hierarchy headed by the pope. Because of that he conducts services in the chapel of First UMC Ferndale rather than in the big Roman Catholic church next door. He chose the independent route because he is gay, fell in love while in seminary, and is now married. The congregation of about 20 is half gay, half straight and all seeking inclusion other than what the RC hierarchy approves.
Harry said about 80% of his seminary class was gay. I asked him about that. He replied that for many of them becoming a priest was a way for them to be accepted and to hide. Parents stopped asking why there were no girlfriends. Priests were expected to be nurturing instead of macho. Harry added that we might finally see progress on the acceptance of gays in the church now that the current pope doesn't feel he needs to compensate for his orientation the way the previous two did. Yup, he went there.
I hadn't heard anything in the news or in any of my usual sources. Then a few days ago my dad sent me a link to a letter, which prompted me to go searching for the judicial rulings. I'll get back to the letter later. On to the rulings of interest with my attempt to decode the legalese:
Decision 1250: The Western Jurisdiction (Colorado and west) declared that when a pastor is brought to trial for conducting a same-sex ceremony the maximum penalty shall be one day. Those who promoted the declaration essentially said: You conducted a same-sex ceremony? Oh, darn, you get a day off.
The Judicial Council ruled that the Book of Discipline says the only people who can determine a penalty as a result of a trial is the jury at that trial.
Decision 1254: The California-Pacific Annual Conference (southern California, southern Nevada, Hawaii) declared they support another Western Jurisdiction declaration that calls on pastors to "operate as if the statement in Para. 161F does not exist."
I had to look this up to see which statement in the Book of Discipline is meant. Paragraph 161F is a long one, but this case could only refer to one big statement: "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." That one is the foundation for all the nasty stuff, the ban on gay clergy who are not celibate, the ban on clergy performing same-sex ceremonies, and the ban on such ceremonies in our churches. So if this one is to treated as if it doesn't exist, all three bans are to be ignored. The bishop for the conference declared it legal.
Those who support the declaration say the statement is in the Social Principles section and because of that does not have the force of law. Blessing a same-sex union should correspond to another Social Principle that says war is bad, yet various church leaders sometimes declare war as justified and suffer no consequences when blessing a soldier before deployment. Alas, there was a ruling a few years ago that says the incompatibility clause is the lone exception that must be seen as church law, not a guiding principle.
The Judicial Council thought it odd that they were not ruling on the Western Jurisdiction's declaration (no one filed a complaint on the jurisdiction), but on the conference's support of the jurisdiction's declaration. Even so, they ruled on the issue before them.
Since the conference didn't "renounce" the statement in the Book of Discipline and didn't take action itself (it only called on churches in the conference to take action) their declaration is legal. The bishop did the right thing.
This decision does have a dissent. They wrote that a bishop's ruling, if not opposed by the Judicial Council, will be seen as law and bishops are not allowed to change church law.
Decision 125: The New York Annual Conference adopted a resolution titled "Commendation of Those Who Have Taken a Stand for Justice." It is commendations of individuals who have provided care for same-sex couples, have performed ceremonies for same-sex couples, and who have faced formal complaints for those actions. The Council was asked to rule on the legality of the resolution.
The Judicial Council says they get a lot of complaints similar to this one. And this ruling is the same as all the others. Such a resolution is a declaration that the signers disagree with current church law and hope to have it changed. That is permissible. It is also quite distinct from actually breaking church law or calling on others to break the law.
The ban on performing same-sex ceremonies will be on public display starting tomorrow. Rev. Frank Schaefer of Iona, Pennsylvania will be put on trial for officiating at his son's wedding in Massachusetts in 2007. Sheesh, how can a dad say no? So, yeah, a father put his career on the line because he loves his son who happens to be gay. This article in the UK Progressive tells Schaefer's story and provides a bit of history. It also summarizes what's wrong with this picture:
The public trials of Creech and soon Schaefer are disciplinary means of control to evoke fear among our allies and us. While UMC’s ultimate objective is to reinforce ecclesiastical heterosexism, it also keeps the church itself trapped in its sins of both homophobia and inhospitality. This recent public act of religious intolerance by the church not only feeds into the existing climate of queer-bashing in this society, but it also has LGBTQs constantly questioning their self-worth and relationship with the church and with God.That refers to Jimmy Creech who was the subject of a church trial back in 1998 for conducting a same-sex ceremony in Omaha. He was the first. That was beautifully documented in his book Adam's Gift.
At General Conference last year, once the vote to repeal the "incompatibility" clause (see above) went against us, retired Bishop Melvin Talbert declared it to be "wrong and evil… it no longer calls for our obedience." He called for Biblical obedience to the love of God to supersede the Book of Discipline's bans. He has now put actions behind his mouth. At the end of October, he officiated at a same-sex ceremony at the United Church of Christ in Center Point, Alabama. That's right, the ceremony was not in a United Methodist Church but was led by a United Methodist bishop.
The national Council of Bishops met for their fall meeting last week and got all worked up over this. They called for charging Talbert. Alas, the news article didn't say by what means the entire Council came by that call.
The whole matter now goes to the Western Jurisdiction, because that was where Talbert served. The bishops of the jurisdiction are the ones who actually bring the charge. And this could get interesting because it is the Western Jurisdiction that called for ignoring the key phrase in the Book of Discipline (see above).
The various bans related to gay people were very much on the minds of the bishops. There's the trial that starts tomorrow. In support of Shaeffer, 36 Methodist clergy and 9 more from other denominations presided over a same-sex ceremony. And UMC church in Cambridge, Mass. has invited gay couples to hold weddings there to be officiated by their pastor. These incidents are only the ones listed in the news article. There are a lot more that aren't reported because everyone involved is just fine with it.
Now back to that letter my dad sent me. Yesterday I was able to view the link he sent. Alas, today that link is "unavailable." So I searched for another source. This one includes commentary.
The letter was written by Rev. Thomas Frank from Missouri. He was asked to consult in Schaeffer's trial. Frank calls on the bishops to stop the trials. Yeah, our opposition will file complaints against pastors who disobey the Book of Discipline but it is up to the bishop to decide what to do with the complaint. It doesn't have to go to trial. In addition, the Bishops can act on their own (or as a group, I suppose) between sessions of the General Conference (which next meets in 2016) when there is peril to the denomination. And the immediate peril is a split in the denomination.
Frank lays out his reasons to not conduct more trials. They're expensive, divisive, and damage the church's image. Besides, we're a church, not an episode of "Law and Order." We're not discussing criminal acts.
This afternoon I attended "Faith and the LGBTQ community," a panel discussion held at First United Methodist Church of Ferndale. Alas, there were only five of us and not even the whole panel was there. A good deal of the problem was the various news sources had the drumbeat going about nasty storms and the possibility of tornadoes. Yeah, it stormed during the program and we probably extended our talking while waiting for the worst of it to blow over. But there were no alerts to seek shelter. As for the panel, there were last-minute conflicts, such as one of them starting a new job.
So the five of us served as the panel for each other. We told our stories of why we're interested in a discussion about the acceptance of gays in the church. Alas, it was like preaching to the converted. Even so, it was worthwhile and important.
One of the original panelists in attendance was Bob Schoenhals, the pastor of the church and very much on our side. He helps organize the First Sunday inclusive services.
The other original panelist caught my attention. His first name is Harry and I don't remember the rest. He is a Catholic priest, but is independent of the hierarchy headed by the pope. Because of that he conducts services in the chapel of First UMC Ferndale rather than in the big Roman Catholic church next door. He chose the independent route because he is gay, fell in love while in seminary, and is now married. The congregation of about 20 is half gay, half straight and all seeking inclusion other than what the RC hierarchy approves.
Harry said about 80% of his seminary class was gay. I asked him about that. He replied that for many of them becoming a priest was a way for them to be accepted and to hide. Parents stopped asking why there were no girlfriends. Priests were expected to be nurturing instead of macho. Harry added that we might finally see progress on the acceptance of gays in the church now that the current pope doesn't feel he needs to compensate for his orientation the way the previous two did. Yup, he went there.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Correction to upcoming programs
I must make a correction to the times of the World AIDS Day service and dinner which I mentioned in the previous post. I had gotten conflicting information and it took a while to sort out. The service is at 4:00 and the dinner is at 5:00.
A reminder, the dinner is free, but a reservation is required. You can do that by sending an email to Fallintothered@gmail.com or by calling the church at (248) 545-4467. The church is at 22331 Woodward Ave. Ferndale.
A reminder, the dinner is free, but a reservation is required. You can do that by sending an email to Fallintothered@gmail.com or by calling the church at (248) 545-4467. The church is at 22331 Woodward Ave. Ferndale.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Upcoming programs
Note the corrections with the time!
Ferndale First United Methodist Church is hosting two programs of interest. Both are part of their Fall into the Red series.
Faith and the LGBTQ Community will be a panel discussion on where we have been and where we are now. It will be at the church on Sunday, November 17 at 4:00 pm.
World AIDS Day will be observed on Sunday, December 1. The service is at5:00 4:00 with a dinner celebration at 6:00 5:00. The dinner is free but you must RSVP by contacting the church. Note: This program is instead of our usual First Sunday program at Nardin Park UMC.
The church is at 22331 Woodward Ave. Ferndale. The phone is (248) 545-4467.
Ferndale First United Methodist Church is hosting two programs of interest. Both are part of their Fall into the Red series.
Faith and the LGBTQ Community will be a panel discussion on where we have been and where we are now. It will be at the church on Sunday, November 17 at 4:00 pm.
World AIDS Day will be observed on Sunday, December 1. The service is at
The church is at 22331 Woodward Ave. Ferndale. The phone is (248) 545-4467.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)