by Chris Ritter
“to provide for the discontinuance of a bishop because of…. unacceptability.” -Powers of General Conference, ¶16, Article IV, The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012)
Three United Methodist bishops now formally agree that there should be no consequences for a bishop who blatantly commits chargeable offenses listed in our Book of Discipline. This was the news coming from a December 30 press release announcing a “just resolution” in the complaint against Bishop Melvin Talbert for officiating at a same-sex wedding ceremony in Alabama against the wishes of the resident bishop, Debra Wallace-Padgett. Bishop Wallace-Padgett and the then President of the Council of Bishops, Bishop Rosemary Wenner, filed the complaint against Talbert several months ago.
There just don’t seem to be quotation marks large enough to hang around the words “just resolution”. The timing of the press release reminds one of the calculated date chosen by U.S. Presidents to announce unpopular presidential pardons. Maybe controversial news will become clouded in a haze of tinsel and New Year’s revelry? A few of us noticed, however, and there are some facts hard to ignore:
- Bishops vow before God to uphold and enforce the teachings of our church.
- Those who are entrusted with power are to be held to a higher standard.
- Our Discipline is painstakingly clear that “performing same sex wedding ceremonies”, “disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church”, and “behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor” are all offenses that invite formal charges against a clergy.
- Bishop Talbert understood his actions to be a stance of open defiance.
The shame is on Bishops Wenner and Wallace-Padgett for consenting to this agreement, which exercises the hubris of lecturing the Council of Bishops and the Church about what it ought to be doing better. The only regret indicated by Bishop Talbert is a mumbled “I’m sorry you feel that way”, but we knew that before the handling of the complaint ever began.
What is a “just resolution”? Whenever there is a complaint in the UMC, the preferred outcome is that all parties get together, talk it out, and decide on a fair outcome. Conversation is always the first step in any complaint. At the early stages, no notes are kept and all conversations are private. A just resolution process can happen at any point in our process, including during a clergy trial.
The rub in the Talbert case is that a mechanism invented to help the church work through difficulties in a quiet and confidential manner has been used as a cloak to shield a very public figure that chose to defy the church in a very public way. If the “just resolution” had not been reached, the matter would have been referred as a Judicial Complaint and handled under the provisions of ¶2704.1, which includes the appointment of a Counsel for the Church, a prosecutor who organizes and substantiates the charges against the bishop so that a Committee on Investigation can consider whether the evidence is weighty enough for the matter to go to trial.
Because Bishops Wenner and Wallace-Padgett consented to do nothing in the case but issue a vacuous joint statement with Talbert, the actual charges against the bishop were never formally investigated. If you want to protect a fellow bishop, it is important jump to an early resolution because the prosecutorial discretion allowed in cases against clergy are not included in the judicial processes for bishops. If the point of appointing someone to represent the interests of the church is reached, a Committee on Investigation “shall” be assembled (¶2704). The question then becomes whether someone broke our rules which, obviously, he did.
The net result is that three bishops killed an accountability process before it ever got started by stating that they had reached peace with each other. They ignore the fact that how they feel about each other is totally irrelevant to the fact that the laws of our church have been egregiously broken. The victim in this case is the church and the church was not allowed representation. Bishop Talbert should have been made to withstand the scrutiny of someone tasked with representing the standards of the UMC.
A just resolution is one way, the preferred way, for a complaint to be resolved in the UMC. The three bishops involved would undoubtedly claim to any future complainants about this matter that the case is closed. After all, our Book of Discipline includes protections against Double Jeopardy, prosecuting a person more than once for the same offense. Because the resolution reached had to do with how three bishops feel about each other, however, and not about church law, I would argue that the matter is still open. Charges were never filed or answered. Prosecution is yet to happen.
I would like an official ruling by Bishop Wenner about whether the matters of church law were addressed in the process with Bishop Talbert and whether future complaints are admissible. All official rulings by bishops are subject to review by our Judicial Council. If no prosecution has happened in the Talbert case, this is something that the Council of Bishops still owes to the church if that group has integrity in upholding our Discipline.
I would also remind those who are electing delegates to General Conference this year that one of the constitutional duties of GC is to provide for the discontinuance of an “unacceptable” bishop. What Bishops Wenner and Wallace-Padgett were unwilling to do will now be left to the delegates of General Conference 2016.
Since 1844 General Conference has never seen a better example of an unacceptable bishop. The handling of the Talbert case is likewise unacceptable and must be reviewed. Only when the voice of the church is heard and our bishops are held to account can we claim integrity for the sake of the Gospel.
People Need Jesus 
http://esv.to/2cor6.14-17 seems appropriate here.
So have you filed a point of law for Bishop Wenner to rule on or are you just suggesting it?
I am considering it. What do you think?
The worst that will probably is that it will be ignored. I think you should go for it. You look like you have a good handle on the issue and process.
I am also the benefactor of a ‘just resolution’ following the Disciplinary Supervisory Response process after I officiated at the same gender wedding of my daughter this summer. I believe the Discipline was followed to the letter in both Bishop Talbert’s case and my own case. The other option in both cases was a long, costly, and newsworthy trial that would only highlight our differences and the official policy of ‘closed’ doors to LGBT people. Let’s deal with this issue outside of the trial system. You seem to be doing this by putting forward solutions like the Jurisdictional Solution.
I appreciate your comments, Mike, and agree with you that we need to move forthrightly toward a comprehensive solution. I do believe the BOD was followed. I disagree that such a public and willful act of defiance on the part of one of bishops should be met with a response that preempted a serious exploration of the charges by counsel for the church and a committee on investigation.
We are in agreement that the church and should do better. Thanks for taking the time to respond. It is interesting to hear your perspective.
Excellent commentary Chris! “Just Resolutions” like this will come back to haunt the church. How will we handle the next clergy person, on perhaps a different matter (e.g. non-payment of apportionments), who wants to use the Talbert defense: “I was just following my conscience and I think I am right despite what the church says”? Can we expect bishops to be as lenient when a pastor says, “I encouraged my people not to pay apportionments. I’m sorry if my doing so made people feel bad, but I must follow my conscience”?
These “just resolutions” are one of the very reasons that my wife and I have now left the United Methodists after over 30 years. It has become painfully obvious that the General; Conference has no intention of forcing Bishops and others in power to actually adhere to the BOD, instead giving them a free pass to further their own personal agenda.
Our particular congregation has been dwindling for several years now and recently the decline has increased. From an average attendance of around 120 people on a given Sunday, we have seen that attendance drop to around 80-85 since our current pastor, a very liberal person, was appointed. What’s worse is that the remaining congregants have decreased their giving to the point where we ran a deficit of around $50,000 in 2014. Should that level of giving remain steady, the church will have no cash reserves on hand in about two years. It will not be long after that when this local congregation is financially insolvent. Not long after that, it will cease to exist!!
Methodist will reach for the discipline over the Bible every time. I know. I grew up around it. The traditions of men has rendered the Word of God to no effect. Mark 7:13 Read Romans 1:18-32 to find out what God thinks about homosexuality. There’s really no discussion. If you’re a Christian, it’s wrong.
Oh, come on, Chris! Do you really mean “Since 1844 General Conference has never seen a better example of an unacceptable bishop”?!
Let me say that I enjoy most of your writings and also appreciate your efforts to find a comprehensive solution. But…
Surely you understand the split of 1844 was precipitated by a bishop insisting he could own other people. And, in ironic echo, also precipitated by what fine points of BoD “law” could be used to oppose or support that sin. We then had two decades of many bishops owning others and defending the “institution” of slavery (with other bishops opposing). And many decades more of bishops supporting Jim Crow and segregation both civilly and denominationally (with other bishops opposing).
Those of us supporting Bishop Talbert’s call to Biblical Obedience now may or may not be proven right in the end (and in eternity), and certainly there are grounds to criticize us. So criticize Bishop Talbert if you must, point out better actions he should take if you think you can, but surely there is a long list of bishops once 1844 who are “better example of unacceptable.”
Now in our current era, bishops disagree over the issues related to homosexuality / homophobia / heterosexism. And we again are tripping up over the BoD “laws” to support or how to change the status quo. Again we too often see the trees of law/regulation instead of the forest of God’s law and justice.
I appreciate the high value nearly all of us UMCers place on order within the denomination. And it pains us to reach a potential impasse when some feel compelled to disobey and others feel compelled to argue against their cause and/or methods. I pray for bishops and all leaders to seek a way forward. It is possible we may need extraordinary leadership from bishops to help where GC has previously struggled.
I urge you read this post and reflect on the times and bishops mentioned from the 1960s: http://umcconnections.org/2012/09/17/an-open-letter-to-the-united-methodist-council-of-bishops/