Complaints Filed Against Bishop Talbert, Shrouded in Mystery

on March 19, 2014

We have reported earlier on how the United Methodist Council of Bishops made history by calling for formal complaints to be filed against retired Bishop Melvin Talbert for invading another annual conference to perform a publicity-stunt same-sex union ceremony, defying the protests of the resident bishop and the executive committee of the Council of Bishops. The council voted in closed session at its November meeting to call for charges to be filed against Talbert, the former bishop of San Francisco, for crossing two “red lines” of forbidden conduct for UMC clergy: “conducting a ceremony to celebrate the marriage of a same gender couple” and undermining another bishop’s ministry.

The Council of Bishops thus put its own collective credibility on the line to insist that there be some accountability for Mr. Talbert.

Yet in the roughly five months since then, there has been an awkward silence about what will be done next.

Then last Thursday, a press release from the College of Bishops of the UMC’s famously radicalized U.S. Western Jurisdiction, of which Talbert remains a part, announced that formal complaints have (finally!) been filed against Mr. Talbert for having “violated the sacred trust of his office.”

The entirety of the substance of the March 13 statement is as follows:

 

Complaints Filed Against Bishop Melvin G. Talbert;

Supervisory Process Initiated to seek ‘Just Resolution’

DENVER – Complaints have been filed against Bishop Melvin G. Talbert alleging he has violated the sacred trust of his office.  Acting in accordance with United Methodist church law, a supervisory response has been initiated by Bishop Elaine Stanovsky of Denver.

The Council of Bishops requested that complaints be filed against Bishop Talbert, of Nashville, Tenn., after he performed an October wedding for two men in Alabama.  The bishop of the region, Debra Wallace-Padgett, had asked him not to perform the ceremony.  The Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops also made this request.

Bishop Stanovsky, president of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops, has been assigned to guide the confidential supervisory process according to the provisions of the Church’s Book of Discipline.  Bishop Talbert is a member of the Western Jurisdiction, where he served before his retirement in 2000. Church law requires that complaints against bishops be heard in the jurisdiction where the bishop is a member.

The supervisory response is a review of the bishop’s ministry which “shall be directed toward a just resolution” of the complaint.  The supervisory team consists of two bishops working in consultation with one clergy and one lay member of the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy. 

The supervisory team carefully maintains the confidentiality of the supervisory response, as guided by the Book of Discipline.  “We find that confidentiality protects the integrity of the process and provides the best hope of the parties reaching a just resolution and offering healing to the Church,” Bishop Stanovsky said.  “We need the whole Church to respect the supervisory process and uphold it in prayer.  Everyone involved takes their role very seriously and is working for a just, healing and faithful outcome.”

For relevant positions of The United Methodist Church go to:

http://www.rmcumc.org/new/component/content/article/425.html 

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-denominations-position-on-homosexuality1

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/para-363-complaint-procedures

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/para-413-complaints-against-bishops

 

The links to key provisions of church law are helpful for interested observers.

I had a friendly phone conversation with the District Superintendent listed as the contact person for this statement. He offered some helpful clarifications about the process.

He repeatedly stressed that all parties formally involved in the process were committed to achieving a “just resolution,” which can only happen with Talbert’s agreement. Per ¶413.3b of the UMC’s Book of Discipline, those supervising this stage of the process are aiming to complete it within 120 days, although they can potentially extend the process to up to 360 days.

But if a just resolution is not achieved, the spokesman said that the complaints may simply be completely dismissed.

Or the president of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops (currently Elaine Stanovsky of the Mountain Sky Area) or its secretary (currently Robert Hoshibata of the Desert-Southwest Conference) could refer to complaints against Talbert to the Western Jurisdiction’s committee on investigation, whose membership consists at least in large part of individuals nominated by the Western Jurisdiction Bishops. After conducting an investigation, this committee would vote on whether or not there is reasonable evidence that Talbert violated church law (as everyone knows he did in a very public way). If committee members have the integrity to acknowledge such a no-brainer and to not dishonestly misrepresent themselves in order to serve on the committee, then the complaint(s) would be elevated to the status of charge(s). But it is possible that the committee may instead try to dismiss the complaints in one way or another. If the complaints became charges, Talbert would then have the option of resigning his ministerial credentials within 30 days to avoid a church trial (¶2706.5). Talbert would face a church trial only after all these other hurdles had been overcome.

The press release also raises about as many questions as it answers: Who filed the complaint against Mr. Talbert? What was the exact nature of the complaint? Since the statement refers to “complaintS,” does this mean that more than one was filed? Who exactly are the bishops and others serving on the supervisory response team?

I was told that the decision was made to keep all of this information confidential, with the rationale that guarding against outside scrutiny would protect the ability of all voices in the process to be heard and would help the chances of arriving at a “just resolution.”

To be fair to this DS, he is simply a messenger, serving under the appointment of Bishop Elaine Stanovsky. And there are many provisions written into our Book of Discipline calling for confidentiality in such accountability processes.

But it questionable how much of a mandate Bishop Stanovsky has to make the process this transparency-avoidant.

Excessive, one-sided obsession with “confidentiality” in such UMC accountability processes can amount to coddling unrepentant wrongdoing while avoiding acknowledgment of, let alone faithfulness to, some important Christian obligations. 1 Timothy 5:20 could hardly be clearer on the importance of publicly reproving church leaders who sin, “so that the others may take warning.” Following this vein, #22 of the Methodist Articles of Religion, part of the UMC Doctrinal Standards which General Conference has no authority to amend, states that one who “willingly and purposely doth openly break the rites and ceremonies of the church to which he belongs … ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like….”

In any case, one would be hard-pressed to find a single individual who would honestly expect the unrepentant Mr. Talbert, who has long been notorious for his theological radicalism and currently serves as the vice-chair of the Reconciling Ministries Network’s board of directors, to agree to any “just resolution” involving meaningful accountability for himself.

The theological liberals who dominate the fast-shrinking Western Jurisdiction have already repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to break their own word to God to uphold our church’s policies. And now they have seen the example of their factional allies in the New York metro area flamboyantly mocking the accountability process by using “just resolution” as a fig-leaf to let another renegade clergyman off scot-free for doing a same-sex blessing, announce his willingness to continue violating the church law he vowed to uphold, be given a platform to further promote his views, and see his bishop even issue a sort of “declaration of independence” from the denomination’s biblically faithful majority. Liberal caucuses groups unsurprisingly celebrated this as an unmitigated “victory” over non-liberal United Methodists.

Is there any basis to expect a greater level of integrity from the Western Jurisdiction in the Talbert case?

It could take us nearly another year, or even more, to see what happens.

  1. Comment by theenemyhatesclarity on March 19, 2014 at 10:06 am

    Nothing will happen. The Bishops will give him a pass. Leadership and accountability are foreign terms to (most of) them.

    In Christ,

    The enemy hates clarity

  2. Comment by Daniel on March 19, 2014 at 10:33 am

    The following famous scene from Casablanca perfectly summarizes the way the UMC theocracy handles such complaints – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

    In honor of the UMC status as a mainline denomination, I am henceforth going to describe such behavior as mainlining – – and we all know what eventually happens to addicts that mainline!

  3. Comment by Darlene Anderson on January 23, 2019 at 10:31 pm

    This so called man of God, is actually the Devil In disguise! How a man of God would call out the youth of today, just because of a hat they might ware! He does not know these youth hearts! God is our Judge and not this so called Racist Hate baiting Bishop Talbot! He needs to be disciplined or released from his duties!

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.