After years of repeated pronouncements of his willingness to defy United Methodism’s official prohibition against same sex unions, retired United Methodist Melvin Talbert finally has specified that he will wed two men in Birmingham, Alabama on October 26.
Reconciling Ministries Network, a liberal caucus group that opposes United Methodist sexual and marriage teaching, made the announcement.
In response, Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett of the North Alabama Conference made this statement:
A retired United Methodist bishop from another region of the country notified me that in late October he plans to travel to North Alabama to officiate at the celebration of a ceremony of a same-sex couple who were recently married in Washington, D.C. Though the couple are members of a United Methodist Church in the North Alabama Conference, the celebration will not take place in a United Methodist Church. I urged the retired bishop to reconsider as his officiating at this ceremony would be in violation of United Methodist Church law.
The General Conference of the United Methodist Church, not a retired bishop, represents the United Methodist Church around this and other social issues. It is the only body that can set official policy and speak for the denomination. The General Conference of the United Methodist Church meets every four years. The most recent General Conference took place in 2012 and consisted of nearly 1,000 delegates from around the world.
Our 2012 Book of Discipline affirms that all persons are of sacred worth and that God’s grace is available to all. Every person is welcome in our churches. It also states that we consider the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teaching. Our ministers are not permitted to conduct ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions or perform same sex wedding ceremonies. For a bishop or any ordained or licensed minister to disregard a law of the church creates a breach of the covenant they made at their consecration, ordination or licensing.
As a Bishop of the United Methodist Church, I am committed to abide by and uphold the Book of Discipline (church law) of the United Methodist Church.
This statement is for release in its entirety with no redactions.
Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett North Alabama Conference
Comment by halehawk on September 27, 2013 at 9:16 pm
I wonder whether the marriage of this couple is really legal since Bishop Talbert IS NOT authorized by the church to conduct such a service.
Comment by DJS on September 27, 2013 at 9:35 pm
Helping on the sabbath is forbidden by the law of religion. As a scribe or Pharisee, I am committed to abide by and uphold the law. For a Messiah or any rabbi to disregard the law by healing on the sabbath creates a breach in the covenant. Crucify him.
Comment by Russ on September 28, 2013 at 6:52 am
God save the willfully ignorant.
Comment by George Babbitt on September 28, 2013 at 10:16 am
Don’t be a Jew about this.
Comment by Rev. Victor Ubiera on September 28, 2013 at 11:40 am
Did Jesus ever quit being a “Jew?”
Comment by Lamar Aiazzi on September 28, 2013 at 5:20 pm
The spiritual leaders of Israel were charged with leading worship, and tending to their duties on the sabbath. The fact that Jesus, “of the order of Melchizedek” was doing God’s work on that day did not mean he was breaking the law, but was fulfilling it. He would undoubtedly not have officiated at a gay “wedding.”
Comment by Lamar Aiazzi on October 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Considering that the priests, scribes and pharisees weren’t working the other six days for their flocks either, but preying on their people by accepting bribes, stealing from widows, exploiting orphans, committing adultery and other sins, as well as adopting pagan worship, the people weren’t being reminded of God’s works and led as they should. A habit apparently emulated by Mr. Talbert’s behavior. The priests’ corruption was well known in the Israeli population. Making the sabbath a day to remember the generosity and love of God was left to Christ and his apostles. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was created for man to remember God, so, by his acts, he sanctified it.
Comment by Palamas on September 27, 2013 at 9:48 pm
You forgot to mention shellfish. No demonstration of one’s ignorance of the nature of biblical law is complete without mentioning shellfish.
Comment by Lamar Aiazzi on October 3, 2013 at 12:02 am
Is your comment directed at me Palamas or DJS?
Comment by Lamar Aiazzi on October 3, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest, that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female servant and the stranger may be refreshed. Exodus 23:12
Comment by PraisinPeg on September 27, 2013 at 10:03 pm
As a life-long UM I cannot understand why someone would break covenant. If you disagree with the law of the church or can no longer uphold your covenant, then go somewhere else. Yes, people are of extreme value and loved by God and we need to see them through His eyes. That does not mean accepting sin in any form as a part of them – that’s not how He sees them. I applaud this Bishop for standing up for our discipline and church law!
Comment by Adrian Croft on September 30, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Well, let me enlighten you about Mel Talbert, as I knew him in his days as head of the UM’s Board of Discipleship. He is a publicity glutton. (I’m thinking of another term, but won’t use it here.) He never met a camera or microphone he didn’t like. If the UMs ever, God forbid, go the route of the UCCs and Episcopagans and start performing gay “weddings,” Talbert will take it one step further and start pushing for what will probably be called “adult-child relationships.” The man has no shame whatsoever. I doubt God even shows up on his radar screen.
Comment by PraisinPeg on September 27, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Will charges be brought against this retired Bishop?
Comment by Warren on September 27, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Our bishop did not say “Crucify Him.” She did the only thing she could and said the only thing she had authority to say as bishop in the North Alabama Conference.
Comment by Warren on September 27, 2013 at 10:19 pm
Still, DHS, your comment is very clever and wise. You definitely have got a point.
Comment by Paul Lawler on September 27, 2013 at 10:30 pm
Thank you, Bishop Debra Wallace Padgett, for your servant-leadership in lovingly extending God’s grace to all while maintaining 2,000 years of consistency to Biblical fidelity as reflected in our holy covenant via the United Methodist Book of Discipline.
Comment by JEB on September 27, 2013 at 10:41 pm
The Bible, not religious tradition, condemns the act of homosexuality, not the person. The Bible also says, ” For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.”
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on September 27, 2013 at 11:24 pm
More important than a law of a denomination, this is a teaching clearly endorsed by Jesus Himself. Melvin Talbert is not Jesus.
Comment by Jimcracky on September 28, 2013 at 3:22 am
Jesus said nothing on the matter of homosexuality. He referred to heterosexual marriage, but did not say it was the only kind of marriage possible.
Comment by Adrian Croft on September 30, 2013 at 6:23 pm
This “Jesus never spoke about homosexuality” nonsense has been repeated so often I think some people actually are dumb enough to think it proves Jesus would have condoned homosexuality. Obviously no one reading the Gospels could reach such an absurd conclusion. Jesus didn’t lower the sexual standard of his fellow Jews, he raised – don’t just refrain from adultery, stop lusting in your hearts. Keep the body pure, and the mind also. Who do you think understand the mind of the Lord better – Paul, who condemned homosexuality in no uncertain terms, or modern-day liberal clergy who like conforming to the world?
Comment by John on October 2, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Exactly!
Comment by Seeking Truth on September 28, 2013 at 6:23 am
This is a valid point. So please quote exactly what Jesus DID teach about homosexuality. Preach it!
Comment by John S on October 2, 2013 at 8:12 am
What did Jesus teach about homosexuality? That’s easy, as long as you accept that Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God. If you do then anything taught in the Bible is what Jesus taught. If you cannot accept that then, really, why are you quoting either? If Jesus is not God and the Bible is not the word of God why are either important?
Comment by Mona on September 28, 2013 at 8:42 am
Amen, clear!
Comment by Rev. Ben Hadley-Goggin on September 29, 2013 at 4:07 pm
I am a bit confused. Where is, I assume you mean, homosexuality is not compatible with Christian teaching, “a teaching clearly endorsed by Jesus Himself,”
this recorded in God’s Holy Word? I do not believe I have ever read, or found, a passage, with Jesus, specifically, condemning Homosexuality.
is a teaching clearly endorsed by Jesus Himself
Comment by Adrian Croft on September 30, 2013 at 6:25 pm
He didn’t condemn driving 80mph through a school zone either, but we can safely assume he would have condemned it. He didn’t mention watching child porn on our iphones, but I’m betting he would have condemned it. I’m amazed at appalled at lefties’ use and abuse of Scripture.
Comment by John on October 2, 2013 at 8:55 pm
The difference is driving 80mph is a choice. Homosexuality is not.
Comment by John S on October 3, 2013 at 8:04 am
Being born a sinner is not a choice either yet I was and am condemned thereby unless I accede to God’s rule.
Comment by Rodney Akers on September 27, 2013 at 11:41 pm
Why not tell Mr. Talbert that he is not welcome in the N. Alabama Conference to bring unwanted publicity of his violation of the Bible and our discipline. Why not stay home and if he wishes to violate God’s law to do so in his jurisdiction.
Comment by CG on September 28, 2013 at 1:12 am
“More important than a law of a denomination, this is a teaching clearly endorsed by Jesus Himself”
This. The majority of the letter is focused on the violation of the UMC Book of Discipline, which is ultimately a man-made church law, rather than the real issue: That the errant minister is in violation of Jesus’ own teaching on the nature and purpose of marriage (which is primarily to provide an image of God’s relationship toward his people).
Comment by Joel Bullock on September 28, 2013 at 2:19 am
It takes a strong leader to stand for what they are mandated to do, especially over this decisive issue. I hope and pray the General Conference can come to some decision to remove the discriminatory language from the Book of Discipline so the church can focus more on the teachings of Jesus.
Comment by Bishop I.F Barreto on September 28, 2013 at 6:54 am
Jesus announced the same and the ancient hebrew teaching; then He said in the first gospel: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh” (Mc 10:7-8). The Law can be hard, but barrings are the Law. It is only a heritage from the Old Testament specifically written in Genesis. Since of first century this words belongs Christ’s Law.
The United Methodist Church has not created a new law, only for obligation and duty subordination linked itself into the words of Christ. And it can not to be changed, unless the Church ceased to be the Church of Christ.
Comment by Todd Anderson on September 28, 2013 at 7:07 am
Silly pronouncements such as “Melvin Talbert is not Jesus” or, “The General Conference of the United Methodist Church, not a retired bishop” insult our intelligence. They add no value to this discussion.
Nor do pronouncements about what our Lord CHRIST clearly endorsed — the fact is, the LORD spoke ZERO about homosexuality. (Unless clearedeyed, you were there 2000-odd years ago and the Lord CHRIST whispered something in your ear he didn’t tell the rest of us………..)
The greater issue is how we apply the Spiritual Directives of the Bible. use the great wealth of our WESLEYAN Heritage to our daily walk — in the same way that we have modified/abridged the Dietary Laws from Leviticus, and, as we have been directed to use the WESLEYAN QUADRILATERAL — Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience — to guide that walk.
What is curiously absent from these posts is the fact that EVERY Bp. retired or not, sits on the CoB…..I wud like to be the fly on the wall when Bps. Talbert and Wallace-Padgett meet at one of those meetings….
Finally — let’s stop majoring in the minors.
To what end do discussions of this nature FEED the hungry, CLOTHE the naked, VISIT the sick and those imprisioned? Remembering, my Brothers and Sisters in CHRIST, hunger is not only appetite; nakedness isn’t just bare-assed, and the sick and imprisioned are NOT only in Hospital or Prison.
pax / in communio sacris
An Ordinary Radical
Todd Anderson
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on October 2, 2013 at 11:30 am
“Silly pronouncements??” It seems that such “silly pronouncements” are warranted due to the absurdity of sexuality-obsessed liberals comparing Mr. Talbert to Jesus.
You want to stop “majoring in the minors?” Why not be the first to take your own advice? It’s really liberals like yourself who are obsessively promoting the “sexuality-as-identity” movement. If you think that’s “majoring in the minors” then why don’t YOU get off it?
Those who believe in the tenets of historical Christianity are being forced to respond to such non-Christian radicalism. Most would like nothing better than to avoid it.
The Lord spoke “zero” about homosexuality? Really? Were YOU there? His words certainly resonate with Paul (who also wrote inspired Scripture, if you believe in that sort of thing, and was pretty clear on the topic of sexual behavior), and Christ certainly spoke about marriage, which, in His assessment, excludes homosexuality:
Matthew 19: “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female…For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Comment by Kay West on September 28, 2013 at 7:21 am
I am President of the NE District of the North Alabama Conference for United Methodist Women. I do not understand why a Methodist Bishop would take this stand and run the risk of having his credentials taken away from him. He knows, as a retired Bishop, that the church does not believe in same sex marriages. He should also know that he does not need to come from another area and try and do something in Alabama that he cannot do in his region. The church laws are the same for the Methodist church no matter what part of the country you are living in when you retire. I am proud that Bishop Wallace-Padgett is standing up to this retired bishop.
Comment by Rev. Mike Childs on September 28, 2013 at 9:49 am
Bishop Talbert is not only violating Church Law, which he took a sacred law to uphold, but he is violating Scripture, which is God’s law. If the Bishop has any integrity left, and he feels in his heart that homosexual practice and marriage is right, then he should surrender his United Methodist ordination, and join one of the churches that approves gay marriage. For 40 years the United Methodist Church has voted again and again such practice is unacceptable for a Christian’s lifestyle.
I salute Bishop Wallace-Pagent for taking a stand for Scripture and her Church’s doctrine. I know Bishop Wallace-Pagent, and there is not one ounce of hate in her. She is kind and loves all people, including homosexuals. She is only upholding her vows and God’s Word. I am praying for her.
Comment by Rev.Dr.K.Ananthakumar on September 28, 2013 at 9:54 am
whoever does against the word of God,he is non-other than follower of satan.he is evildoer,the church should desert him or else the members should not attend the sundayservice wherever this evil doer is attending.he is evil.
Comment by Cassandra Wright on September 28, 2013 at 10:03 am
IF nothing else, Mr. Talbert shows his complete lack of integrity in breaking a vow that he willingly agreed to. If he wishes to act outside the purview of that vow, he should disassociate himself from it. In other words, he should not be UMC clergy if he is no longer willing to behave as he promised to when he became UMC clergy. I would feel the same should he practice adultery or any other sin. Homosexuality is far outside the biblical concept of acceptability and he should not be promoting or celebrating it.
Comment by Michael Foy on September 28, 2013 at 10:11 am
I agree with Churches position wholeheartedly. We who are ministers of the Gospel and of the United Methodist Church have a covenant with the UMC to uphold its policies and decisions.To do otherwise idicates a that one has taken his or her calling, in the UMC, and disregarded it and instead has succomed to a worldly covenant with him or her self.
Comment by Bishop I.F Barreto on September 28, 2013 at 11:29 am
Jesus announced the same and the ancient hebrew teaching; then He said in the first gospel: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh” (Mc 10:7-8). The Law can be hard, but barrings are the Law. It is only a heritage from the Old Testament specifically written in Genesis. Since of first century this words belongs Christ’s Law. This is “univocal” (With one sense”.
The United Methodist Church has not created a new law, only for obligation and duty subordination linked itself into the words of Christ. And it can not to be changed, unless the Church ceased to be the Church of Christ.
Comment by Seeking Truth on September 29, 2013 at 7:21 am
Excellent point Bishop. Please clarify though, because that scripture is very pointed in teaching about divorce. So, in our congregations, is it MORE okay to have adulterous (according to your scripture reference) men and women who have divorced and re-married than to have couples living an alternative lifestyle? Is it the term “marriage” that is the sticking point for the church? Would “gay union” be more acceptable? If we have abandoned most of Leviticus law, and we ignore the teaching of Jesus regarding divorce and remarriage, then how do we counsel wisely on religious law when it comes to gay union without seeming hypocritical?
Comment by Rev. Victor Ubiera on September 28, 2013 at 11:38 am
Wow! I praised Bishop Wallace-Padgett on her apostolic position. She is consistent with our Christian tradition and rejecting the “innovators” alluded in II and III John. Why not apply verse 10 of II John to those who are unrepentant and defy the church doctrine? In spite of the risk of division, I think we need some house cleaning within the Methodist church.
Comment by halehawk on September 28, 2013 at 1:49 pm
If Bishop Talbert follows through with this action, I hope Bishop Wallace-Pagett will file charges against him. I’m not clear about the process, but perhaps it could appropriately be dealt with by the Judicial Council.
Comment by Rev. James T. Smith on September 28, 2013 at 2:49 pm
I trust this Bishop over the area in which the travesty is to take place is ready to present charges against this rogue retired bishop if and when he partakes of the forbidden “fruit”. No, Hebrew law would demand he be stoned. (I mean with rocks).
Comment by Parker Wayland on September 28, 2013 at 4:40 pm
The issue is the purity and holiness of the Bride of Christ, the Church. To purposely act in rebellion against the clear message of Scripture is to attempt to put a stain on it. In the end, Christ will not allow it.
Comment by Robert Fulton on September 28, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Thank you Bishop Padgett for standing up for the teaching of the church. I think Bishop Talbert should face charges if he goes through with this.
Comment by Betty Mills on September 28, 2013 at 6:55 pm
I believe this Bishop should have to give up his credentials and his pension. He plans to go against the Bible teachings and our church.
Comment by Genie Gualdoni on September 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm
I am a Methodist & my God has an open mind & an open heart. He teaches love & understanding of all people.
Comment by Reverend Derek Harmon, M.A. M.Div on September 29, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Thank you Bishop for responding to this controversy with grace, class and truth. Thank you for being able to speak what is right and stand for our denominational principles.
Comment by John S on September 30, 2013 at 9:49 am
I’m just happy to see a Bishop publicly declaring that the BOD is binding on all and that the GC is in charge of the UMC.
What novel concepts!
Comment by Gil Caldwell on September 30, 2013 at 10:02 pm
One person has said this about Bishop Melvin Talbert in response to his willingness to marry a same sex couple; “The man (Bishop Talbert) has no shame whatsoever. I doubt God even shows up on his radar screen”.
I wonder if the person who wrote this would have said the same thing about the two Methodist Bishops who signed a public statement that urged Martin Luther King to cease leading demonstrations in Birmingham, protesting racial segregation?
Martin King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” represented his response to those who disagreed with his efforts to end racial injustice.
We, who claim allegiance to Jesus, must be careful in making negative judgments about Bishop Talbert’s faith, or the faith of anyone else. Martin Luther King was right, and those who requested that he leave Birmingham were wrong. Yet, I as a Methodist preacher who remembers those 2 Bishops who signed that statement, never questioned the legitimacy of their relationship to God.
Some may disagree with Bishop Talbert (I do not), but by what right do they have to make judgements about his relationship to God?
Comment by John Lomperis on October 2, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Rev. Caldwell, I will just respectfully point out that your own involvement with producing the factually liberal “United Methodism @ Risk” indicates that you have no problem “making negative judgments about the faith” of less theologically liberal United Methodists than yourself.
Comment by Fred on October 2, 2013 at 8:52 am
Folks you are dancing around the obvious and what has been obvious for years. The “Bishop” from California has no real connection with Christianity. He has no interest in or real understanding of the Church. He is not capable of perceiving the meaning behind Wesley’s sermons or writings. He is a destroyer of the church and the UMC is loaded with the same ilk. We have pockets and places where we remain the Church with faithful pastors and people but the UMC left most of it’s connection with Wesley and his Methodist movement in most of the bureaucracy decades ago. Folks wake up to the obvious! They just passed a rule in the Desert Southwest Conference that churches must allow women to use the mens room and men to use the ladies room. In a rapidly dying conference they thought this should be a main goal. Unbelievable! Take a deep breathe, pause and let the reality fall upon you that in so many ways The UMC traded the Gospel for Madness. So now the object is to do everything possible to renew the Church. That will be responding with equal force to the attacks on the Church. This is a stunt. This is a stunt that is well organized with military like tactics, planned in advance probably assisted with funding from outside, secular pro-homosexual groups. This is no “act of compassion” this is a strategic part of the war against the Church. God bless Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett for showing some courage. We have had almost none from our bishops even the “evangelical” ones. But if she wants to effect change and help stop the bludgeoning of the UMC she must meet spiritual warfare with spiritual warfare. She will have to go toe to toe at the same level of force that is brought against the Church. That type of response has yet to be seen in all these years of taking it on the chin from these bullies. This is an invasion from a man who wants to harm the Church whether he realizes it or not. She will have have to repel him with equal force. She also would be amazed that if she held up a standard in the midst of the battle how many would run to her side having waited for decades for such a leader.
Comment by Ken Fuller on October 2, 2013 at 11:06 am
For the Councilf Bishops to allow this to take place and not stop it before it happens condemns them all to violating the Discipline. If we are not going to uphold the Discipline as we swore to do so before an Annual Conference, we are liars. We should be denied our credentials. And being elected to a high office does not exclude us from being controlled by the Discipline. We are not a “Bible Only” church, We are ruled by the GC and the Book of Discipline. The GC, we hope, legislates in conformity with the Bible. If one deems they do not, one can attempt to change the ruling and, if one fails, then one with integrity, should join another group they like better. For the CofB to continue to ignore such acts will make us an apostate church.
Comment by Fred on October 3, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Makes them apostate leaders more than us an apostate church. But you make a great point.
Comment by John on October 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm
I am a Methodist and my church is a reconciling church (we accept all people regardless of sexual orientation, gay, lesbian, straight, transgender, bisexual etc.) and they also may hold postions in the church as well. My church council also voted to support our pastor if a gay couple wanted to get married in our church.
What the bishop quoted from the book of discipline is true, however, those two statements also contradict each other. You simply cannot say,”all people have worth”and then say, “except gays”.
We know it is not a choice with sexual orientation, it is biologically programmed into a person so there is not a cure because there not a defect.
It’s time we stop these ideas of prejudice and start focus on more pressing issues.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on October 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm
As a scientist I can tell you that we do not have a clear understanding of the cause or causes of homosexuality. We certainly know that some people have same-sex attraction, just like some people are sexually attracted to children. How they respond to this attraction is, most definitely, a choice. We are not barnyard animals.
There is absolutely no contradiction in the Bishop’s statement. You offer a false choice (and no one said “except gays”–that’s your insertion). Saying all people are of “sacred worth” does not mean endorsing behavior which is clearly condemned by Holy Scripture (of all major faiths), historic Christian teaching, and an obvious violation of the biological imperative to procreate.
If you want to have an honest, productive conversation you need to stop characterizing things as fact that are little more than political talking points.
Comment by John on October 2, 2013 at 6:41 pm
If you’re a scientist, then you know of the MRI and CT scans done on a study group of straight, gay and lesbians and the differences in brain size. In the study, gay men had almost identical brain size as straight women and lesbians had simila . Brain size of straight men. Also, the words homosexual and heterosexual didn’t enter language until the around the 1700’s. Furthermore, Jesus never mentions the subject. It must not have been very important. As far as being condemned by most major faiths, that is incorrect. That is what you say but the proof isn’t there. Remember, there is nothing in the bible with God condemning it, only what was translated over several decades. How many times did the writers of the translations inject their own ideas or philosophical ideas? Many people couldn’t read or write and relied on what was told to them and many times they were told lies that benefited the churches or synagogues. For example, before and during the reformation, the Catholic church would sell parchments declaring God forgives your sins if you buy it
I never said the bishop’s statement was contridicting as it is not the bishop’s own words. She was quoting from the Book of Discipline. Therefore, I was speaking to that.
In my experience, those who are opposed to homosexuality and speak with the hostility like you do, are many times repressing, for whatever reason, thier own homosexual or latent homosexual feelings.
I don’t understand why people such as yourself, care if gays get married.
Don’t we have more important things in the world to deal with than worrying if certain people have approval for marriage or not? EVERYONE deserves to be happy.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on October 2, 2013 at 9:53 pm
It’s clear that you are so woefully misinformed it would be a waste of time to go into much further detail with you. If you even read all of my prior post you didn’t understand it (e.g., there was no hostility toward gays, it was merely a factual narrative). The study that you cite was relatively small (less than I00 people) and was inconclusive as to whether environmental factors may have played a role.
I can only hope and pray that you will approach the topic with a more open mind and study Scripture more thoroughly, as well as the reasons Christians believe it is inspired.
Comment by John on October 2, 2013 at 10:25 pm
Oh I have an open mind. That is why I am glad to have a bishop go against antiquated teachings. I also am quite knowledgeable of scripture. Times are different now than 2000 years ago. Afterall, the bible says slaves are to obey their masters and yet, I haven’t found the Slave Shopping Channel.
Comment by Gene Mims on October 2, 2013 at 3:44 pm
I do remember Mr. Talbert from the General Conference in Tampa saying he thought bishops should be bishops for life and that he considered the college of bishops to be his church. Perhaps he thinks he is above any recriminations. I would however remind him that he took and oath to God and I don’t think he is living up to his part.
Comment by REO on October 2, 2013 at 8:13 pm
I was moved by her at SE Jurisdictional Conference and am very happy to see my expectations vindicated.
Comment by R.H. on October 4, 2013 at 1:38 pm
There are a lot of comments on this blog, but not one person seems to address the elephant that is in the room. This whole issue is controversial because there are two schools of thought on homosexuality. Most openly gay people believe that they were born with these desires and therefore they cannot help who they are as far as their sexual orientation is concerned. In their eyes, anyone who discriminates against them is wrong because they are being hated for something they cannot help. It is why discrimination against blacks could not be justified – people cannot control their race. From the church perspective, homosexuality is an act of sin that is chosen to be performed by a person, willfully. So, speaking against homosexuality is no different than speaking against someone who robs a bank or commits murder or rape. As long as the church believes that a person CAN control their sexual orientation and the gays believe that they CANNOT control their sexual orientation, then this argument will never find a resting place in society.
Comment by Vance B. Mathis on October 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm
The service that the bishop performs will likely have no legal implication in the civil forum, inasmuch as the couple have, apparently, been legally married in another state. The service will not be performed in a church facility. If he pronounces them a wedded couple, will he violate UMC law, if there is no marriage license or legal contract? Will he both be skirting and defying the law of the church simultaneously? I regret that he has chosen to do this, yet I am intrigued by the conundrum it may create. Ultimately, if charges are filed, the Judicial Council may have to resolve the issues involved.
Comment by John on October 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm
It seems to me the southeast states are more resistant to accepting gays than the northern and western states. Very much like the division of slavery which had a diversionary line closely mimicking the decisive lines of today, except, instead of slaves, it’s the issue of gays. The prejudice attitudes of the south never seem to go away. The just take new new forms of hate. So sad this is even an issue.
Comment by Peace Warrior on October 24, 2013 at 9:52 am
The Father’s love is bigger than your ignorant hearts and minds. If any come in the name of Christ, preaching hate he is not a true brother or sister. Woe unto anyone that preaches hate. Woe unto them who would attempt to close the gates of heaven on their brothers and sisters, when they themselves will not enter. I will continually pray for you first stone casting hypocrites.