wfn.org | Bishop Talbert announces complaint against 69 pastors

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

March 23, 1999  News media contact: Tim Tanton*(615)742-5470*Nashville,
Tenn. 10-21-28-71BP{157}

NOTE: A photograph of Bishop Melvin G. Talbert is available with this story.

By United Methodist News Service

Bishop Melvin G. Talbert announced today that he is referring to church
counsel a complaint against 69 United Methodist pastors of the
California-Nevada Annual Conference for their role in a Jan. 16 holy union
service for two women.

The church counsel, in this case the Rev. Paul Wiberg of Orinda, Calif., has
the responsibility of signing the complaint and sending it to the Conference
Committee on Investigation. That panel will decide whether to turn the
complaint into charges, an action that could result in a church trial. The
complaint was signed by two members of the bishop's cabinet.

Talbert made the announcement at a noon (Pacific time) press conference in
West Sacramento, Calif. United Methodist News Service will file a complete
story on the press conference on Wednesday, March 24. What follows is the
full text of Talbert's announcement, along with a list of the names of the
accused.

PRESS RELEASE

Office of the Bishop, San Francisco Area
The United Methodist Church
at United Methodist Center
West Sacramento, California
March 23, 1999 - 12:00 noon

STATEMENT

On Jan. 16, 1999, a number of clergy participated in a holy union
celebration at the Sacramento Convention Center. These clergy celebrated a
covenant between Ellie Charlton and Jeanne Barnett, two well-known and
respected members of Sacramento St. Mark's United Methodist Church, where
the Rev. Donald Fado is pastor. Ellie and Jeanne are leaders beyond their
local congregation. Ellie is a member of the Conference Board of Trustees.
Jeanne is conference lay leader, one of the most influential offices held by
a lay person in our denomination. Jeanne was also elected a delegate to our
General Conference, the highest legislative body of our denomination. Ellie
and Jeanne are honorable, loyal and dedicated followers of Jesus Christ.
Like other Christians, they are living out their faith in the name and
spirit of Jesus Christ.

With such affirmation of these two persons, why are we here today? We are
here because Ellie and Jeanne are homosexuals. They have chosen to be public
in their commitment to each other. They sought and received the blessing of
their church by the action of their pastor, and others, who chose to
officiate at their public celebration.

For a variety of reasons, homosexuality has been and continues to be a very
controversial subject in society and in churches, especially in our
denomination. Some would draw the circle of full membership to include
homosexuals without judgment. Others would limit their church participation
and prohibit their full involvement. Thus, we have the continuing debate,
especially around the issue of holy unions.

The celebration of holy unions is not new in our denomination. This has been
going on for decades. What makes this different is the action taken at our
General Conference in 1996, which states: "Ceremonies that celebrate
homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be
conducted in our churches. " (Paragraph 65.C, 1996 Book of Discipline of The
United Methodist Church)

This language is very clear. However, a problem was created by the placement
of that language in the Book of Discipline. It was placed in the section
called "The Social Principles." As stated in the preface, "The Social
Principles are a prayerful and thoughtful effort on the part of the General
Conference to speak to the human issues in the contemporary world from a
sound biblical and theological foundation as historically demonstrated in
United Methodist traditions. They are intended to be instructive and
persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit. The Social Principles are a
call to all members of the United Methodist Church to a prayerful, studied
dialogue of faith and practice."

In short, the Social Principles are not law. They have not been treated as
such since the beginning of our denomination more than 200 years ago. And
when asked to interpret this action of General Conference, I did so in the
best tradition of our church. I indicated that such action was not law, and
to violate that action would not constitute grounds for a chargeable
offense. That interpretation set off a storm of controversy in this
conference and in our denomination. Some went so far as to demand that I
resign from my office as bishop. Of course, I did not resign.

As a result of the Jimmy Creech case in Nebraska (he was acquitted after
being tried for celebrating a holy union), my bishop colleagues in the South
Central Jurisdiction appealed to the Judicial Council, the highest court in
our denomination. Those bishops, and others, presented the argument that the
intention of the General Conference was to enact a law to prohibit the
celebration of homosexual unions. In August 1998, the Judicial Council ruled
in favor of those who argued that the intent of General Conference was to
enact a law. So the Judicial Council ruling states:

"The prohibitive statement in Paragraph 65.C of the 1996 Book of Discipline:
'Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our
ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches,' has the effect of
church law, notwithstanding its placement in Paragraph 65.C and, therefore,
governs the conduct of the ministerial office. Conduct in violation of this
prohibition renders a pastor liable to a charge of disobedience to the order
and discipline of the United Methodist Church under Paragraph 2624 of the
Discipline."

When this ruling was released, I expressed my sorrow and disappointment with
it. However, as a bishop of the church, I stated that I would abide by the
decision and uphold it, even though I disagreed with it. Now, I could have
run for cover by using the law as a basis for remaining silent on this
issue. In a sense the matter of law is settled. But my conscience wouldn't
allow me to take the easy way out. I had to speak out against this act of
injustice. So I will uphold the law, but I will not be silenced.  I will
continue speaking out against the law and will continue working to change
the position of our church to be more in keeping with the teachings and
compassion of Jesus. That is the position I stated in my Jan. 6 pastoral
letter to clergy and lay members of the California-Nevada Conference. I
further stated my personal belief that the position taken by our church on
this issue is wrong, because such action infringes on the sacred pastoral
role of one as priest and servant.  I reaffirm that position today. I agree
with those pastors who contend that such action is an intrusion into their
priestly role as clergy to all their people.

Clergy are called on to do many things. They baptize children and adults.
They bless homes, instruments, cars, parks, fowls, animals, buildings and
various type events. In all such occasions, clergy persons are free to
choose whether they will or will not perform such services. Yet when it
comes to this one event of a holy union, it is prohibited. This is
unconscionable!  I contend that all clergy must be free to choose the
appropriate pastoral responses they should make in the priestly roles. This
must never become a political action. Today, it is homosexuality. What will
the next issue be? Do you remember when the issue was race?

Thus, the debate continues in society and in our churches.  There are
honorable people on both sides of this issue, which could split our church.
In the face of such controversy, there is need for tolerance. I believe this
is such a time when honorable Christians can agree to disagree, without
allowing such an issue to separate us from God's table. The gospel of Jesus
Christ reminds me that all sinners are invited to God's table. That being
true, who, other than God, can decide to exclude some? Therefore, I refuse
to treat as enemies those who chose to violate this church law, as an act of
conscience.  They are not our enemies.  They are our sisters and brothers in
Christ, in the same way that those are who hold opposing views. Biblical and
theological debates are appropriate. But there comes a time when God's call
to love must take precedence over any political or theological action or
decision. I believe that is the case now with this issue. I will continue
proclaiming that we all belong to God, and that we will have a space at
God's table.  Praise God!

However, it is my responsibility to announce that on this day, March 23,
1999, a complaint, signed by the Rev. Ardith Allread, dean of the cabinet,
and by the Rev. David Bennett, superintendent for the district where the
Jan. 16th event was held, has been presented to me listing the names of 69
persons. The complaint states, "These clergy persons, who claimed their
participation was an act of conscience and pastoral ministry, acted in
violation of the Judicial Council ruling with regard to Paragraph 65.C of
the 1996 Book of Discipline.  According to the ruling, these clergy persons
failed to uphold the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church."

The complaint further states: "The bishop and the cabinet, through the
supervisory process as outlined in Paragraph 358.1 of the 1996 Book of
Discipline, have attempted to reach resolution in the matter. Each district
superintendent met with those persons who officiated at the service of holy
union. Some plans for possible ways to achieve resolution were lifted up.
None of the plans were acceptable to the persons listed in this complaint.
Therefore, resolution was not achieved."

These two district superintendents conclude the complaint, stating, " . . .
despite our theological and pastoral disagreement with this area of church
law, a complaint of disobedience to the order and discipline of the United
Methodist Church (Paragraph 2624.1(e) of the 1996 Book of Discipline) is
filed against the following clergy . . . " (See list at end of this
statement).

As a bishop of the church, I have accepted this complaint from my
colleagues.  I join them in stating I personally disagree with this area of
church law.  Nevertheless, it is my intention to refer to this complaint as
a judicial complaint to the counsel for the church pursuant to Paragraph
358.1 of the 1996 Book of Discipline. The person I have appointed as counsel
for the church is the Rev. Paul Wiberg, pastor, St. Mark's United Methodist
Church, Orinda, Calif. It will be his responsibility to sign the complaint
and forward the same to the Conference Committee on Investigation.  If that
committee sees fit to do so, it may turn the complaint into charges which
may result in a trial.  And if or when that happens, I shall be prepared to
convene a pool of 35 or more elders appointed by the district
superintendents, from which a jury will be selected. And, I will place the
charges in the hands of a colleague bishop of my choosing who will preside
over the trial.

This is a very painful day for me. The persons on both sides of this issue
are my sisters and brothers. They are faithful followers of Jesus Christ.
Yet, there are honest differences in opinions regarding this controversial
issue in our church. Those colleagues named in this complaint have chosen to
challenge this unjust law. I understand their wishes. I am a disciple of the
civil rights protests. From my own experiences, I can appreciate acts of
conscience and acts of civil disobedience. Therefore, my referring this
complaint is without prejudice to enable these colleagues to have their day
in a court of peers. My prayer is that in the due process to follow, clergy
peers will seek to do justice, and to act in a way that is consistent with
the teachings and compassion of Jesus. I trust they will hold before them
the vision for our church that is inclusive, with diversity and acceptance
as its hallmarks. May God bless all of us as we seize this moment as an
opportunity to model how Christians should deal with controversy in our
lives and in our churches.

Presented by: Melvin G. Talbert, Resident Bishop

LIST OF PERSONS ACCUSED:

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 Chamberlin
Thomas Clark
Rolfe Conrad
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 Hanaoka
J. Richard Hart
Robert J. Hawthorne
Douglas Hayward
Thomas Hicks
Bruce Hilton
Virginia Hilton
Elbert Hoffman
Hubert L. Ivery
Alan H. Jones
Linda Kelly
Phillip 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
http://www.umc.org/umns/
newsdesk@umcom.umc.org
(615)742-5472