The Secret Transcript of the Council of Bishops. Darren Cushman Wood

      THE SECRET TRANSCRIPT OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS

      A Dialogue on Homosexuality and Church Unity

      Copyright © 2015 Darren R. Cushman Wood. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

      Resource Publications

      An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

      199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

      Eugene, OR 97401

      www.wipfandstock.com

      isbn 13: 978-1-4982-3028-5

      eisbn 13: 978-1-4982-3029-2

      New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

      Manufactured in the U.S.A.

      In memory of my grandparents Lloyd and Marian Covey and in appreciation for the Cowbell Theologians

      Acknowledgments

      I would like to thank the Center of Theological Inquiry for allowing me to participate in the Pastor-Theologian Program from which this project originated. After the program ended, part of our cohort group continued to meet, and for over ten years have enjoyed good conversations about ministry and theology. This group of “Cowbell Theologians” have tolerated, challenged, supported, and affirmed me. I am grateful to be a part of them.

      I would also like to thank my friend and colleague Rev. Dr. Andrew Kinsey. A few years ago we engaged in a lengthy and heated conversation about the issues of homosexuality and doctrine through a series of emails. Those conversations are reflected in this book. Andy has been a holy friend who has challenged my thinking and supported my spirit.

      I am grateful for the appointments I have served: Greensboro, Sugar Grove, East Tenth Street, Speedway, and North United Methodist Churches. Thank you to my home church, Bartlett Chapel United Methodist, and to my college congregation, Fairlawn United Methodist, for laying the foundation of my faith and ministry. Having traversed the spectrum of United Methodism, I am grateful for the insights I have gained from each of them. They have been a means of grace for me and my family.

      Special thanks goes to Beth DeHoff for her assistance with the manuscript. Finally, a word of thanks to my wife Ginny and her patience with me.

      Introduction

      What would Wesley say? United Methodists have always looked to their founder for an example or a quick quote to justify their actions. This dialogue is a little theological exercise to see what insights we might discover in the writings and practices of John Wesley in light of the ongoing debate over homosexuality and its impact on church unity.

      Homosexuality raises a host of related questions and issues about ecclesiology. It serves as a good case study to explore how we understand the nature and mission of the church, the meaning of membership, and the role of the episcopacy. Wesleyans have never professed to have an explicit or even coherent understanding of the nature of the church. However, by putting Wesley in the midst of our conversation we may see a better way to understand the church and more loving way to move forward.

      This originated as a project for the Pastor-Theologian Program of the Center of Theological Inquiry in 2006. It is also a reflection on my experiences as a delegate to two General Conferences. Over time it became an exercise in listening to the various voices in this debate and their underlying assumptions. It is my hope that there are no straw men in this dialogue but that the complexity of each opinion is honored. Nor is it my intention to align Wesley with a particular side of the debate. Rather, my goal is to listen to the tradition of Wesley in our contemporary context and to put him in conversation with us. We must let the tradition judge us and guide us.

      Why write a dialogue? For two reasons. One, the early Methodists did theology in conversation. The first annual conference was a conversation (with John, no doubt, dominating the debate) that expressed their theology in a question-and-answer form that was preserved and passed on in the minutes. This model of theological reflection can still serve us well. Two, the complexity of the issue and the diversity of perspectives warrants this form. A dialogue is the best way to capture the warp and woof of this forty year debate.

      To be sure, this is fiction and any resemblance to actual bishops or to any meeting of the Council of Bishops is merely coincidental. But the ideas are all too real. When I read the Wesleys my heart and mind are drawn closer to God. I listen to them, I argue with them, and I submit myself to them. They are my doctrinal standard. I invite the reader to join me in this prayerful conversation with the tradition.

      The Setting and Cast of Characters

      It is a late night, closed door meeting of the Council of Bishops during General Conference of the United Methodist Church. Earlier that day, the General Conference overturned its long-standing opposition to homosexuality in the Social Principles. Everyone expects that tomorrow other changes to the Discipline regarding homosexuality will pass. In anticipation, a substantial number of conservative delegates walked out of the plenary session. They have been meeting with representatives of liberal caucuses to develop a proposal for “amicable separation.” The bishops include:

      • Bishop Anchor—a conservative who believes in maintaining the unity of the church through doctrinal agreement.

      • Bishop Compass—President of the Council and moderator of the meeting.

      • Bishop Credo—a conservative with ties to the evangelical caucuses who has been approached about leading a new conservative denomination if there is a separation.

      • Bishop Embrace—a liberal with ties to the progressive caucuses who has been approached about leading a new liberal denomination if there is a separation.

      • Bishop Hound—a cynic or a realist, depending on your perspective.

      • Bishop Leeway—a liberal who believes in maintaining the unity of the church through reforms in the polity.

      • Bishop South—a leader from one of the central conferences in the global south.

      • Bishop Temperate—a moderate who believes in the unity of the church.

      Part One

      [The bishops pause for worship after several hours of conversation. They conclude their worship by singing, “What troubles have we seen, what mighty conflicts past, fightings without, and fears within, since we assembled last!”1 The bishops are seated.]

      Compass: We return to the urgent matter at hand. Bishop Temperate.

      Temperate: Let me suggest that tomorrow we should prevent any motion regarding separation from being presented on the floor. We should rule it out of order. We should avoid the topic. Some of us should work behind the scenes and discourage delegates from bringing such a motion, but if it comes up we should kill it immediately. We were consecrated to maintain the unity of the church and it is our calling to use our authority to bury this.

      Leeway: Even though I sympathize with your goal it would be a misuse of our power and would fuel deeper divisions. We need to become more inclusive by creating a more flexible structure that enables people who disagree to remain in the denomination. We must agree to disagree on this issue and we need to give conservatives and liberals