Methodist bishops asked to charge one of their own for performing gay wedding

The United Methodist Church’s division over homosexuality grew heated Friday (Nov. 15), as the denomination’s Council of Bishops called for charging retired Bishop Melvin Talbert with presiding at the Oct. 26 wedding of two men, which the church forbids.

The council asked its president, Bishop Rosemarie Wenner, and Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett of the North Alabama Conference, to file a complaint accusing Talbert of undermining the ministry of a colleague and conducting a ceremony to celebrate the wedding of a same-gender couple at Covenant Community United Church of Christ in Center Point, Ala.

Talbert, who served as bishop of the San Francisco area, ignored a request not to perform the ceremony. He has said in the past that the church’s position on homosexuality "is wrong and evil . . . it no longer calls for our obedience."

The council’s statement, made after a weeklong series of meetings in North Carolina, comes as the church’s disagreement over ministry to gays and lesbians grows divisive and vocal.

Next week, the Rev. Frank Schaefer of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference faces a church trial in Spring City, Pa., for performing a same-sex wedding for his son in 2007.

To show support for Schaefer, 36 Methodist clergy and nine clergy from other faith traditions presided at a Nov. 9 same-sex ceremony in Philadelphia.

Three other Methodist clergy in New York face formal complaints for violating the denomination’s policies on homosexuality.

Harvard-Epworth United Methodist Church in Cambridge, Mass., announced in October that its church building is available for same-sex weddings, and the congregation said it would support its pastor if he performs services there. Church law forbids same-sex marriages in United Methodist churches.

It’s unclear if Talbert, who is the only United Methodist bishop known to have publicly presided at a same-sex wedding, will actually be charged. The Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops would receive the complaint and have authority for processing it. That jurisdiction, which stretches from Colorado to Hawaii and from Alaska to Arizona, overwhelmingly passed a resolution in July 2012 that says the church "is in error" on homosexuality and will operate as if the teaching does not exist.*

In its statement, the Council of Bishops acknowledged the denomination is "not of one mind in matters of human sexuality." The council also called for a task force to lead "honest and respectful conversations regarding human sexuality, race and gender in a worldwide perspective."

John Lomperis, Methodist program director of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, praised the Council of Bishops for urging action against Talbert.

"When individuals choose to accept election as bishop, they choose to make a covenant with God and the rest of the church to uphold our code of conduct," he said in an email. "And if our bishops cannot be trusted to not lie to God and the church, we have no basis left for unity as a denomination."

Matt Berryman, executive director of Reconciling Ministries Network, which affirms gays, said the council is attempting to silence Talbert.

"The Council of Bishops has showed a lack of leadership by saying the only way forward is by putting on trial those clergy who can no longer follow discriminatory, unjust laws that limit their ministry with specific members of our church because of their sexual orientation," Berryman said in a statement.

>>Also, LOL. As soon as I hit “post”, I knew that all W/A would think this is Calvinism speaking...and not biblicism.

Of course you would think that. I don’t know a single Calvinist! I know plenty of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Non-denoms and none of them are full five-point Calvinists. But, they are 3-4 point Calvinists and they always call it “biblical”. Arminianism is just as biblical and I could prove that it is more biblical than Calvinism if we were sitting across a table with some bibles.

You can call it whatever you want, but if you agree with Calvin, then you are somewhat Calvinist (but I know that you aren’t a full five-point Calvinist since those don’t exist in the modern world).

dutch Free will, prevenient grace, self-determination, and loss of salvation are all parts and pieces of the errors which eventually lead to the UMC claiming that homosexuality is normal. --> the PCUSA disagrees with those and claim homosexuality is normal.

Without saying I agree 100% with Wesleyan theology (because I’m Catholic), I will say I agree that the decline of a good, solid Christian denomination is terribly sad. Methodism and the Holiness movement were a significant force in American life. Even today, of course, one can find Methodist congregations that are a great blessing to their members and their communities, but at the top, the denomination has gone loop-de-loo.

My mother’s Presbyterian church has gone on the same trajectory. When I was a girl, we were solid Church of Scotland people, but times changed.

>>Methodism and the Holiness movement were a significant force in American life. Even today, of course, one can find Methodist congregations that are a great blessing to their members and their communities, but at the top, the denomination has gone loop-de-loo.

We have a strong confessing/revival movement in the UMC and the excesses of the bishops and leftist clergy are opening people’s eyes to the reality that you can’t “a little bit” liberal. Once they get a toehold, they demand nothing but total surrender and we just aren’t willing to do that. I think that a new holiness movement will come out of this confusing time in the life of the church.

I’d like to see someone nail a new “95 Theses” on the door of the UMC leadership!

"Of course you would think that. I don’t know a single Calvinist!"

I suppose this depends on how you define "Calvinist". If it is simply that the 5 points often associated with Calvin are understood to be true, then you may be aware of Sproul, Storms, White, Boettner and others. Personally, I don't care for such a label. The term seems to imply a following of Calvin versus following the Scriptures.

But, I am curious, what part of TULIP do you believe is unbiblical? Not distasteful, but unbiblical. An Arminian may dislike the idea that they are not in control of their salvation at any point, but that does not change biblical realities.

>>Personally, I don’t care for such a label. The term seems to imply a following of Calvin versus following the Scriptures.

You might see it that way, but I see it as a way of interpreting scripture. Calvinists have their interpretation and Arminians have theirs. Each can “prove” their interpretation and each can “disprove” the other. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the two. Both come together at the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Our greater enemy is the humanist liberal. The Calvinists have been corrupted by the liberals and so have the Arminians. Likewise, the Roman Catholics and Lutherans have been corrupted by the same liberals. Even some Baptist congregations are starting feel the effects of leftist infiltration.

So, I applaud your Calvinism and hope that you can applaud my Wesleyanism, as long as we both fight the Enemy and accept the grace that only comes from the cross.

"You might see it that way, but I see it as a way of interpreting scripture. Calvinists have their interpretation and Arminians have theirs. Each can “prove” their interpretation and each can “disprove” the other. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the two. Both come together at the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Can you prove this? Just kidding. It is interesting, however, that you offer a "solution" to the disparity between those who hold to free will (and other Arminian perspectives) and those who cannot find such doctrines in the Scriptures. Yet your "solution" does not involve the Bible. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage indicating "The truth is somewhere in the middle"?

Certainly, the Scriptures tell us that grace (unmerited favor) is the free gift of God and results in salvation for anyone whom Jesus draws to Himself. If an Arminian is among the elect, then of course he/she would be the beneficiary of the "...grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."

>>Yet your “solution” does not involve the Bible. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage indicating “The truth is somewhere in the middle”?

No, I won’t send you a list of prooftexts, because then you will do the same and that will solve nothing since the truth in the bible is not found in “who has the larger list of prooftexts”. There is scripture that supports Calvinism and there is scripture that supports Arminianism. Both interpretations cannot be right, so both must be wrong. If both are wrong, then God must have a plan that is something else.

>>It is interesting, however, that you offer a “solution” to the disparity between those who hold to free will (and other Arminian perspectives) and those who cannot find such doctrines in the Scriptures.

You can’t see the problem? When I became a Methodist, and learned that a Methodist is Arminian, I studied that and discovered the rift between the Arminians and Calvinists.

So, what did I do first? I got books on Calvinism and read the scriptures that “prove” Calvinism is right before I started trying to prove Arminianism. Then, I read the scriptures that “proved” Arminianism.

If you cannot find proof of such doctrine in scripture, then you just aren’t looking for it.

Dutch, you said dutch Free will, prevenient grace, self-determination, and loss of salvation are all parts and pieces of the errors which eventually lead to the UMC claiming that homosexuality is normal. -- -- the PCUSA does not believe in the former, but they believe in the latter

So hence the belief in free will is not a pre-requisite to claimining homosexuality is normal, neither is a belief in Calvinism such a pre-requisite

The gay mafia is attacking churches all around

If we stop and say "oh, they deserved it" rather than helping the conservatives in those churches, then we are failing the conservatives.

"No, I won’t send you a list of prooftexts, because then you will do the same and that will solve nothing since the truth in the bible is not found in “who has the larger list of prooftexts”. There is scripture that supports Calvinism and there is scripture that supports Arminianism. Both interpretations cannot be right, so both must be wrong. If both are wrong, then God must have a plan that is something else."

It is interesting that you now understand that your new, revised view is the correct view: Both interpretations cannot be right, so both must be wrong. This, in itself, need not be true, however. If both cannot be right, one may be wrong.

But, now you are faced with, "What do I tell my children?" Is the Gospel a mish-mash of both, both of which are incorrect? Do you simply say, "Well, this is what we are going to believe...although I acknowledge that the other view is also true!"? Do you say, "Just believe something because I, yes I, have decided that it must be okay, because I cannot make sense of it all."?

The PCUSA is simply another wandering organization. It may have had roots in the Gospel as presented in the Scriptures, but it has long ago departed any form of clinging to Scripture as the foundation of its views. Witness the departure of many of the more conservative elements. If you asked this group’s leadership, do you still hold to divine determinism, predestination, God’s management of all portions of salvation (the underlying components of TULIP), they would laugh you out of the room.

Look at Princeton. It will no longer acknowledge that it was a seminary up to 1930. It behaves as if it had no past, but just a spontaneous academic beginning. Such is the PCUSA...it is not a believing group of men/women. It is simply an organization. Thus, homosexuality is as welcome as the heresy of free will.

"Then, I read the scriptures that “proved” Arminianism.

If you cannot find proof of such doctrine in scripture, then you just aren’t looking for it."

Curious...what Scriptures "proved" that Arminianism was correct? Other than the "freewill" offering in the Old Covenant, which simply meant it was not going to be prescribed, and once when Paul told Philemon that he ought to take back Onesimus not by compulsion but by his own "free will", the words "free will" do not appear in the Scriptures. Yet, you say "free will" (actions/thoughts/beliefs of a man without any influence from an outside agency) are apparent in Scripture.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.