wfn.org | Faith Confronting Culture: Open Letter to a Bishop

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG>]

Oct. 22, 1999 News media contact: Thomas S.
McAnally·(615)742-5470·Nashville, Tenn.  10-21-28-71B{553}

NOTE:  A head-and-shoulder photograph of the Rev. Leicester R. Longden is
available.

A UMNS Commentary
By the Rev. Leicester R. Longden*

 
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. 
# # #

*Longden is senior pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church in Lansing,
Mich. He is a clergy member of the West Michigan Annual Conference of the
United Methodist Church, where he serves on the Conference Board of Ordained
Ministry.

Commentaries provided by United Methodist News Service do not necessarily
represent the opinions or policies of UMNS or the United Methodist Church.

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://www.umc.org/umns