• The United Methodist Reporter
• Jonathan Merritt in The Atlantic: The Death of Moral Relativism
• David Brooks, the Governing Cancer of Our Time
• Charges against gay UMC pastor progresses

It was 2013 when When Bishop Melvin Talbert performed a high-profile same-sex wedding. It was not the first same-sex wedding performed by UM clergy, nor was it the first time such an act had taken place without any significant accountability to the larger church. It was, however, the first time a UM bishop had so flagrantly infringed upon the episcopal authority of the the presiding bishop of an annual conference (Bishop Wallace-Padgett), and so publicly acted in disobedience to the teaching of the Discipline he had vowed to uphold. It was also clearly a moral declaration: the imperative for UMC clergy to perform same-sex weddings outweighs the imperative to abide by the decisions of the General Conference. Because bishops are held accountable by the college of bishops in their jurisdictions, and the Western Jurisdiction bishops were basically sympathetic to Bishop Talbert’s actions, no serious disciplinary action took place. The lack of consequential action toward Talbert reinforced his moral declaration.

On the one hand, Talbert’s action and the lack of consequences had very significant implications for the governance of our denomination. It showed that while the General Conference could legislate certain positions, the college of bishops in a particular jurisdiction would determine whether or not the decisions of the General Conference would be effectively binding upon clergy in that jurisdiction. In the Western Jurisdiction, the college of bishops has enacted a de facto jurisdictional decision around these issues. Put differently, because these bishops feel that the denomination’s position on same-sex marriage is immoral, they have used what power they have to undermine that position. The moral decisions of the college of bishops now supersede the moral decisions of the General Conference.