January
17, 2014
Bishop Mark J. Webb
Upper New York Annual Conference
324 University Ave., Third Floor
Syracuse, N.Y. 13210
Greetings:
You have
no way of knowing me, despite the fact that I am an ordained elder of the Upper
New York Annual Conference (from the Central New York Conference), voluntarily
located to my brother’s church in the 1960’s.
Both my father, Lewis Bachman, and my brother, Neale Bachman, were
ordained elders in the Central and North Central Annual Conferences. I have a history with this conference. After moving to the Washington, D.C. area, I
moved my location to Foundry United Methodist Church in
Washington, D.C. I spent 30 years as a
volunteer in ministry to youth at Foundry. Professionally, I worked as a labor
attorney for the Federal Government. I am now retired.
I
attended the Upper New York Annual Conference in Syracuse last year as a
representative of the Appalachia Service Project and, thus, was present when
the issues regarding Steve Heiss’ performance of same sex marriages arose. Later that summer, my wife and I were
vacationing in Auburn when the vigil was held in support of Steve at University
United Methodist Church and we attended that vigil. We have followed the course of proceedings
against Steve since that time.
You have
undoubtedly heard most, if not all, of the cogent arguments about why the
church trials are a mistake. Based on
my personal experience working with youth I can tell you that the United
Methodist Church is in serious trouble.
We are losing an entire generation of young people. Surveys demonstrate that a majority of youth
and young adults believe that the church is discriminatory, hypocritical, and
judgmental. They do not want to have
anything to do with such an institution.
The fact
that the church is, in fact, discriminatory is illustrated by the number of
courts, including the Supreme Court, that have found that bans against same-sex
marriage violate the equal protection provisions of state constitutions and the
United States Constitution. The fact
that this is a church matter, and not a civil matter, is a distinction without
a difference. Differential treatment of
individuals is differential treatment of individuals. As the Supreme Court noted in Windsor, the failure to recognize a
same-sex marriage is demeaning to the persons in that marriage. Do you or do you not agree with this
conclusion of the Court? And if you
don’t, how do you reconcile your disagreement with Section 161.F. of the
Discipline which states that all persons are of sacred worth? I assume that “all” means all
persons, regardless of sexual orientation.
The
discriminatory policies of the Discipline and of church practice, in light of
other provisions of the Discipline, support the conclusion that the church is
hypocritical. Section 4 of the
Discipline enjoins the church to be inclusive.
Section 122 talks about such things as welcoming and gathering persons
into the body of Christ; nurturing persons through the means of grace; sending
persons into the world to live lovingly and justly, freeing the oppressed;
being and becoming a compassionate, caring presence. Section 140 reflects the Church's call to
inclusivity and the recognition that God made all creation and saw that it was
good; that inclusiveness means openness, acceptance and support that enables all
persons to participate
in
the life of the Church; that inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination;
that the mark of an inclusive society is one in which all persons are
welcomed, fully accepted and supported enabling them to participate fully in
the life of the church. Section 162.J
enjoins the church to support equal rights for all persons regardless
of sexual orientation. Section 164.F
recognizes the right to act in civil disobedience and resist or disobey unjust
laws. Section 202 enjoins local churches
to minister to all persons in their communities and to provide
appropriate nurture to all. Section 204 enjoins each local church to
minister to all its members and provides that each local church has
the responsibility to nurture all its members. Section 214 provides
that all
persons should be able to participate in the full life of the church. Section 303.2 provides that ordination is fulfilled
through ministries of justice and compassion.
Section 305 provides for
the
incorporation of each baptized person into the church and its ministry; that the
primary form of ministry in God's name is that of service in the world; and that
all
members of the church are commissioned to ministries of love and justice. And,
finally, Section 340.1 provides that all clergy must serve in
Christ's ministries of love and justice.
In
light of these provisions of the Discipline, how are we to defend the policies
and practices of the United Methodist Church with regard to homosexuality
against charges of hypocrisy? The most
common definition of “hypocrisy” involves saying one thing and doing another,
often the opposite. Given the
above-cited provisions of the Discipline which, among other things, (1) state
that each and every person has worth in and of themselves and, thus, are
entitled to respect;
(2)
require the church to be inclusive and not discriminate; (3) require that all
persons be treated equally without regard to sexual orientation; (4) require
that all
persons be enabled to participate fully in the life of the
church; and (5) provide for both clergy and laity to participate in the church’s
ministry of love and justice, and recognizing that none of those provisions
contain an exception with respect to differential treatment with regard to
sexual orientation, how is it possible to defend the policies and practices of
the church with regard to homosexuality from the conclusion that those policies
and practices contradict the plain meaning of the provisions of the
Discipline?
Moreover,
with respect to clergy trials in particular, since any reasonable definition of
the term “justice” includes a requirement for fair and equal treatment of
individuals, how can clergy conduct a ministry of justice without offering to
homosexual persons the full ministry of the church, without discrimination,
including marriage? Failing to do so
would constitute a violation of their duty, under the Discipline, to act with
justice. And, further, since the
Discipline sanctions civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws, it would
seem that clergy who refuse to act unjustly, consistent with their duty to do
justice, are acting in a manner that is consistent with the Discipline. In this regard, I am surprised that
complaints have not been filed against clergy who have refused to conduct
same-sex marriages for failing to obey the Disciplinary injunction that they do
justice. In any event, this summary of
the Discipline makes clear that clergy are in an impossible situation: either they obey the provisions prohibiting
same-sex marriage or they disobey their duty to do justice. I would think that any serious church would
want its clergy to do justice.
I
recognize that you are in a difficult situation because you too have
obligations under the Discipline. I
would urge you, however, to follow the course taken by other bishops and publicly
acknowledge that the church has created an impossible burden for its clergy and
that its policies and practices need to be revised. Schism is too difficult to administer in this
day and age, given the size and scope of the denomination. We are too large to carry out something like the
1844 Plan of Nine which enabled the
creation of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. A more reasonable accommodation of the
conflicting views within the church is to leave matters regarding the treatment
of homosexual persons to the discretion of each individual clergyperson and
local church. One could hope that the
next General Conference has the wisdom to make that compromise a reality.
As
to the matters now before you with respect to Steve Heiss, I note that you have
a significant amount of discretion in how you conduct the process. See, e.g., Section 363.1.e provides you with
the discretion, in consultation with the cabinet, to dismiss the complaint;
Section 2713.3.4, concerns your discretion to select the counsel for the
church; Section 2713.2, allows you the
discretion to select the presiding officer; and Section 2713.3.a provides
you with discretion to select those who will choose the jury pool. I would encourage you to use this discretion
with care and due consideration for the welfare of the whole church. Continued clergy trials, among other things,
alienate much of the churched and non-churched alike, impose costs that use
limited resources that could be better spent is support of the mission of the church,
lead seminarians, and clergy, to consider ministry in more accepting
denominations. In short, we need to stop
the trials and make room for the differing consciences of clergy and laity in
the United Methodist Church.
I
wish you Godspeed in this period of trial for you, and for the whole church.
Peace--
Ned Bachman
