United Methodist Church Elects First Openly Gay Bishop

[Fish and Bread]

Link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/16/united-methodist-church-first-openly-gay-bishop

For those wondering, my understanding is that the United Methodist Church does not claim Apostolic Succession and a three-fold ministry in the same way that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans (Including Episcopalians, who are part of the Anglican Communion) do. Rather, for them bishop is an office to which a minister is elected.

United Methodist bishops do oversee a given geographical region, however, and are thus similar to traditional bishops in that respect. The pictures I see of them on the United Methodist website show them with simple albs and stoles and without things like miters and staffs that bishops in the other aforementioned churches traditionally have (Which is not to say Methodist bishops definitely don't ever have them- I am just going on a few pictures here ).

Anyway, I think this is great news. A step forward for a more loving inclusive version of Christianity. They are at least the second mainstream hiearchial church in the United States to have selected an openly gay bishop, with the Episcopal Church having been the first.

My sense is that United Methodist congregations are varied in beliefs, liturgy, and practice to a greater degree than many denominations. Some might provide a service only slightly less liturgical than Episcopalians or Lutherans, others may be more like Baptists or non-demoninationals. Generally they are considered a centrist mainstream Protestant denomination in terms of politics and theology- though I have seen both hard core conservative and relatively progressive church signs outside different congregations.

My sense is that those warning that the church may split over this may be correct. I can't see the quasi-Baptist congregations accepting this. The ones that are closer to low-church Episcopalians or Lutherans probably will.

The Episcopal Church may want to consider ways to bolster the United Methodist Church in some way if it is weakened by a schism from the right, if a way can be found to do so that is compatible with both traditions. That assumes that the progressives keep the name in a split- I am not sure how that would work.

 

[hedrick]

Most Methodists do not claim apostolic succession, though there is an argument for it, involving supposed consecration of Wesley by an Orthodox bishop. I don’t think this claim is accepted very widely.

In Ireland there’s an agreement with the Church of Ireland to conduct joint consecrations. This will extend the succession there.

The United Methodist Church is in discussion with the Episcopal Church. I believe both intend to develop full communion. That will presumably involve joint consecrations along the lines of the agreement between the Episcopal Church and the ELCA, extending the succession to the UMC.

Based on the experience of other churches, it’s easy to predict that if gay clergy become widespread, some conservative churches will leave, with the usual lawsuits. The UMC is in an unusual situation, because its ruling body is international. There is no US-specific ruling body, though there are regional bodies within the US, obviously. There are enough African representatives to make it difficult for the highest level body to accept this change officially.

There’s some indication that it might eventually do so, but it’s possible that parts of the US church could simply separate. That would be an unusual affair, since in most mainline churches it’s been the conservative side that leaves, and normally it’s just individual congregations. Here it could be large sections of the Church as a unit. Or some US jurisdictions could simply ignore the rule. That’s not an outcome I would favor.

Incidentally, the group that did the election was the Western jurisdiction. That’s at a higher level than a district. There are 5 jurisdictions in the US. (The term jurisdiction is not used outside the US.) The issue has been referred to the UMC Judicial Council. I’m not a sufficient expert in UMC law to know what the result is likely to be.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Here is another article on this topic:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/the-we...methodist-church-elects-first-lesbian-bishop/

 

[graceandpeace]

While I'm glad about this election, I'm also sad, because of what the repercussions might be. I hope the UMC can work out the faith on this larger issue & find a way to stick together.

I do think it's possible that the UMC & TEC could come to a formal communion agreement, but if lawsuits & splits start happening in the UMC, I'm not sure how that could change things.

 

[hedrick]

I do think it's possible that the UMC & TEC could come to a formal communion agreement, but if lawsuits & splits start happening in the UMC, I'm not sure how that could change things.

I assume UMC/TEC discussions will continue, more or less independently of battles over gays. However having the UMC open to gays could be necessary for closing the deal with TEC, since full communion would mean accepting gay TEC clergy.

 

[graceandpeace]

^I think that's about right. Sharing clergy could be complicated if all UMC ministers were barred from accepting & including gay persons.

 

[RileyG]

Can someone please enlighten me.

Officially, at least according to the book of discipline, homosexual acts are sinful. How can someone who is openly gay be elected as a bishop? Would certain..err. higher officials oppose that and put an end to that? I am curious on how Protestant Churches work. (I know "Protestant" is a very broad term BTW).

. I know that gay marriages and so forth have been performed in UMC Churches which has caused great controversy in recent years.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Can someone please enlighten me.

Officially, at least according to the book of discipline, homosexual acts are sinful. How can someone who is openly gay be elected as a bishop? Would certain..err. higher officials oppose that and put an end to that? I am curious on how Protestant Churches work. (I know "Protestant" is a very broad term BTW).

. I know that gay marriages and so forth have been performed in UMC Churches which has caused great controversy in recent years.

I'm not a Methodist, but I'll take my best crack at explaining this. It involves a little knowledge (Basically, I read some articles) and a lot of guesswork, so if anyone is better informed, feel free to chime in and correct me:

My understanding is the the United Methodist Church is divided into regional governments called jurisdictions, that they in turn govern regions and then from there there may be a district type level and there may not be and then you have your local congregation.

Okay, so what's happening here is you have is a meeting of the Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church in the United States. This jurisdiction had their big meeting in Arizona and the minister who was selected as a bishop came from San Francisco, California; so we're talking about maybe most of the west coast plus adjoining states? Something like that.

Now, they pretty much have the right to elect the head of their jurisdiction, who they call a bishop, and also bishops of the local regions under their jurisdiction, who they also call bishops. They are more liberal or progressive than the United Methodist Church is in other parts of the country and the world, and they mostly believe in including, ordaining, and marrying homosexuals and there was a lesbian minister who was a highly qualified person to be bishop, they thought she was called to it, and at the meeting they selected her as a bishop. The United Methodist Church as a whole really doesn't get a say in that- the jurisdiction picks it's own bishops.

Now, there is some sort of a disciplinary council that reaches beyond jurisdictional boundaries, so in theory if a complaint were filed, this council could try to suspend her or remove her whatever. However, what is unknown is whether they really have an enforcement mechanism. Like, let's say they try to remove her, and the jurisdiction just says "Nope, she's staying". What happens next?

It depends on their rules of polity and maybe on the way they are legally incorporated. You could have anything from it being found that the western jurisdiction can keep her and that it is what it is and conservatives can live with it or leave to that the western jurisdiction can't keep her and then maybe she and many members of the western jurisdiction walk out and form a new church led by her. Possibly, the western jurisdiction could just keep it's whole structure and buildings and walkout and form the Progressive Methodists or whatever and all the UMD disciplinary people could do is strip them of the name United Methodist. Nobody in the thread really knows.

It's possible that nobody really knows in general. The whole thing could wind up in court.

However, the short answer to your question of how this could happen is that the western jurisdiction meeting gets to select bishops, they had a meeting, and they picked the bishop they wanted. They thought the rule in the book of discipline against homosexuality was immoral or misguided and they ignored it to do what they thought was right. Because they have the right to select their own bishops and no one else gets input, they can do it and they did do it. Where it's going to get confusing is if this national or international disciplinary body tries to remove or sanction her after the fact.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Another article with a little more information and some more quotes:

https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/first-openly-lgbt-united-methodist-bishop-time

 

[hedrick]

Here are two interesting views on the election:

A posting from someone who thinks having a gay bishop in place might help the Church come to grips with what holiness actually means.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercyn...eyan-holiness-to-the-united-methodist-church/

A posting from someone who favors inclusion of gays, but doesn't see how a gay person can take the vows of a bishop, which include supporting and enforcing the rules of the Church.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mariad...ef_blog=grails&ref_post=progressive christian

As a non-Methodist, I agree with both postings. I would not have favored ignoring the rules.

 

[FireDragon76]

Official rules often lag behind actual behavior and ethics in churches.

 

[Anto9us]

What a time to have just returned to my hometown and I want to go back to a UMC where I used to be in the choir.

Ironically, though raised Methodist, I had a brief period in Episcopal Church- right when the same thing happenned- and there was some ugliness.

In Wesley's Chapel, there is a thread on this too, of course.

I don't know what to expect.

I am hoping it will be a POSITIVE thing; not create an "exodus of conservatives".

 

[Anto9us]

I woke up this morning with an initial flood of positive, hopeful feelings:

"This is an exciting time to be going back
To that UMC- it's a GOOD THING"

But then waves of negative feelings come in, re-living being in Episcopal Church when the same thing happenned years ago

I want you guys at WWMC to pray for me today, I am in a see-saw of emotions

Besides the UMC matter, I am moving into a new apartment this morning
My 22 year old son will join me there tonight;
He just finished college at Univ of Southern Mississippi
It will be physically exhausting moving
Have to get electric service switched to my name, details in real world pressing,
Bills and all of that, medications to be refilled from VA

As far as the UMC lesbian bishop deal;
I should look at it that, yes, its an exciting time to be going back to UMC
No matter what happens, I will be left among United Methodists
Who are accepting and affirming of ALL God's kids-- I just dont know if real conservative, non-affirming members will split away-- no way to tell

WWMC was the first forum I came to at CF, I later wound up mostly in Controversial Christian Theology
And go in Wesleys Parish some also
So... Sigh... Good news, but bad emotions to re-live

I am glad you guys are here

 

[Fish and Bread]

While it is important to create a space for conservatives who wish to remain with their parishes and dioceses, or I suppose in Methodist speak, jurisdictions (?) and congregations, in the end, it is more important to love and include all of God's children in all levels of the church and to affirm the specialness and uniqueness of every living soul to live out their lives as God made them to live them. I don't think we can let the straglers hold back the holy wind that is leading to elections like the one discussed in this thread.

Of course, if there are conservatives who don't like the decision, they should be welcome to stay in their congregations and come to the communion rail and run for whatever the Methodist equivalent of a parish council or a vestry is, and be included in all levels of church life- if they want to be. However, in my view, churches and denominations should not let a conservative faction hold them hostage and say "If you include women and gays and whomever else in the church, we are leaving". The Gospel impels us to love and accept all of God's children, and I think to call the conservative's bluff. It's not a question of driving them out, it's saying "This is the decision we are making, and you can stay as a conscientious objector and be welcome in that role, or you can leave and form your own denomination or join an existing one that you feel fits you better. You're still welcome here, but we understand if you feel you have to leave". And then let the cards fall as they may.

In my life, I've only been to perhaps a half dozen Methodist services and read only a little online, so I don't have a super-strong grasp on what it means to be Methodist (Just a general idea), but I certainly don't get the impression that the United Methodist Church claims to be in and of itself the one true Church of Christ, but rather to be one communion in a larger Christian Church made up of many churches. So, certainly, if some conservatives want to leave and join a different communion or form their own and rent some space somewhere or build a new building, that isn't necessarily a sin. But I think it would be a sin for United Methodists who have the absolute conviction that they must accept and include all of God's children in ordained ministry to not do so because of pressure from conservatives. You can respect the conservatives' point of view and make a space for them without bowing to their demands about who should or shouldn't be ordained- and then conservatives can decide what they want to do from there as individuals.

 

[Anto9us]

That's a good way to look at things, Fish.
I feel, in my soul, that both the local UMC that I can walk to from this new apartment, as well as the UM denomination as a whole;

is going to come through and be supportive and accepting of this new Bishop Karen

It is true Methodists do NOT think of themselves as "the one true church" - just
A true church among others, just as you said
Communion is open to all believers regardless of denomination, non-alcoholic grape juice representing the blood of Christ

My son and I are in the new apartment, he is Greek Orthodox now, glad to be back in a town that has an Orthodox congregation; his college town did not

As expected, WWMC forum is more positive about the new Bishop
Than
Wesleys Parish forum itself, the special forum here for Methodists and Nazarenes

We are moving forward; things have changed since the split in Episcopal Church; in a matter of a few years

There will be less bitterness this time- I feel it