A Just Resolution Would Bring Justice for the UMC and Bishop Talbert

November 20, 2013

5:26 PM

Photo Courtesy of Reconciling Ministries Network

Talbert at RMN

Bishop Melvin G. Talbert calls for "biblical obedience" during the 2013 convocation of the Reconciling Ministries Network.

A United Methodist Insight Exclusive

Well, the predictable happened: Bishop Talbert conducted a blessing of a same-sex union, and did so in the territory of another bishop who asked him not to do so—in the south, no less. The Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops asked the local bishop and the President of the Council of Bishops to file formal charges against Bishop Talbert.

I understand, even though I don’t like, the action taken by the Council of Bishop’s Executive Committee. Bishops are constantly reminded by the conservative wing of the church that they must “uphold the Discipline.”

However, before anyone gets too excited about all of this, I’d invite all of us to stop, sit down, pray, and hope that before we have a hearing before the Western Jurisdiction Committee on Investigation, or go into a church trial, the affected persons could all sit down together in an effort to work out a Just Resolution.

The Book of Discipline makes a church trial an action of the last resort; Just Resolutions are actions of the first resort. They can be entered into at any place in the process, up to the moment charges are handed to a Trial Court as they go into deliberation. Efforts at a Just Resolution should take place at every possible step.

I’ve been the Defense Counsel in two church trials in my own Annual Conference (California-Pacific); trials which mercifully were 26 years apart. I’ve been through the whole judicial process we have. From that experience, I can tell you the following:

Trials are ugly, messy, emotional events in which we know, from the moment a trial is convened, that there will be no winners. Rather, everyone involved will be a loser in the process. It has nothing to do with the outcome. Rather, it has to do with what happens when we become litigious instead of relational; when we try to make the other side “look bad” instead of realizing the need of all of us for forgiveness; where in an effort to point out a respondent’s sinfulness, we can only become aware of our own sinfulness.
Two clergy are asked to play lawyer, often backed up by real lawyers who have trial experience, but are not allowed to speak. Those attorneys can’t help but wanting to interject themselves into the process, in the light of the inexperience of the Counsel for the Church and Counsel for the Defense.
In a “high profile” case like this, there will be a lot of attention paid to the event by the secular press. Those reporters are looking for controversy and scandal: It is such that sells newspapers and gets TV coverage that allows television stations to show a higher viewership and therefore be able to charge higher rates for advertising on their channel(s). They know nothing of our polity, nor even care. They go for sound bites and visual controversy, and likely know even less about the Biblical Ideal of “Justice.” (Lest we forget, the Biblical ideal of Justice, is perhaps best explicated at Micah 6:6-8: Biblical Justice is not about tearing relationships apart, but about bringing both accuser and accused together and identifying the least possible action needed to make the Accuser AND the accused whole. It is about bringing both the accused and the accuser back into full relationship with the community of faith.)
When it is all over, a trial that ostensibly MAY be about behavior but in reality is about a faith vision, ultimately will solve nothing. Given where we have been in our judicial practice over issues of homosexuality, it has pretty well been established that the “going rate” of penalty for conducting a service of blessing of a same-sex union (marriage or not) is one year where the defendant is suspended from the exercise of his/her orders. Bishop Talbert is retired—he could easily refrain from exercising his orders for a year while writing and still causing lots of controversy.
Finally, church trials end up costing the church anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000 or more. Haven’t we better uses to which those funds might be put to make Disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?

Somehow, both irrationally and constantly for the last 40 years, the issue of homosexuality has been argued out at every level of the church. The conservative wing of the church seems to have made the issue one of its litmus tests to measure the level of “true Christianity.” The liberal wing of the church has seen this as a matter of human rights and whether the church is truly open to welcome ALL people as full participants into the worshipping community. Nothing has changed; nor it likely to be changed in the foreseeable future.

What would happen if instead we decided to try for a “Just Resolution” that would uphold the Discipline, avoid a trial, and allow for true Biblical justice to occur? I don’t know about you, but I’d sure like to see us try and see what happens when we are talking TO each other, instead of against each other.

The Rev. Thomas E. Griffith is a retired elder in the California-Pacific Annual Conference, and is a member of Associates in Advocacy, a volunteer group that serves as counsel for clergy facing church trials.

Tom Griffith

Elder in Full Connection (Ret.)

California-Pacific Annual Conference

Comments (6)

Comment Feed

Cost Of Trial

Why should Methodists incur financial costs for what Bishop Talbert did? We throw up our hands over dollars wasted and yet point at all the wrong culprits. Bishop Talbert performed the ceremony in spite of repeated warnings and even though he knew exactly what the consequences would be. The burden for the cost of the trial should fall exactly where it belongs: on him.

Talbot Davis more than 10 years ago

What is just resolution?

Thank you, Thomas, for pointing out the downside of trials. I totally agree. What would be a "just resolution" that would uphold the Discipline in this case? Advocacy is perfectly permissible. What has occasioned the complaints is an action that contravenes the order and discipline (freely chosen) of our church. When Bishop Talbert says he will violate the Discipline again, if asked, how can there be a just resolution that upholds the Discipline?

Tom Lambrecht more than 10 years ago

In Therapy, We Call Such Rhetoric "Crazymaking"

When discussing these events with non-Methodists most find it to be entirely hilarious that our "Bible" to which our authoritarians point is unironically called the "Discipline." It recalls an abusive relationship in which the abuser whispers sweet nothing at times while at other times he makes favorite clothes or beloved pets disappear. This is a great example of the convoluted logic of advocacy of authority for authority's sake - "Whip 'em until they bleed, and then fine 'em for bleeding."

George Nixon Shuler more than 10 years ago

Not "Crazymaking"

With all due respect, those advocating for the church's position are not advocating "authority for authority's sake." Instead, they seek to maintain accountability to the agreed upon covenant that we all share. Not all authority is bad--only authority that is abused. The emotional tenor of the trials I have been a part of is definitely NOT with a thirst for "punishment." It is sorrow for the brokenness of the covenant, along with resolve to attempt accountability. Our Discipline is a freely chosen way of being in discipleship to Jesus Christ TOGETHER. When someone unilaterally abandons their commitment to be in that way of discipleship, but refuses to withdraw, the only option left is some means of holding the person accountable. There can be no discipleship without accountability.

Tom Lambrecht more than 10 years ago

The Issue, Strangely Enough, Is Not About Accountability

Tom, sadly in this case, the issue is not about accountability. It is about a divided church that cannot agree on what accountability is, in such instances. Worse yet, we cannot even agree that we are divided about the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriages, even though this is always the great big invisible elephant in the room. Until we can find a middle ground, issues like this will continue to come up in a judicial form, because the General Conference left us no other outlet for such conflicts.

Tom Griffith more than 10 years ago

Accountability?

No, the problem is the ugly language, being inserted into the Discipline piecemeal since 1972. And there is no "middle ground" so long as those words remain.
I can envision a local option, where one Methodist congregation may prefer to be restrictive and not allow marriage or other privileges to gay folks and other may take the opposite view and maintain an open church. But that CANNOT happen so long as those words remain. If you take them out, and permit local option then we can stop fighting, stop spending scarce resources on trials which are a travesty of the secular criminal justice system, and get on with seeking and welcoming new Christians wherever they are. However, in what is really power grab, some parts of the church establishment want more and more restriction, narrowing the definition of Methodist to the point of destroying the Social Principles in the name of control. NOT the church I was raised in, nor one to which the coming generations want to belong.

Anne Ewing more than 10 years ago