wfn.org | Reactions mixed to ruling on same-sex unions

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG>]

Aug. 14, 1998	     Contact: Joretta Purdue*(202)546-8722*Washington
{480}

WASHINGTON (UMNS) - Reactions from across the United Methodist Church to
a Judicial Council ruling on same-sex union ceremonies have been
predictably mixed.

In an Aug. 11 decision, the denomination's nine-member "supreme court"
said  pastors who perform homosexual marriage ceremonies can be brought
before church court and risk having their clergy credentials removed.  A
prohibition against clergy performing homosexual unions or having such
ceremonies in United Methodist churches has the status of law and is not
merely advisory, the council ruled.

The controversy was sparked by the Rev. Jimmy Creech, former pastor of
First United Methodist Church in Omaha who performed a same-sex union
ceremony in September of 1997.  He was suspended by Nebraska Bishop Joel
Martinez but reinstated in March after the jury in a church trial
narrowly acquitted him of disobeying the order and discipline of the
church.   He was not re-appointed to First Church at the regular
sessions of the Nebraska Annual Conference in June and is now on leave
and residing in North Carolina. 

The trial decision hinged on the status of the language placed in the
1996 Book of Discipline, which  said "Ceremonies that celebrate
homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not
be conducted in our churches."  Asked to rule on the issue by the
bishops of the eight-state South Central Jurisdiction, the Judicial
Council put to rest the argument of some that the same-sex language was
not binding because the Social Principles are advisory. The council did
not rule on other portions of  the Social Principles.

Creech,  issued a statement to the media  via the Internet expressing
grief at the decision and calling for "ecclesiastical disobedience." 

"The church of John Wesley, founded upon principles of social justice
and piety, will now be prosecuting pastors for praying God's blessing
upon same-sex couples who make covenants of love and fidelity," he
wrote. "The church has circumscribed itself into a closed, exclusive
community that is in conflict with Jesus' vision of the realm of God
where all are welcome, included and accepted."

He went on to appeal to United Methodist ministers to protest this
decision by defying the prohibition and publicly celebrating same-sex
covenants. He also called laity and clergy who disagree with the
anti-gay language in the Book of Discipline to organize for changing the
church's law at the next General Conference in the year 2000.  The
Judicial Council interprets church law but the only body that can make
official policy is the General Conference, a 1000-member international
body which meets every four years.

Bishop Bruce Blake of  the Oklahoma Area, one of  two bishops who made
oral presentations to the Judicial Council Sept. 7 in Dallas, said, "Now
we have resolution. We have clarity instead of confusion."  He praised
the processes used by the church to deal with disagreement and
confusion.

"We spent a lot of energy in our denomination on this issue," Blake
said. "I just hope that we can now  take some of that energy and focus
on the mission of the church and make disciples because that's what we
need to be about."  

Bishop George W. Bashore of the Pittsburgh Area, president of the
denomination's  Council of Bishops,  said the pastoral letter issued by
Council of Bishops in Lincoln, Neb., April 30  "is not altered in any
way by the Judicial Council decision."  He expressed  hope that the
bishops will follow through on the commitments made at that time.

In the pastoral letter, the bishops pledged to "uphold the General
Conference's action on the theological, ethical and polity [church
government] matters defined in the Book of Discipline, including the
statements on homosexuality and all specified issues contained in the
Social Principles including the prohibition of ceremonies celebrating
homosexual unions by our ministers and in our churches."

Retired Bishop Jack M. Tuell, Greenbank, Wash., a former attorney,  said
he was not surprised by the decision. "Everybody put a great deal of
weight on the idea that the Social Principles are substantively
different than legislation. I think a more pertinent key to this
decision is the kind of language involved and the fact that it is
internal to the United Methodist Church."

He explained that the Social Principles deal with many external things,
like war and labor relations, over which  the church has no control.
"But we do have control over how we conduct ministry in the United
Methodist Church and what United Methodist ministers can and can't do."
He also observed that few places in the Social Principles use the words
"shall" or "shall not." 

"The fact that this prohibition against same-sex unions is in the Social
Principles does not detract from what appears to be the clear intent of
the language," Tuell added.

Two leaders of the United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity and
Interreligious Concerns, the only churchwide agency that has declared
itself a "reconciling" agency, issued a joint reaction, signed by the
commission's president, Bishop Roy I. Sano of the Los Angeles Area, and
its general secretary, the Rev. Bruce W. Robbins.

"The recent Judicial Council decision may help United Methodists
understand the intentions and will of General Conference regarding
homosexual unions," they said. "However, deep divisions will remain
within the denomination. The Holy Spirit, working through committed
church members, can lead us forward into greater unity in God's
mission."

Sano and Robbins said they believe there are "faithful and
Scripture-abiding United Methodists" who oppose and support homosexual
unions. The commission, they noted, "believes a most important task
before all of us is seeking to hear and understand the convictions of
United Methodists who differ from ourselves. Too often we believe that
'our' side follows the gospel's call and the 'other' side does not."

"We encourage United Methodists in local churches, districts and annual
conferences to read, study and listen together as we hope to discern new
possibilities and options for our divided church," they concluded. Sano
and Robbins recommended reading and studying "In Search of Unity," a
document created by 23 people of diverse theological and social
opinions.

Reconciling Congregations, a group of  United Methodist congregations
and other organizations 
that welcome participation of all, regardless of sexual orientation,
said, "The church has once again sent a message of inhospitality to
lesbian, gay and bisexual persons and their families and friends."
Expressing concern that such people will continue to be second-class
members of the church, the  Aug. 11 statement concluded, " "God's Spirit
of inclusion and justice will prevail."

The Rev. Robert L. Kuyper, Bakersfield, Calif., founder of Transforming
Congregations movement and editor of its newsletter, said he thought
most people in his organization would be pleased.  The Transforming
Congregations movement considers the practice of homosexuality a sin and
seeks to change people with a homosexual orientation.

"I hope this means we can get back to doing ministry with people who
want to leave homosexual lifestyle and move on from the debate," Kuyper
said. "I think the church wants to be compassionate to people trapped in
homosexual lifestyles, but they don't want to endorse it. My real fear
is this decision will be ignored by many in the church and will continue
to cause controversy and will detract us from doing ministry with people
who are suffering."

The Rev. John Ed  Mathison,  Montgomery, Ala., president of the
Confessing Movement, said he was delighted with and in agreement with
the decision of the Judicial Council.  This movement began in 1995 and
stresses a commitment to the "doctrinal and moral integrity" of the
church.

"This decision goes some distance in restoring trust in the authority of
the courts of our church, a trust that has been seriously eroded by the
trial in Nebraska," Mathison said in a statement issued Aug. 11. "We
pray for our bishops who will bear the responsibility of seeing that all
clergy abide by this decision."

Mathison said the decision gives "great encouragement in our work for
renewal" and called upon supporters to redouble their efforts to work
for effective renewal of the confessional stance of the church.

The Rev. Kathryn Johnson, new executive director of Methodist Federation
for Social Action (MFSA),  a 90-year-old advocacy group, expressed
dismay at the ruling. "The Judicial Council has broken with decades of
tradition in which the Social Principles served as a source of guidance
to United Methodists," she said.

"The way in which the Social Principles have encouraged dialogue and
reflection has been one of the strengths of our denomination," she said.
"To treat portions of the Social Principles as law is to detract from
this strength."

The Rev. Jeanne Knepper of Portland, Ore., and the Rev. Morris Floyd of
Minneapolis, Minn.,  speaking for Affirmation and CORNET,  called the
decision tragic. "United Methodist clergy will now put their vocation on
the line when they respond to the unambiguous call of the Gospel to be
in ministry with all God's people," they said.  "This prohibition is
unlike the other limits within which United Methodist clergy must
operate because it proscribes a specific pastoral action."  Affirmation
is a caucus concerned with gay and lesbian issues; CORNET is an
off-shoot dealing specifically with the Creech trial and same-sex union
issues.  

Knepper and Floyd explained that the Judicial Council is not "the
problem"  because it has only clarified what it understood to be the law
of the denomination.  They predict the prohibition will  eventually be
set aside as "contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to the
constitution of the church."

The Rev. James V. Heidinger II, president and publisher of Good News,
the denomination's oldest evangelical caucus, expressed gratitude for
the council's "clear and precise" ruling.    "It  has been clear to most
of us that this was the obvious intent of General Conference when it
passed the prohibitive statement by a strong vote at Denver in 1966." 

The decision will help renew the confidence of both pastors and laity in
the United Methodist system, Heidinger said.  "It is a decision that
will be welcomed by most all grass-roots United Methodists.  If General
Conference takes clear action that cannot then be enforced, we are in
real trouble.  This will help."

# # #

United Methodist News Service
(615)742-5470
Releases and photos also available at
http://www.umc.org/umns/