If It Doesn’t Fit…Challenging an Unjust legal Opinion (October 1995)

If It Doesnt Fit…Challenging an Unjust legal Opinion

Leonard Lovett, Ph. D

The expensive legal opinion rendered by the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell and passed on to the Board of Bishops as a basis for by-passing the November election for a Presiding Bishop, simply does not fit.* It is not what the opinion stated that is crucial, but rather what it omits that is important. Remember lawyers are trained to give you back what you give them. (garbage in…means garbage out). The six questions asked in the document were designed (stacked) to favor the interim Presiding Bishop. The problem is that someone failed to ask the right questions. Page three, paragraph two of the opinion is incorrect and simply does not fit.

The General Board did not and could not create a policy of succession upon the death of    Bishop  Patterson. It is not a law-making body. Bishop L. H. Ford personally pleaded and appealed to the general church in an open meeting to complete his predecessor’s term. What you did not know is that within twenty-four hours Bishop Ford was respectfully reminded that technically he was not the Presiding Bishop. Only the General Assembly can elect a Presiding Bishop. With the mike, money and manpower must really ask why the fear of an election? It does not fit…

The Pattern of Succession of Leadership [Office of Presiding Bishop]Let us review the facts since the demise of Presiding Bishop J. 0. Patterson. On December 29, 1989, Bishop J. 0. Patterson succumbed. On the evening of the day of his burial a special meeting was held at Mason Temple. Bishop L H. Ford stood and verbally pleaded to the general church in an open meeting for the privilege of serving the remaining term of Bishop Patterson. The general church sanctioned Bishop Ford’s request by voice vote, not the General Assembly. The Chairman of the General Assembly was bound by the Constitution to convene a special session for the purpose of electing a Presiding Bishop even though Bishop Ford had been sanctioned only (45) days earlier. On February 15, 1990,Chairman Frank Ellis sent a letter to the Board of Bishops announcing the agenda for the Spring Session (April 3 – 6) of the General Assembly. A special selection was held during a non-quadrennial year. Two years later (1992) Bishop Ford was re-elected.Thus the pattern for succession had been established by precedent. This pattern superseded and overrides any previous charter established and legally renders null and void any legal opinion set forth. Please note that the Chairman of the General Assembly’s agenda was precise and deliberate. The agenda consisted of eight items. They are as follows:

                                        April 3, 1990 Agenda

1. Memorial tribute to the late Bishop J. 0. Patterson, Sr.

2. Election to fill the vacancy on the General Board

3. Receive financial reports from each Jurisdiction

4. Consider several Constitutional Amendments

5. Hear reports from Trustee Board sub-committees

6. Elect the Presiding Bishop

7. Approve two (2) Assistant Presiding Bishops

8. Install new officers

(Click here to continue reading)

Don’t Void the Warranty: A Christian Response to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

OPEN LETTER TO THE NATION

 

                                                       Rev. Leonard Lovett, Ph. D, Ecumenical Officer COGIC

DEAR SISTERS AND BROTHERS:

     It is not what President Obama said when he stated his support for same-sex marriage that constitutes the problem in the debate, but rather the timing and framing of the issue within the context of politics as a public policy issue that constitutes the crux of the problem. The president has a right to his opinion as leader of one of the most powerful nations in the global village. We are admonished to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesars and unto God what belongs to God. The family is one of the “orders of creation” fundamental to the perpetuation and maintenance of the human species. It is unfortunate that the Marriage Amendment debate has emerged within the context of politics as a wedge issue thus forcing supporters on each side to make such an important concern an election choice that will ultimately decide the presidency of the United States of America.

     After much reflection I am compelled to agree with the president’s statement affirming the rights of all citizens of our democratic republic to make their marital choice. It was implied that to deny persons the privilege to marry is to violate their basic right to equality under the law. I do not view this debate as a Civil Rights issue. This is a public policy issue with far reaching implications for Civil Rights. Once same-sex marriage is viewed singularly as a Civil Rights issue it is no longer under the purview of Scripture. I will fight for the right of anyone to make the choice to marry whomever they chose even in what they perceive to be a “loving relationship.” As a Christian I am to demonstrate compassion toward such persons. I have been reminded that “compassion is mercy with work clothes on.” The difficulty comes when we attempt to legitimate such a union with the name Christian. As a public theologian-ethicist I am obligated to speak to the moral legitimacy of such a union through the prism of our historic faith. From the standpoint of public policy a civil union is a form of marriage that requires the state to make it legitimate. Marriage as we have come to comprehend it is grounded in covenant which assigns a sense of responsibility and intrinsic worth to the institution of marriage . Within the boundaries of covenant there can be no authentic freedom without moral responsibility. Any attempt to enjoy freedom without moral responsibility leads to anarchy.

     We do not change the rules of the game to accommodate the players. My faith inspires and informs my societal frame of reference. My opinion is secondary to the One who thought me up. As a Christian theologian Scripture is my guide for faith and practice, not what society desires and embraces. When Paul the Apostle admonishes us not to “Be conformed to this world” it is another way of saying not to allow the world to force us into its mold. (Romans 12: 1) In simple Christian language, the world is human society without Christ. The manufacturers warranty on an automobile is intended to be a safeguard against anyone other than the authorized dealer repairing same. The warranty is voided when an unauthorized person tampers with the engine.

     The metaphor is obvious. Historically for Christians Scripture has been our mandate for marriage. However, in a pluralistic society other choices will emerge.   The manual unequivocally states that the sacred union of marriage should exclusively occur between male and female with the hope of procreation, recreation, permanence and uniqueness. . The very institution of marriage is bound by covenant grounded in our Judaeo-Christian foundation of faith. To believe and/or to do otherwise is to alter the original institution and render void the warranty and marriage as an institution could risk will losing its sense of sacrality, character and purpose. Postmodernist thinkers would argue that it is a fallacy to ascribe any meaning to a text or even to the text’s author and views truth as a social construct that is relative. That it is the reader who establishes the meaning, and there are no controls that limit the meaning that can be imposed This is a dangerous posture to leave the interpretation of the text (even Scripture) to even an uninformed reader. There are moral absolutes intended to keep us within the boundaries and framework of being grounded upon some kind of foundation. Without moral absolutes society would become as chaotic as a residential neighborhood without speed limits or constraints. We live in a moral universe that metes out serious consequences for anyone who violates its rules.

     At this juncture in history we can ill afford to allow the same-sex debate to become a wedge issue that will keep us from voting at all. I have had to correct a few African-Americans who have been coerced to believe that a vote for President Obama is a vote against God. A refusal to vote constitutes a vote for the very person you oppose. This is the same kind of flawed reason that gave Bush and the Religious Right four more years in 2004 when right wingers used abortion and the Marriage Amendment as wedge issues and successfully defeated John Kerry and Al Gore. My reading of the history of politics reveals many people honestly believe presidential elections are bought. I suggest that anyone interested in the surge of right wing politics in the sixties with the launch of the ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964 should read a 1984 book titled Ominous Politics by John S. Saloma III, a Harvard trained political scientist who taught at M.I.T. Millions of dollars were invested in multiple think tanks that gave intellectual validation to the strategies and claims set forth by right wingers. With the emergence of Ronald Reagan in the eighties they were well on their way. The “tough on crime” policies of Reagan that later led to mass incarceration of marginalized persons of color a point well argued by Michele Alexander in her now popular book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in a Color Blind Age. The warehousing of black and brown people of color making them felons for life has a direct correlation with the growth and power of radical right wing politics under the guise of law and order.

   Politics was never intended to dictate the nature and covenant terms of marriage. The role of politics is to make life more humane through organized means. To do otherwise is to violate the purpose of its calling in the world. Until then we are called to witness and challenge the darkness of this world until the light seeps through.

*Disclaimer: The views expressed are not the official views of the Church of God in Christ. I take full responsibility for the viewpoint shared in this brief response as a servant of the church

 

 

Welcome to Owensville: Home of the Forty-Seven Percent

(From the 2012 Presidential Debate)

Meet the Mayor of this town, the Reverend William (Bill) Owens, Director of the African-American Alliance of Pastors (CAAP) a group that appears every four years to denounce democrats. This town shares adjoining city limits with Romneyville where the three (3%) of plutocrats live. As a member of the academy I believe in defining term. A plutocracy is a government or state where the wealthy class rules by exercising power and/or influence. Perhaps the Mayor of Owensville doesn’t know that the Mayor of Romneyville threw him and his little town under the bus when he was video-taped live thrashing the forty- seven (47%) at a Romneyville small town hall gathering. Or maybe, it does not matter since he holds his gatherings every four (4) years concurrent with elections. The Mayor may have provided a reference for the Mayor of Romneyville through one of these powerful groups such as the Arlington Group loaded with plutocrats.

Click here to continue reading