|
An Open Letter to a Bishop
By Dr. Leicester R. Longden,
Senior Pastor at Trinity UMC, Lansing, Michigan, and Confessing Movement Board Member
Oct. 22, 1999
A letter from Bishop Jack Tuell (See UMNS story No. 508) has received wide publicity. He calls for the United Methodist Church to repeal its 1996 legislation prohibiting clergy from presiding over same-sex union services.
Although Bishop Tuell claims his letter was a private communication — sent to some 60 delegates throughout the country who will be voting at the 2000 General Conference — he has given an interview to the United Methodist News Service about the letter, and has publicly corrected a version of the letter posted on the Internet.
Since Bishop Tuell’s letter now has more the character of a lobbying effort than a private communication, and since I was one of the original 60 recipients of his letter, I want to respond to him in this commentary.
Dear Bishop Tuell: You have my private, more lengthy response to your letter. Here, I want to state briefly, for the sake of a public discussion of the issues, my reply to the seven reasons you gave for changing our church’s Discipline.
#1 You assert that "it is not fair to our clergy" to put them in a situation where church legislation might require them to say no to requests of their parishioners. Response: Isn’t it precisely the responsibility of the ordained person to say no to requests which contradict the doctrine and discipline of the church?
#2 You allege that there was much confusion at the 1996 General Conference and that it did not intend to pass "flatly prohibitory legislation." Response: The Judicial Council of our church reviewed the debate in detail and ruled that it was the will of the General Conference to place prohibitory language in our Social Principles.
#3 You claim that such legislation is "unnecessary" because "we got along quite well without it for 212 years" and that there are already procedures in the Discipline for bringing ministers to trial. Response: First, there was no formal prohibition for 212 years because there was wide agreement on what Scripture taught. When long-standing views are challenged, the church must respond. Second, it seems self-contradictory for you to appeal to already existing trial procedures when your whole point is that these ministers should not be tried.
#4 You argue that a prohibition against same-sex union services could not be evenly administered because of the "varying…mores and views of different sections of the church." Response: Do you mean to suggest that church law cannot take a counter-cultural stance? Does the teaching and practice of our church simply mirror its cultural surroundings? I fear that you see the church as a collection of regional or ideological groups bound together by some concept of absolute pluralism. How can such a church ever challenge views that are outside the bounds of the Discipline established by its General Conference?
#5 You think it is "likely" that the prohibition in our Social Principles will "hit some of our most able, conscientious clergy the hardest." Response: This is your personal opinion about the character of the people who are dissenting from the Discipline. Your point seems to be that this law is bad because some nice people don’t like it. More to the point would be an argument as to why the individual consciences of the dissenters should overrule the church’s corporate position duly established by a General Conference.
#6 You claim that the problem is not really about different positions on homosexuality but rather "has to do with the freedom and integrity of our clergy to carry out their ministry in the place where they are appointed." Response: Do you really wish to claim that our clergy are free agents with no accountability to our connectional agreements about "what to do and what to teach"? When you, as a bishop, ordain elders, you ask, according to our liturgy: "In covenant with other elders, will you be loyal to the United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word, and accepting the authority of those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?" The candidates for ordination reply: "I will, with the help of God." Doesn’t this ordination vow put a clear and voluntary limit on the autonomy of the conscience of clergy?
#7 Your final argument calls for a repeal of the prohibition against same-sex union services because this legislation puts an "impossible burden" on our clergy and has a "destructive and divisive effect" on our church. Response: While claiming to be concerned about fairness, you are clearly one-sided. You never mention once the harm that is done to the church by those who flaunt the Discipline. Rather than arguing for a more forthright engagement with the moral and doctrinal issues raised by this struggle—which is the teaching responsibility of a Bishop—you call for the setting aside of discipline and the continuance of the current confusion.
Forgive me, Bishop Tuell, if I have misrepresented you in any way. Since you ordained me in 1973, I have always had a deep respect for your leadership. But now, your plea to the church has caused me to question whether you and I meant the same thing when I made my ordination vows before you.