Is the Ecumenical Officer for the United Methodist Council of Bishops truly serving the cause of Christian unity?
Authentic Christian ecumenism should be defined by representatives of various Christian bodies witnessing to their respective churches’ historic theological teachings, and looking for cooperation with other Christian traditions within the pale of orthodoxy. It is particularly valuable for the representatives of various churches articulately to defend those church traditions that are prominently disputed in the wider body of Christ or in secular society.
Former ecumenical officer Bishop Melvin Talbert has used his high profile to promote pro-homosexuality causes. (Photo courtesy UMNS) |
Without whitewashing differences over important theological concerns, participants in ecumenical projects should seek cooperation and unity through evangelism, service to the poor and Christian witness in secular society. They should remember the Apostle Paul’s teaching that despite differences, disciples of Jesus Christ are members of one body knit together in love, in which no one part can say to another “I have no need of you” (1 Corinthians 12:12-31, Ephesians 4:1-16).
In 1996, the United Methodist Council of Bishops established the position of ecumenical officer, allowing a retired bishop to, in the words of the 2004 Book of Discipline, “be the primary liaison for the United Methodist Church” in “formal relations with other churches and/or ecclesial bodies.” The position was initially filled by Bishop William Boyd Grove, who was replaced in 2000 by Bishop Melvin Talbert, who was succeeded in 2004 by Bishop William Oden. At its fall 2007 meeting, the Council elected Bishop Sharon Zimmerman Rader to the four-year term beginning this year.
Remarkably, almost all of the bishops selected for this position have pointedly declined to defend the official teachings of The United Methodist Church on marriage and sexual ethics. Bishop Grove was president of the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns (GCCUIC) in 1990 when it voted unanimously (with two abstentions) formally to affiliate with the “Reconciling” movement dedicated to undermining the denomination’s teachings on homosexuality. After his tenure as ecumenical officer, he presided over the infamous 2004 church trial in which a jury dominated by pro-homosexuality activists in the Pacific-Northwest Conference acquitted the Rev. Karen Dammann, a “self-avowed practicing homosexual,” despite the Discipline’s clearly stating that those who choose such a lifestyle are not to be accepted as ministers. He subsequently praised the “integrity” of the “fairly and honorably” reached verdict. (Grove’s take on the trial was not shared by others on the Council; several of whom issued statements of disappointment.)
During his tenure as bishop of the California-Nevada Conference, Talbert was known to use his power to promote the homosexuality cause and to drive evangelicals out of the denomination, including numerous pastors and congregations. One of the “Denver 15” bishops to publicly denounce the church’s position on marriage and sex at the 1996 General Conference, Talbert effectively refused to discipline 68 clergy members of his conference for jointly performing a lesbian union in open defiance of church law. After Talbert’s colleagues subsequently rewarded him with the position of ecumenical officer, he used that position to lobby (in the name of the denomination) for the inclusion of a predominantly homosexual denomination in the National Council of Churches (NCC).
At their semi-annual meeting last fall, the Council of Bishops considered two candidates for ecumenical officer: Bishop William Morris, a supporter of traditional biblical standards for sexual morality, and Bishop Sharon Zimmerman Rader, one of the Council’s more outspokenly radical members and, like Talbert, one of the “Denver 15.” A majority of the active bishops elected the latter. Just three months before her election, Bishop Rader spoke at a national convocation of the Reconciling Ministries Network, the main unofficial caucus working to undermine the United Methodist Church’s biblical teaching on marriage and sex.
As a speaker at the pro-homosexuality “Kairos CoMotion” conference in February 2002, Bishop Rader not only challenged the denomination’s position on homosexuality but also approvingly quoted José Hobday, a New Age mystic and former teacher at the University of Creation Spirituality, in urging participants to “take a step into yourself” and “take a step into mystery.” She also endorsed a statement broadly denouncing “[t]he use of the term, ‘heresy,’ in our time” and defending the radical 1993 “Re-Imagining” conference that notoriously affirmed lesbianism, “sex among friends,” and goddess worship while attacking foundational Christian doctrines about God and Jesus Christ.
Bishop Oden was not as radical as his predecessors during his term as ecumenical officer. But regretfully, he offered unquestioning support for the liberal ecumenical movement centered on the National Council of Churches. Oden claimed that criticism of the NCC’s politicized focus “does not typically find its values and ideals in the life and teachings of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels.” Unhelpfully, he ascribed criticism of the NCC to “radical right pressure groups, global conglomerates, and a variety of anti-middle class institutes and think tanks.”
Our bishops should realize that abandoning historic Christian teachings about marriage is extremely counter-productive to ecumenical relations with the mainstream of the body of Christ globally. As Bishop Lindsey Davis recently noted, any change in our denomination’s current biblical teaching on homosexuality “would fracture our relationships with most Christian faith communities around the world.” It may be fair to ask to what extent the Council of Bishop’s choices for the ecumenical officer position are responsible for the our denomination not enjoying better ecumenical relations the growing majority of American Protestant churches that are not affiliated with the NCC.
It should seem obvious that an important prerequisite for authentically building unity with brothers and sisters in Christ outside of one’s own denomination would be a deep and demonstrated commitment to building loving Christian unity among the diverse members within one’s denomination. But all of the ecumenical officers have at various points dramatically conveyed the message, “I have no need of you,” to huge portions of the United Methodist Church.
Will the Council of Bishops ever select an ecumenical officer who will advocate a genuine Christian ecumenism? With history as our guide, such a move in the near future appears unlikely.
No comments yet
