By the Rev. H. A. “Bud” Tillinghast
A United Methodist News Service article on Oct. 15 reported that Bishop Michael Coyner of the Indiana Area took exception to a recent statement adopted by the Western Jurisdictional Conference. That statement, as reported in that article, was:
Delegates to the Western Jurisdiction’s meeting July 18-21 adopted a “Statement of Gospel Obedience” that says the denomination is in error in its stance that the practice of homosexuality “is incompatible with Christian teaching.” The jurisdiction’s statement also urged United Methodists to operate as if that stance in Paragraph 161F of the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book, “does not exist, creating a church where all people are truly welcome.”
In his Bishop’s Letter to his Conference, Coyner makes three charges. He said the Western Jurisdiction’s statement:
- Comes across as a kind of “neo-colonialism.” distrusting the actions of the global church’s General Conference, which increasingly includes delegates from outside the United States, particularly Africa
- Is a “very poor substitute for the honorable practice of civil disobedience as expressed clearly by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”
- Does not “offer the church any way forward on this difficult issue.
As one who has been a member of the California- Nevada Annual (regional) Conference in the Western Jurisdiction for my 40 years of ministry and who has been an amateur historian, I would like to respond to Bishop Coyner’s critique.
1. “Neocolonialism:” I would agree with Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the California-Pacific Conference, The United Methodist Church’s first Latina bishop, when she says. “Neo-colonialism is a complex socio-economic, political and historical reality that in my opinion is not appropriately used in this situation.”
When one thinks of colonialism, phrases such as “White Man’s Privilege” and “Cultural Imperialism” come to mind. Is this the mindset or history of the W. J.? Let’s look at that history.
In 1939, when the three branches of Methodism in the United States formed the Methodist Church, they had to decide how to include the Black (Afro-American) churches spread through the country, most of which were extensions of the Methodist Episcopal (northern) Church. In addition, there was the question of how to include Black leadership of bishops, as segments of the denomination were not open to having Black bishops.
This is where the structure of jurisdictions was introduced into our denominational polity. The church was divided into six areas; five of these were geographical, Northeast, Southeast, North Central, South Central and Western. The sixth had an ethnic basis, the Central Jurisdiction. By this means of racial segregation, Black churches would be their own entity and would elect their own Black bishops. An exception to this was the Western Jurisdiction, which included the Black churches in its annual conferences.
Bishops reappointed after 1968 union
In 1968, with the union creating The United Methodist Church, the Central Jurisdiction was disbanded and, as had already been the case in the Western Jurisdiction, the Black churches became part of the Conferences in which they lay. With no more Black annual conferences, their bishops were appointed to existing conferences.
My California-Nevada Conference received one of the bishops, Charles Golden. Since the 1968 merger, we have had seven bishops, only one of whom was white male. These six have included the first Black woman to be United Methodist bishop and the first Asian-American to be a United Methodist bishop.
Of the last district superintendents I have had, one was Hispanic American, one was Korean American and two were Filipino American.
Of the four district superintendents in our conference now, one is a Hispanic American woman, one is a Japanese American woman and one is a Euro-American woman. There is still an element of “White Man’s Privilege.” My successor at the last church I served has been selected as the fourth superintendent, and he is a white man.
I must add that this jurisdiction, accused in affect of “White Man’s Privilege,” does not have a white man as one of its bishops. Our presiding bishop is Black.
Speaking of my own ministry, as a pastor in the Bay Area, I helped start a Tongan Church and a Korean Church. Three congregations sharing one building required learning how to live with different cultural expectations. There were national and class differences — the mainly Anglo congregation was middle class, the Tongans were from the developing world, and many of the Koreans had advanced degrees. At times, this could be testy, especially when one had to deal with pig fat on the gym floor and an array of rice cookers blowing out the old kitchen’s electrical circuits! There also were variations in theology that covered the spectrum from conservative paternalism that didn’t accept women’s leadership to liberals comfortable with biblical criticism.
And as director of a metro-ministry in Oakland that included nine different ethnic churches, I worked with those churches to begin a Hispanic ministry.
Thus, Bishop Coyner’s charge of neo-colonialism rings hollow to those of us who have experienced — no, celebrated — the ethnic diversity of our denomination! This reality of diversity has laid the foundation for people of the Western Jurisdiction being sensitive to yet another minority in our midst, the homosexual. It would seem obvious in the reverse that those who have lived in an environment of homogeneity would not develop the same sensitivity to the humanity of homosexuals.
Other points
2. Let me deal more briefly with Bishop Coyner’s other charges. He says that the Western Jurisdiction statement is a “very poor substitute” for the honorable practice of civil disobedience as expressed clearly by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Perhaps Bishop Coyner is unaware of who has been the inspiration for our stand of “Gospel Obedience,” in fact, the same person who coined the term, Bishop Melvin Talbert.
I’m not sure I would have the audacity to tell a man who marched with and worked with Dr. King that I have a clearer idea of King’s practice of civil disobedience than he. Certainly, I would not tell Bishop Talbert that his vision of the gospel or of civil disobedience is dishonorable!
3. When Bishop Coyner says the jurisdiction’s statement “does not offer the church any way forward on this difficult issue,” perhaps he is right. If you take it in isolation from the history to date of the jurisdiction’s life it may seem judgmental, arrogant or without positive direction.
But if you look at the history of our Christian life together, maybe we have a story to tell to the rest of the church. There are large pockets in our denomination, both in the United States and overseas, where the experience of diversity we have come to terms with does not exist. We live the experience of Pentecost — the gospel being heard in many tongues — almost every day of our ministry. We have first had to struggle with living Paul’s words “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free.” Is it any wonder that the Spirit has spoken to us saying “neither gay nor straight?”
No, Brother Coyner, neo-colonialism is not the model out of which our jurisdiction has lived. We in the western states have seen ourselves as “pioneers,” those who venture into new territories. Our record is far from pure. Look at how we treated the Native Americans and Mexicans in the west into which we ventured. Our earlier approach to diversity included the Oriental Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Church as ‘social pioneer’
But we’ve learned along the way. One of my teachers in what it means to be a pioneer is the theologian, H. Richard Niebuhr. In his “Responsibility of the Church for Society,” he developed the idea of the church as “social pioneer.” It is, he says, the embodiment “representational responsibility.”
In ethics it is the first to repent for the sins of a society and it repents on behalf of all. When it becomes apparent that slavery is transgression of the divine commandment, then the Church repents of it, turns its back upon it, abolishes it within itself. It does this not as the holy community separate from the world but as the pioneer and representative. It repents for the sin of the whole society and leads in the social act of repentance. When the property institutions of society are subject to question because innocent suffering illuminates their antagonism to the will of God, then the Church undertakes to change its own use of these institutions and to lead society in their reformation. So also the Church becomes a pioneer and representative of society in the practice of equality before God, in the reformation of institutions of rulership, in the acceptance of mutual responsibility of individuals for one another.
To Bishop Coyne and others in The United Methodist Church, I say the way forward has to include the reality of different stands on current ethical issues, which has been the lived experience of the Western Jurisdiction and it needs to be the way forward for a global church.
To my brothers and sisters of the Western Jurisdiction I say, in the words of an old hymn, truly “We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations.”
*Tillinghast, a retired United Methodist pastor, is a member of the California-Nevada Annual (regional) Conference. He splits his time between Oxfordshire, England, and California.
18 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Pastor Nick Rochester Jr
October 23, 2012 at 6:45 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you, Rev Tillinghast, for your well stated response to the WJ complaint about our Methodist
Church’s stance on same-sex unions. As an ordained elder for some 36 years, when it comes to matters of social issues, like homosexuality/lesbianism, I find myself holding to our Church’s position that when it comes to matters of ‘faith and practice,’ the Scriptures are my final and guiding authority.
Deen Thompson
October 23, 2012 at 7:27 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you Rev. Tillinghast for you faithful response to Bishop Coyne’s criticism of the Western Jurisdition’s “Statement of Gospel Obedience”. Last night my lay leader report to the Edgehill UMC charge conference shared the same theme “We’ve a story to tell to the nations”. Edgehill is a Reconciling Congregation that celebrates The Lord’s Supper every Sunday with the congregation proclaiming “Everyone has a place at this table”. We are growing in our ministries as we live out our faith and tell the story: “Christ’s great kingdom shall come on earth, the kingdom of love and light”.
Bescye P. Burnett
October 23, 2012 at 8:09 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you for putting history into perspective for all of us.
Bev
October 23, 2012 at 9:33 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am thankful for this response to Bishop Coyner. What a fresh perspective! What a Jesus perspective!
He began this” open to everyone” idea of the church. If we are to follow Jesus, we must do the same.
theospilot
October 23, 2012 at 10:46 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I would consider Tillinghast’s response as missing the mark. In fact he turns in the opposite direction of where the target is and shoots the arrow behind him.
1. The straw “person” of “look how few white males we have in leadership” he creates right off the bat is not even close to what Bishop Coyner was saying. He created his own definition of neo-colonialism and then tore that poor ol’ “Big Bird” apart.
The bishop obviously spoke of Neo-Colonialism in the sense of the W.J. is unwilling to listen to it’s African sisters and brothers perspective, the historic perspective of The Church by the way, except for a few recent years in a few small and diminishing places.
It also appears that in Tillinghast’s list of Bishops and DS’s he is boasting about is the creation of what appears to be an anti-white male system. My guess is white males make up a significant percentage of the clergy yet they are unrepresented at least in his ecclesiastical sphere. Now that is real inclusivity.
2. Equating a man or a man’s experience with the merits of a principle or idea or argument is not sound logic. Thank God for whatever good Bishop Talbert may have done. But his call which is unbelievably damaging to the church, a church that is quite ill, is open to disagreement no matter what his experience. We know MLK’s daughter certainly doesn’t hold with Bishop Talbert’s perspective.
3. It may be the W.J. has a story to tell to the Church. I am not certain what that story is? But there is no doubt that part of that story would be, “see how fast we can shrink the size of United Methodism in the W.J.” Please also note, “how uncomfortable we can make orthodox pastors and churches feel, even driving them out of the denomination.” Now, part of the story of the W.J. is, “see how uncomfortable and difficult we can make it for all of United Methodism” and maybe…”can we bring about a division in the denomination?”
Kris Marshall
October 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you! I agree with you, Rev. Tillinghast, and appreciate your thoughtful response to Bishop Coyner.
Interesting that in the comment section, the only person critical of the article is also the only person unwilling to use their real name. Perhaps that is a cheap observation, but it’s one I noted.
I’m also an ordained elder in the Cal-Nev conference, a young adult, female, and white. I don’t believe our conference has an anti-white-male exclusivity culture; I think we have a number of clergy from a number of ethnicities and backgrounds who recognize the value of one another’s voices, and who are willing to listen to the wisdom that comes from someone else’s experience. In fact, we have a lot of differences – theological, cultural, age, sex, gender, etc… all things that inform our perspective. I think what is most destructive is not a particular theological stance or cultural difference, but when we try to silence one another’s voices, when we cease to care for one another’s lives. What made me angriest about Bishop Coyner’s response to the WJ was that he didn’t actually argue with what the WJ wrote, he tried to diminish the legitimacy of their perspective so that others would not value their voices.
Jesus prayed for his disciples that they would be of one heart and mind, as Jesus and God are of one heart and mind (John 17). From an evangelical perspective, when the world sees us bickering like cats and dogs over the legitimacy of someone’s voice, how likely are they to think “Gee, church, that’s what I need in my life! If this is what followers of Jesus look like, sign me up! I’d love to be criticized and delegitimized for thinking differently, for standing with the people on the margins!” When we have a disagreement – which we inevitably will until the end of time, I truly believe – when the basis is distrust and fear instead of understanding and grace, we leave ourselves no room to learn, grow, and share the gospel. How radical would it truly be to become the people called Methodist, the people who do not have to think alike to love alike, the people who are willing to listen and engage with difference, and who at the end of the day are united in mission and ministry to the world despite our disagreements? It seems like this is something that would resonate with the many people I know who may not be part of a faith community but who recognize that there is something wrong with the verbal and emotional bashing that goes hand-in-hand with our bifurcated political system. Respectful dialogue and disagreement – what a concept! And being in mission together to do the things Jesus calls us to do – when it comes to feeding a hungry mouth, or healing a hurting body, or visiting someone who is isolated or lonely…. can we not do this work together, despite our differences?
The Rev. Jeremy Smith, in his response on his blog hackingchristianity.com, says that this actually IS the way forward the WJ is offering… That although we disagree about the issue of inclusion of LGBT people (which far predates the changes in representation within the most recent GC), the WJ chooses to expand its ministry without forcing this decision on the rest of the UMC. We refuse to engage in practices that we see as judgmental and exclusive according to our personal conscience, prayerful discussion, and respectful dialogue. We are not refusing to accept the consequences of our actions, but we are refusing to act in a way that goes against our conscience. This is true disobedience, and depending on the GC’s response in 2016 (or the Judicial Council before that), we will see what the consequences will be.
I agree with you, theospilot, about a man’s experience not equaling the principle or merit of an idea. However, an idea in a vacuum does not always work. Ideas must be lived for them to have any bearing on the world, to see if they will fail or flourish. When we remove the human element from our ideas, when we isolate them as words or numbers on paper, we do not fully understand their impact. When we look into one another’s faces, when we listen to one another’s pain, we see the face of Christ, we hear the pain of Christ. An idea is just a dream, but people are what transform the world. So perhaps Bishop Talbert’s experience of discrimination and civil disobedience actually brings quite a lot to bear on our current situation. Perhaps his understanding of scripture, his foundation in the tradition of our church, his life experience and his ability to reason critically are just as legitimate as anyone else’s.
I leave you with the words of John Wesley, from his sermon “A Catholic Spirit.”
Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without doubt, we may. In this all the children of God may unite, even though they retain these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may help one another increase in love and in good works.
No man can choose for, or prescribe to, another. But every one must follow the dictates of his own conscience in simplicity and godly sincerity. He must be fully persuaded in his own mind and then act according to the best light he has. Nor has any creature power to constrain another to walk by his own rule. God has given no right to any of the children of men to lord it over the conscience of his brothers; but every man must judge for himself, as every man must give an account of himself to God.
“If your heart right, as my heart is with your heart? If it be, give me your hand.” I do not mean, “Be of my opinion.” You need not. I do not expect or desire it. Neither do I mean, “I will be of your opinion.” I cannot, it does not depend on my choice. I can no more think, than I can see or hear, as I will. Keep your opinion and I will keep mine, and that as steadily as ever. You need not even endeavor to come over to me, or bring me over to you. I do not desire you to dispute those points, or to hear or speak one word concerning them. Leave all opinions alone on one side and the other: only “give me your hand.”
d
October 25, 2012 at 2:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Are the “pioneers,” of the GLBT movement inside the UMC willing to hold “holy conversation” that would require full disclosure and absolute truth of what “full inclusion of gay, lesbian. bisexual, transsexual and the new (not so new) persons of polyamorous persuasion is and what those sexual persuasions would require the UMC to accept with open arms?
Are the “pioneers” of the GLBT ready to address the gay movements advocacy of lowering Age of Consent Laws?
Will the “pioneers” explain how they will handle any and all sexual persuasions and how they plan to deal with them in detail?
I think the church does acknowlege the reality of different stands on current ethical issues as noted in Bishop Coyner’s original piece. The problem is some are not happy with the majority stand the UMC has taken and defended over the years.
d
October 26, 2012 at 4:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I for one would be delighted to hear the story you have to tell.
I would be in agreement with those that point out the church was negligent and failed to deal with the gay community and that past treatment of the homosexual community has been unacceptable.
I think the GLBT community should address in “holy communication” what is being reported on Gay sites like the Blade, new studies by unbiased researchers , and remarks concerning monogamy, it’s meaning and practice in the GLBT community.
There is a new interest in the GLBT community today and the research is just beginning.
Pro-GLBT writers write of resentment among the GLBT community concerning the imposition of definitions concerning marriage, monogamy, and acceptable committed relationships. It appears a “loving, committed, monogamous relationship” does not mean the same thing and are not practiced the same straight vs. GLBT.
All of those things are important issues.
The church is spending so much time arguing they have spent little time on researching what “full inclusion” really means in real terms and practice.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/lack-of-gay-monogamy-could-impact-same-sex-marriage-debate
Alfred Sturges
October 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Shall we also be accepting of fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, prostitutes, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers? Shall we keep on sinning so our grace may increase?
The scripture makes it clear, man makes it muddy. You can tell sinners that their sin is okay, but you are putting them at risk of being eternally separated from God. Is that really caring for the person, or are you just using them for their tithe? Are you letting them use the church to justify their sinful behavior? Yes, welcome sinners into the church. Yes, teach them about Jesus. But don’t ever tell them that it is okay to sin.
Jose Bulatao, Jr.
October 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“The scripture makes it clear…” that the punishment for adulterers is death by stoning. At a point in time, that was the LAW. As the saying goes in the movie, “The Ten Commandments”: “So shall it be written; so shall it be done.” Should the letter of the law be upheld because it “says so” in the Bible? If so, would that consistency of punishment be applied today as rendered in each way “sin” is identified?
Back then, when what was written which are now deemed to be the “holy words” inspired by the Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—-the arrangement of master with slaves was an acceptable norm. This has fallen on the wayside, although, regrettably, the slavery of human traffic still persists.
Then, from another point of view, the “sin” of homosexuality once deemed to be some kind of mental or behavioral disorder was stricken from the medical books. From a psychiatric perspective, there is a 180 degree turn from what “was” to what “is” as a relationship that yearns to be accepted as equal to a heterosexual relationship and therefore qualified to have similar conditions, arrangements, rights, and privileges.
The point of the matter is: times, attitudes, perceptions, methodologies—- they all CHANGE for a number of reasons. It seems that “absolute Truth” may not necessarily be akin to the precision of what can be measured with mathematical exactitude.
Bud Tillinghast
October 28, 2012 at 2:19 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
There are others, not part of our jurisdiction, who share the “Western Jurisdiction Experience.” As the world becomes more diverse in its local settings, More people in the U. S. and in other countries confront this diversity. It can be met by fear or by celebrating it through inclusiveness. Which of the two fulfils “Love your neighbor as yourself?”
http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/The-Communion/lifetime
Rev. James E Brooking
October 28, 2012 at 1:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I wonder if the church will EVER acknowledge the elephant in the room! It is clear that the book of Leviticus call homosexuality an abomination in God’s sight. It also states that adulterers are to be put to death! Is my Bible the only one with this language? In view of Biblical language it would seem to me that adultery is a far more serious offense. In Matthew chapter 5 Jesus is clear about those who divorce and remarry….they are committing adultery. However, the United Methodist Church allows adulterers and adulteresses to baptize our children and administer the Sacred Sacrament of Holy Communion. Is my Bible the only Bible that has these words? Jesus was clear about adultery and divorce but said not one word about homosexuality but the church forever wants to put words in his mouth and ignore the ones that he spoke! How long will we continue to swallow the camel and strain at the gnat? Does anyone else see the elephant in the room?
Alfred Sturges
October 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jose Bulatao, the wages of sin is death… (Romans 6:23). Times change, but God remains the same. Christ died for adulterers so we don’t need to stone them anymore, but someone (Jesus) still had to pay the price.
Bud Tillinghast, many are called but few are chosen (Matthew 22). Unless we are washed clean of our sin we will not be “clothed” properly on the judgment day. How can we wash ourselves though if we have lost our ability to recognize filth? God is not all-inclusive. I do not fear homosexuals, I fear for the loss of their eternal soul. Turning a blind eye to sin is not an act of love.
Rev. Brooking, I will pray that God increases your ministry. Sometimes I feel that we have kicked scripture and tradition to the curb in favor of “reason” (rationalizing) and experience. I’m glad to see we have a true Methodist in our midst.
Jose Bulatao, Jr.
October 28, 2012 at 10:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
To Alfred Sturges: Your line of reasoning pitted against mine reminds me of this example: Some will view a glass that is halfway filled as half-full. Others will see it as half-empty. Both points of view can be correctly substantiated.
When there are conflicting perspectives with regard to what is acceptable in the eyes of God, the Almight…..what is “sin”……whether the Christian faith is an extension of the Jewish traditions from which it emerged or not…. or whether some of the strict traditions, and practices found in the the scriptures of the Old Testament may have somewhat “evolved”, based on what Jesus preached…. all of these things may all be matters for theologians to debate. In the mean time, each of us on our faith journeys will also “walk and talk” with Christ in a manner and style one determines for oneself.
I do not understand your chastisement of the stance that Bud Tillinghast has taken. From my perspective, simply put: He sees the glass in earlier reference as “half-full”—one that places emphasis on what may be positive and fulfilling, rather than negative, with an emphasis on emptiness.
Knowing the Rev. Jim Brooking personally (because he was once pastor of the church I attend), I think he will be startled by your mis-interpretation of his commentary.
Alfred Sturges
October 29, 2012 at 12:34 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jose Bulatao, it’s possible to be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. I commend Rev. Jim Brooking because he recognizes (in my interpretation of his commentary) that we have already corroded marriage by allowing divorce and remarriage, in spite of what Jesus taught us about marriage. We have further corroded the priesthood by allowing those living in adultery to oversee our church. He made his argument from scripture, reason, and tradition – the right reasons.
Bud Tillinghast cares deeply, and he is a good and decent person. My disagreement with him is not over whether or not we should love our homosexual brethren, but what form that love should take. I believe the best way to show someone love is to help them avoid sin.
And speaking of sin, theologians don’t debate it as much as humanists. Paul’s letter to the Romans covers the subject of the law, sin, and grace very well (and condemns homosexuality). You could be right in your view, and myself wrong in mine, but can you make your argument from all four pillars: scripture, reason, tradition, and experience? You know, like a Methodist should?
Jose Bulatao Jr
October 29, 2012 at 1:19 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Suffice it to say, Rev. Jim Brooking would be the best person to clarify the purposes and intents of the statements he made.
.
In showing someone “love” by helping that person to avoid sin, it depends on one’s methodology and approach if one is deemed to be effective and/or respected.
It is in that very possibility of being right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons that systems of jurisprudence and courts of law exist by which arguments are presented, evidence is analyzed, and decisions are rendered.
Lastly, along with being a life-long Methodist, now being retired after teaching for over 30 years, it was my honor and privilege to be an instructor of an array of language arts, speech and communication, and language arts courses at both the secondary education and collegiate levels. That being the case, I choose to present my viewpoints as I see fit.
Let is simply agree to disagree, and let it go at that.
Alfred Sturges
October 29, 2012 at 10:38 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I’ll tell you a short story. There is a man about to drink poison when his friend sees him and tries to stop him. After much arguing about it they agree to disagree about the value of drinking poison. The man dies. The end.
redpalaceskyeaglebullbluesox
October 29, 2012 at 3:52 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you, Reverend Tillinghast, for your clear, concise and intelligent response to Bishop Coyner’s criticism of the Western Jurisdiction’s stand. I have tried in another place to do as you have but with little success. I’m afraid there are far too many hardened hearts. I fully support Bishop Talbert’s call to Biblical Obedience and, as one who also marched with Dr. King albeit at a rather young age, fully intend to pursue this course. I believe change will come when we render the General Conference’s refusal to see the light on full inclusion irrelevent. We must and will marry, we must and will ordain, we must and will welcome all. Since I am a signatory of the Covenent of Conscience in the New York Annual Conference, I have already committed myself and my sacred honor to this most worthy cause.