wfn.org | Cal-Nevada ministers won't stand trial, committee decides

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

Feb. 11, 2000  News media contact: Thomas S.
McAnally·(615)742-5470·Nashville, Tenn.     10-21-28- 71B{061}

NOTE: For coverage of the Committee on Investigation's Feb. 1-3 hearing, see
UMNS #048 and #051.

By Erica Jeffrey*

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (UMNS) -- A United Methodist investigative committee has
decided that a group of 67 clergy members will not be brought before a
church trial for their role in celebrating a same-sex union service last
year.

United Methodist Bishop Melvin G. Talbert announced the committee's decision
during a Feb. 11 press conference at the California-Nevada Annual Conference
offices in West Sacramento, Calif. The decision of the Committee on
Investigation for Clergy Members followed three days of deliberations and a
three-day hearing, in which experts and witnesses from both sides of the
holy union debate were called to testify.

The committee said it did not certify "as a charge proper for trial" the
judicial complaint against the ministers for their role in celebrating the
Jan. 16, 1999, union of Jeanne Barnett and Ellie Charlton in Sacramento. The
ministers were notified of the decision through an overnight mailing made
Feb. 10. The committee's decision was submitted by the Rev. Ronald G.
Swisher, pastor of Taylor Memorial United Methodist Church in Oakland,
Calif.
 
"Having received this report from the Committee on Investigation ... I now
declare that according to our church polity this complaint process is hereby
ended," Talbert said in a prepared statement. "No further steps or actions
will be taken or pursued.  I am grateful to the members of the Committee on
Investigation for a job well done."

In response to numerous questions about how the annual conference will
respond should complaints be brought forward as a result of other holy
unions, he said, "Let me just clearly state: the law of the church is the
same."
 
Talbert preceded his reading of the committee's decision with a statement of
his own, in which he affirmed his belief that he, the two district
superintendents who brought forward the initial complaint against the group
of pastors, and the committee members themselves, took appropriate steps to
adjudicate the matter "in keeping with our church polity."
 
It was clear at the press conference that the same-sex marriage issue, which
was heard by the committee in an unprecedented three-day public hearing and
deliberated in closed meetings for three days afterward, has captured the
attention of the world outside the United Methodist Church. As Bishop
Talbert read the committee's decision, a bank of television cameras kept up
a steady clicking, and the conference room at the United Methodist Center
was filled with media representatives and observers. 
 
In the preamble of its report, the committee stated that it had received a
judicial complaint on May 10, 1999, alleging that 68 clergy had been
disobedient to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church by
officiating at a holy union celebration on the preceding Jan. 16. (Since the
complaint was filed, one of the clergy members has died, reducing the number
to 67.) The question before them, the committee wrote, was whether or not
there were reasonable grounds to certify that the charge was proper for a
trial. 

Paragraph 65c of the denomination's Book of Discipline prohibits United
Methodist clergy from performing holy unions. Following debate in the church
over whether the paragraph is law or merely advisory, the Judicial Council
ruled in August 1998 that it was enforceable. 
In the Feb. 1-3 hearing at Community United Methodist Church in Fairfield,
the committee heard testimony from expert witnesses on Scripture, ethics and
tradition within the church and the history of the annual conference. In its
statement, the committee said, "We concluded that the answer required a
methodology consistent with our whole faith rather than one limited by
narrow focus." 
 
The committee affirmed in its statement that "we in the California-Nevada
Annual Conference are not of one mind regarding our church's ministry to the
gay/lesbian community." The committee acknowledged the conference's "need
for God's grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
  
Talbert stated that, while the committee's decision may appear to have
broken covenant with the denomination's Book of Discipline, there is
"another more basic and fundamental covenant that has precedence over this
one narrow focus of law." Talbert said that the Annual Conference is the
covenant into which clergy members are received, and that the committee's
decision "does reflect the longstanding covenant commitments for
inclusiveness and justice" of the California-Nevada Annual Conference. 

In his statement, Talbert noted that the committee's decision "will not
resolve the tension and conflict around the issue of the place and role of
the gay/lesbian community in our church or in this conference." 

"The dialogue and the struggle will continue," he said. "In fact, we may
never reach agreement around this issue. However, agreement is not a
requirement for people of faith to be in covenant as sisters and brothers.
Our unity is not in agreement on issues; our unity is in Jesus Christ."
 
Following Talbert's closing remarks, a representative of the Evangelical
Renewal Fellowship (ERF) -- an alliance of congregations within the
California-Nevada Conference that opposes holy unions - expressed his
organization's disagreement with the decision. 

"I believe that today's decision has, in our annual conference, effectively
ended the rule of discipline, that we have basically said that we now follow
our own individual consciences," said the Rev. Greg Smith, of Hope United
Methodist Church in Sacramento. "I think it's a day that could lead to
division and even the breaking up of our annual conference."

Smith appealed to the national leadership of the United Methodist Church,
especially the General Conference, "to bring order to our annual conference,
to bring us back to the rule of our discipline, or else to provide a way
(for) those who disagree with the discipline to leave the church with
dignity. Our unity is in Jesus Christ, but that covenant of unity has always
included that we have agreed together that we are going to follow the
discipline of the United Methodist Church. Today's decision effectively ends
that, as far as I can see, in our annual conference." General Conference,
the church's top lawmaking body, will meet May 2-12 in Cleveland.
 
Asked whether the lack of charges would prompt an exodus of some
congregations out of the California-Nevada Conference, Smith said such a
movement has already started.

# # #

*Jeffrey is a free-lance writer based in Marysville, Calif.

Bishop Talbert's prepared statement follows:

Office of the Bishop, San Francisco Area
The United Methodist Church
At
United Methodist Center
West Sacramento, California
February 11, 2000-12:00 Noon (Pacific Time)

STATEMENT

On March 23, 1999, I released a statement to the media acknowledging that I
had received, accepted and decided to forward to Counsel for the Church a
complaint against sixty-nine clergy in this Conference.  The complaint had
to do with these clergy participating in the January 16, 1999 Holy Union
Celebration between Ellie Charlton and Jeanne Barnett.  The Counsel for the
Church received the complaint, signed it, and forwarded the same to the
Chairperson of the Committee on Investigation of the California-Nevada
Conference on May 10, 1999.

In my March 23 press release, I gave the context for my decision to forward
this matter to our judicial process.  I hereby reaffirm that context.  It is
my belief that my colleague district superintendents and I took the
appropriate steps to allow this matter to be adjudicated by a panel of peers
in keeping with our church polity.

I am here today to share with you the decision of the Committee regarding
this complaint.

The Committee on Investigation had its first meeting to consider this
complaint on June 15, 1999.  Pursuant to the Book of Discipline (Paragraph
2626.3), the Committee has given considerable attention to this matter since
that time, including special Hearings on February 1-3, 2000.  The Hearings
were an extraordinary process to receive input on both sides of the issues
involved from scholars, experts and respondents.  The Hearings were
unprecedented.  Committee deliberations continued following the Hearings and
the last session was held February 8, 2000, at which time this report was
finalized.

It is important for you to know and to understand that what I share here
today is the report of the Committee.  It is not the report of the Bishop.
My role is to facilitate the process by sharing the decision of the
Committee and to clarify next steps.

After receiving and reviewing this report, it is clear to me that the
Committee considered the action of each respondent separately.  Thus, I
present here the report of the Committee on Investigation:

In the matter of:  (see list of names attached)

PREAMBLE

On May 10, 1999, the Committee on Investigation of the California-Nevada
Annual Conference received a Judicial Complaint alleging that sixty-eight
clergy had been disobedient to the Order and Discipline of The United
Methodist Church by officiating at a Holy Union Celebration on January 16,
1999.  The complaint has required a unique investigation.  The question
before us was whether or not there were reasonable grounds to certify that
the charge is proper for a trial?  We concluded that the answer required a
methodology consistent with our whole faith rather than one limited by a
narrow focus.  A three-day public hearing was convened to seek evidence from
a variety of expert witnesses addressing scripture, tradition, ethics,
experience, reason, and the history of this annual conference.

We want to affirm that we in the California-Nevada Annual Conference are not
of one mind regarding our church's ministry to the gay/lesbian community.
We confess that our differences of opinion have resulted in division and
tension among us, testing the depth of our commitment to our mutual
covenant.  We continue to be in dialogue with one another as clergy and
laity in this Annual Conference.  In the midst of this reality, we humbly
acknowledge our need for God's grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
We recognize our calling to affirm one another as persons of sacred worth,
and to live out our belief that each person is valued in the sight of God.
This has meant that both "Reconciling Congregations" and "Transforming
Congregations" are present in our Annual Conference.  Together, we find our
unity in Jesus Christ.  We give thanks and rejoice that through God's grace
we are empowered to love one another, even when we do not agree on this
issue.  Most recently, a significant number of our clergy and laity became
concerned by an addition of paragraph 65C at the 1996 General Conference
which states, "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be
conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches."
Subsequently, the Judicial Council ruled [Decision No. 833] that "Conduct in
violation of this prohibition renders clergy liable to a charge of
disobedience to the Order and Discipline of the United Methodist Church
under Paragraph 2626 of the Discipline."

We also affirm that our history of ministry and mission in the
California-Nevada Annual Conference exemplifies a commitment to the value of
inclusiveness expressed in Paragraph 117, and to the general understanding
of the United Methodist Church as a denomination whose  "...ministry of
service is a primary representation of God's love [Paragraph 303.2]."

The Committee on Investigation shares this background information as a
preface to the decisions regarding the complaints filed against the
sixty-eight clergy.  These respondents acknowledge their participation in
the celebration.

COMMITTEE  DECISION

The Committee on Investigation for Clergy Members does not certify the
Judicial Complaint dated May 10, 1999, relating to the Service of
Celebration of the Holy Union of Jeanne Barnett and Ellie Charlton held on
January 16th, 1999, Sacramento, California against (see list of names
attached) as a charge proper for trial.

Respectfully Submitted
The Rev. Ronald G. Swisher
Chair,
Committee on Investigation for Clergy Members
California-Nevada Annual Conference

February 8, 2000

CONCLUSION

Having received this report from the Committee on Investigation regarding
each of the respondents involved in the complaint surrounding the January
16, 1999 Holy Union Celebration, I now declare that according to our church
polity this complaint process is hereby ended.  No further steps or actions
will be taken or pursued.  I am grateful to the members of the Committee on
Investigation for a job well done.

Finally, this decision of the Committee on Investigation will not resolve
the tension and conflict around the issue of the place and role of the
gay/lesbian community in our church or in this conference.  The dialogue and
the struggle will continue.  In fact, we may never reach agreement around
this issue.  However, agreement is not a requirement for people of faith to
be in covenant as sisters and brothers.  Our unity is not in agreement on
issues; our unity is in Jesus Christ.

The Book of Discipline is commonly called the Book of Laws.  It is also
called the Book of Covenant.  While this particular committee decision may
appear to have broken covenant with the Book of Discipline, there is another
more basic and fundamental covenant that has precedence over this one narrow
focus of law.  In our polity, The Annual Conference is the basic body of the
church (Paragraph 31 Article II, The Constitution).  The Annual Conference
is the covenant into which clergy members are received and held accountable
for their ministry.  It is my humble opinion that the decision of this
Committee on Investigation does reflect the longstanding covenant
commitments for inclusiveness and justice of the California-Nevada Annual
Conference, within the spirit of our longstanding commitment to Jesus Christ
as the people called United Methodists. May God's blessings be upon us as we
continue our spiritual journey toward perfection, seeking to do God's Will:
nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Presented by:
Melvin G. Talbert
Resident Bishop

LIST OF RESPONDENTS

John J. Auer, III
Brandon Austin
Donald L. Baldwin
Claire Beals-Nesmith
Robert W. Blaney
Diana Marie Bohn
Richard E. Bruner
Carol M. Carter
George Carter 
Jerry Carter
John Chamberlain
Thomas Clark
Clifford Crummey
Donna Morrow DeCamp
Sharon Delgado
Nadine DeWitt
Steven Eatough-Smith
Janet S. Everhart
Renae Extrum-Fernandez
Donald Fado
David Franks
Glenn Fuller
Nobuaki Hanoaka
J. Richard Hart
Robert J. Hawthorne
Douglas Hayward
Thomas Hicks
Bruce Hilton
Virginia Hilton
Elbert Hoffman
Hubert L. Ivey
Alan H. Jones
Linda Kelly
Philip Lawson
Stephen Lee
Charles Lerrigo
James Lockwood-Stewart
David MacMurdo
Theresa Mason
Victor W. McLane
Maggie McNaught
Douglas Monroe
Bob Moon
Mike Morizono
Mary Parker-Eves
Larry Patten
Ted Pecot
Cheri Pierre
Jay Pierce
Kathleen Ralston
Robert Rankin
Lynn Rhodes
Byron Roberts
Ellen Rowan
Robert Sanford
Doug Smith
Marlene Spilman
Judith Stone
Frank H. Stone
Gerald Summers
Paul Sweet
Margo Tenold
Harold A. Tillinghast
Richard Whitmore
Cecil Williams
Lee Williamson
Andrea Meek Winchester
Sargent Wright

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://www.umc.org/umns