WJC Says General Church Stand on Full Inclusion Is Wrong

7/26/2012


Bishop Melvin Talbert has been asked to oversee a grassroots movement within the Western Jurisdiction that challenges bishops, clergy, laity, and local churches and ministry settings to operate as if the statement printed in the denomination's law book – Para. 161F – "does not exist." UMNS photos courtesy of the Pacific Northwest Conference Communications Team.

A UMNS Report
By Kathy L. Gilbert*

11:00 A.M. ET July 26, 2012 | SAN DIEGO (UMNS)
 
The Western Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church has issued a "Statement of Gospel Obedience" that emphasizes that Christ's grace and love is available to all, and that The United Methodist Church is in error on the subject of "homosexuality's incompatibility with Christian teaching."
 
Delegates to the jurisdictional meeting July 18-21 voted to extend "extravagant hospitality" to all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or persons whose gender expression is ambiguous.
 
Retired Bishop Melvin Talbert was asked to oversee a Western Jurisdiction grassroots movement that challenges bishops, clergy, laity, and local churches and ministry settings to operate as if the statement printed in the denomination's law book – Paragraph 161F –"does not exist."
 
Talbert said he has stated many times, publicly, that if asked to perform a same-sex marriage he will do so. He also said the active bishops of the Western Jurisdiction "will be bishops of the church" and uphold church law.
 
Bishop Minerva Carcaño, president of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops (at right), said during her address to the jurisdiction that the bishops "are of one mind."
 
"We believe that our beloved United Methodist Church has been less than faithful to the biblical mandate to accept all God's children including our LGBTQ(IA) brothers and sisters. We assume responsibility for preaching and teaching in every place we serve, this good news of Christ Jesus who welcomes all," she said.
 
Efforts to reach officers of the Council of Bishops for comments on the Western Jurisdiction action were unsuccessful.
 
The five jurisdictions in the United States met in their regions July 18-21. Jurisdictions meet once every four years to elect bishops and conduct business.
 
During the worldwide 2012 General Conference April 24-May 4, the church voted to retain current language in its law book that declares, "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." Other sections of the law book state "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" may not be ordained as clergy, that United Methodist clergy may not perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and that same-sex wedding ceremonies may not be in United Methodist churches.
 
"We pledge to you that we will continue to work for that day when we, The United Methodist Church, can truly live up to our logo of open hearts, open minds, open doors," Carcaño said.
 
The Western Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church encompasses the eight westernmost regional conferences of the United States, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Guam, and other territory in the Pacific.
 
In other action, the Western Jurisdiction apologized for the actions of the 2012 General Conference and said it plans to write letters to the editors in the major newspapers of each Annual Conference (regional body) in the jurisdiction, informing them of the apology.
 
The jurisdiction also suggested the penalty of a suspension for 24 consecutive hours from the exercise of episcopal office, for any bishop charged, tried, and convicted of ordaining or appointing a "self-avowed practicing homosexual." The jurisdiction can only suggest a penalty; the trial court sets the penalty.
 
The action means the jurisdiction "can no longer passively live with the hypocritical oxymoron of a denomination that declares that 'God loves all' while it excludes some people from acceptance and leadership based on sexual orientation," said Greg Nelson, director of communications of the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference.
 
The action is an effort "to change the conversation" and move forward, he said.
 
"The Western Jurisdiction embraces the denominational brand promise of 'Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Doors' and is working to make it a reality."
 
*Gilbert is a multimedia reporter for the young adult content team at United Methodist Communications, Nashville, Tennessee.
Also read:

Comments

1. Jane Day wrote on 7/27/2012 8:35:19 PM
Thank you Bishops, for taking this stand for love and justice. Both our (now middle aged) children are gay. They grew up in UMC's but left the church as teenagers, and who could blame them.
2. Ann Adams wrote on 7/27/2012 9:23:44 PM
I'm grateful to the Western Jurisdiction (mine) for their courage.
3. Lynda Dougherty-Kelly wrote on 7/27/2012 10:34:08 PM
It is refreshing to hear our leadership is truly following Jesus
4. Cynthia Schiffhauer wrote on 7/28/2012 2:26:37 AM
The reality must be faced. If the United Methodist Church follows the recommendation of the Western Jurisdiction, regardless of however well-intentioned that may be, it will instigate a schism within the entire organization. The church will no longer be able to claim "United" in it's name. We must be prepared to accept that very serious responsibility. Why not try something truly revolutionary? Through seeking our Lord's face by prayer and trusting in his grace to lead us to a wiser solution.
5. Gail Claus wrote on 7/28/2012 8:45:08 AM
Why do we discriminate against people due to their lifestyle? The Discipline makes us hypocrites in Jesus' command of love. Let's finally extend love to all. Perhaps we will see fulfillment of the Gospel truth and find that our Church can better represent society and extend our mission to all rather than being selective. Bravo to the leaders tackling this issue.
6. Carol Carter wrote on 7/28/2012 12:29:08 PM
How encouragingit is to hear that our spirutual leaders are willing to name the inconsistency in our Book of Discipline of the UMC and take action based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank you!
7. Andrew Bear wrote on 7/28/2012 12:30:13 PM
When forced to choose befween following the way of Jesus Christ or following the institutional church's purity code, which discriminates against some...I am proud and inspired that our delegates chose to follow the way of Jesus. Jesus is giving us a nod and a smile right now, and encouraging us to be the seed planted in good earth.
8. Harriet Hall wrote on 7/28/2012 1:01:05 PM
Thank you thank you, God does bless us and indeed show us his everlasting way. The delegates chose to follow His way. Thanks to God.
9. Max Cannon wrote on 7/28/2012 5:12:37 PM
Perhaps my inability to understand the issue is due to my intellectual deficiencies but when an individual, or individuals, decide that the standards espoused by an organization are in conflict with their's then the obvious decision would seem to be disassociation. It would then follow that the most logical action would be to attempt to find an entity with similar leanings; not to coerce that organization into restructuring its standards to accommodate your life style choice. Unless, of course, the goal was capitulation, not accommodation.
10. BILLY CAMOTA wrote on 7/28/2012 6:09:36 PM
Ordaining a homosexual to become a clergy is like ordaining an adulterer. Both are against the Bible. The law came from Moses while Grace and Truth came from Jesus. Grace and truth balance us out. Why insist on one's "right" based on human understanding? Why not understand that God created us for His pleasure?
11. Joe Hoffmann wrote on 7/29/2012 7:40:40 PM
Those who would suggest that anyone disagreeing with the statement that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" should disassociate and find another church, remind me of the old cliche, "Love it or leave it." We don't hear that so often anymore, because we as a nation now realize that the First Amendment is not just a freedom, it's a necessity for a democracy. The ones we should be identifying as incompatible with Christian teaching are pedophiles, spousal abusers, and bullies. Unlike the mild-mannered homosexuals, those people frighten and intimidate and deserve to be ostracized.
12. Scott Allred wrote on 7/30/2012 2:07:28 PM
I find this article inflammatory due to its intentional misquote of the actual wording in the BOD. It does not say "Homosexuality is incompatible with..." but actually "The practice of...." For some the two might be identical, but not for all. If the BOD was written as this article represents I could not be a part of the UMC. I will not argue that there exists within the UMC people who hold that specific position, but the BOD does not, nor do the Scriptures. The issue for the BOD is not orientation; Scripturally it never has been. Therefore, to state that this is what the BOD declares is wrong and misleading.
13. Cate Monaghan wrote on 7/30/2012 8:17:35 PM
You make an excellent point about the wording, Scott. I do not believe that the misquote was intentional (holding to the view that my fellow journalist is suitably impartial in her writing), however, the distinction is an important one; you are absolutely correct in that. Thank you for calling it to everyone's attention.
14. Joe Hoffmann wrote on 7/31/2012 12:50:45 AM
I would like to make my comment (#11) acceptable to legalists that I refer to homosexuality as the "practice of homosexuality," but I have a problem with Jesus' comments in Matt. 5:21, 22, 27,28. Is it incompatible with Christianity to be angry with my brother or insult him, to call someone, "You fool!" or to look at a woman with lust? Or, is it only incompatible with Christianity if I actually do the thing that I feel in my heart? If a person keeps his homosexual orientation totally secret and pretends to be heterosexual, is that compatible with Christianity? I think it was a good thing that the U.S. military gave up "Don't ask, don't tell," and it no longer discriminates against homosexuals for military service. It was a long time coming, and it took a lot of public deliberation. There's hope for the UMC.
15. BILLY CAMOTA wrote on 7/31/2012 4:02:49 AM
I think the real issue is being tossed around. The real question is: Is homosexuality a Biblically acceptable lifestyle? The Bible says NO! Here are 3 pointed answers to this question: {1} Homosexuality is contrary to God's plan for Pro-Creation {Gen 1:26} God created male and female to among other things come together sexually to manifest pro-creation. "Be fruitful and increase in number, and fill the earth and subdue it. {2} Homosexuality is contrary to God's order with regard to marriage and life partnership {Gen 2:18}. God said that it is not good for man to be alone and so He made a helper, a woman suitable for him. They are united in one flesh, one heart and even united in flesh sexually. {3} Homosexuality is contrary to God's will with regard to sexual expression {Lev 18} God said that it is detestable for man to lie with another man. God loves the homosexuals but detest their act! In Rom 1:26 God says that women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones is given a shameful lust. The next verse God says that men abandoning natural relations with women are inflamed with lust for one another. Prov 14:12 says that there is a way that seems right to a man but the ends of it is death. Men love darkness and so they suppress the truth. But to be crystal clear, the parts of a woman for woman and man for man do not fit! They can't produce and yet they deny it! It is not God's design! In I Cor 6:18 it says to flee from sexual immorality. This includes adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, etc, etc. Wrong is always wrong. So if you are a true Christian, God's Rule Book, the Bible says simply, "quit it". Remember that true Christians are not citizens here on earth. We are just passing through. So why not just do the work of God to please Him instead of pleasing yourself.
16. Glen Raley wrote on 7/31/2012 2:38:25 PM
Going on 15 years ago, collegues in the Cal-Nevada Conference took a stand against the "Holy Union" of lesbian partners conducted in Sacramento, and decided to withhold their apportionments. They were dealt with harshly. Many left the denomination. Withholding apportionments went against the BOD, so it was a no no. Now, General Conference upholds the denominational stand that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching (thanks for the clarification, Scott), and our Western Jurisdiction doesn't like it, so they are pledging to be disobedient. Is it just me, or is there a double standard being played out here - it's only bad to disobey the BOD if and when it isn't to my advantage?
17. Cynthia Schiffhauer wrote on 8/1/2012 10:40:11 PM
I am a bit confused. Perhaps someone can explain the ramifications of this action by the representatives of the Western Jurisdiction. Exactly how does this effect the common UMC member in the Western Jurisdiction? If we disagree with our representatives decision to disobey the BOD, what recourse do we have? Must we leave the church? I truly love my church, yet I do not agree with this act of disobedience.
18. Susan Coho wrote on 8/6/2012 2:00:05 AM
I suppose one recourse would be to direct your tithes to be used only and exclusively for your local church and be used to pay apportionment fees. The Western Jurisdiction also passed a petition that stated some apportionment funds would be used to promote this new doctrine.
19. Nancy Messinger wrote on 8/7/2012 2:07:03 PM
I find almost incomprehensible the position of Bishop Talbert and the powers to be in the Western Jurisdiction. As a Christian, a lifelong member of the United Methodist Church, and a native Californian as well, I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I am no longer going to stand on the sidelines and say nothing.
20. Carol Carter wrote on 8/7/2012 3:10:15 PM
I suggest we all read the book The Righteous Mind, Why Good People Disagree About Politics and Religion. Perhaps we can learn love's fine line and more patience.
21. Joe Hoffmann wrote on 8/7/2012 5:39:04 PM
It is by no accident that for the past 2 weeks our spiritual growth group has been studying Peter's awakening to the Gentiles (Acts 9:43 to 11:18). That issue must have been much more difficult to resolve than the one we face today. After God passed severe judgement on the Gentiles throughout the entire OT period, the struggling, persecuted, early church waded through the arguments on both sides, listened to Peter's final argument, and made this far, very far, reaching conclusion: When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.'' I believe the key to Peter's success was his report of the vision of the unclean animals and God's voice saying, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." There were many other signs to Peter along the way, but when that stubborn old saint saw what God wanted, he did not back down. Are you glad about the stand Peter took on the issue of salvation for Gentiles? I am.
22. Max Cannon wrote on 8/7/2012 7:27:53 PM
Joe's last posting rekindled a conundrum I have when I read of the nuanced status ascribed to pedophilia; particularly that practiced by NAMBA (North American Man Boy Association) and the situation with the Catholic priests. I believe they were, and are, acts of homosexuality whether the participation was consensual or coerced. Therefore, I believe that the very concept of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
23. Rosemary Landry wrote on 8/22/2012 3:19:46 PM
Isn't divorce incompatible with Jesus teaching? (Mark 10:1-12?) Wasn't slavery accepted in the New Testament? And yet we let divorced answer their call to God (myself included) as well as accept them completely without discriminating against them. I don't understand why we, as representatives of the church, pick and choose what we decide "is compatible with scripture"...and we wonder why our churches are losing people.