Feb. 11, 2000  News media contact: Thomas S. McAnally·(615)742-5470·Nashville, Tenn.       {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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                  February 14, 2000

Contact:  James V. Heidinger II  -  (606) 858-4661 Phil Granger - (765) 289-7337 

Good News' Response to Cal/Nevada's Dismissal of 

Complaints Against 68 Clergy Involved in Same-sex Covenant
 

United Methodists were stunned and angered Friday at the announcement that the Committee on Investigation of the California/Nevada Annual Conference had dismissed complaints against Rev. Don Fado and 67 other clergy who were co-celebrants in the same-sex service of holy union between Jeanne Barnett and Ellie Charlton on January 16, 1999.

The Committee's ruling, which stands in direct opposition to earlier actions taken in the Northern Illinois Conference against the Rev. Greg Dell and in the Nebraska Annual Conference against the Rev. Jimmy Creech, is inconsistent and demoralizing. In those cases, both Dell and Creech were found guilty for violating church law by performing same-sex unions. Now the Committee in California, having heard the complaints against Fado and company, has dismissed the complaints saying the charges were not suitable for trial. 

Further, the Committee's decision reflects an arrogant disregard for the order, discipline, and common will of the United Methodist Church, as decided upon by church representatives from across the world. The devastating effect of such arrogance is that it renders outraged, isolated and unheard those churches in the Cal/Nevada Annual Conference which honor the connection, the Book of Discipline, Church tradition, and the Scriptures. The decision will also be detrimental to United Methodist churches all across the country as they learn of the action. 

Bishop Melvin Talbert's justification that the annual conference is a more "basic and fundamental covenant" than General Conference and the Book of Discipline is disturbing. It sounds like episcopal rebellion against the laws of the general church. The bishop is actually claiming that he and his conference have the right to adopt a different standard than that established by General Conference and fixed in the church's Book of Discipline. 

The so-called "hearings" that were held and the action of the Committee on Investigation are a travesty for the church, an embarrassment to the sense of propriety of the vast majority of United Methodists. It illustrates perfectly why evangelicals in the California/Nevada Annual Conference are seeking another structure-to become a Missionary Conference--in which they could do their ministry unhindered by the present conference leadership. It validates the need for new structures, as well as some means to bring back into line the leadership of that conference.

And Bishop Talbert, who has taken the oath to uphold the church's Book of Discipline, must accept responsibility for this breech of trust and integrity. He has, by his public statements and actions, created a climate that encourages and perpetuates this kind of disobedience to church law. As an act of integrity, Bishop Talbert should acknowledge publicly that he disagrees with duly-established United Methodist policy on this issue and retire or take leave of absence immediately from his episcopal office.

- 30 -

ADDENDUM:  This action in the California/Nevada Annual Conference and the statement by Bishop Talbert claiming that "there is another more basic and fundamental covenant" than that of General Conference and the Book of Discipline, that being the Annual Conference, only heightens the concern expressed to the Council of Bishops in an open letter from the board of directors of Good News last week, before the California decision was made and announced. (Copy of Open Letter is attached.)

In that letter, Good News asked the Council of Bishops to provide an explanation for the church about what their statement "to uphold the Book of Discipline" means in light of actions taken by Bishops Susan Morrison and Roy Sano, both of whom have spoken out recently in support of same-sex covenants. In doing so, they were speaking publicly in contradiction of church law. We want to know what it means when the bishops pledge "to hold one another accountable" and publicly commit themselves to "corporate accountability" as they did in Lincoln, Nebraska when they met there. 

We must now add to the above concerns the action taken by the California/Nevada Annual Conference and its episcopal leader, Bishop Melvin Talbert, who claims the annual conference is a more "basic and fundamental covenant" than General Conference and the Book of Discipline. 

The Council of Bishops must address a hurting church soon about what accountability means and what actions will be taken to uphold the unity and life of the United Methodist Church.   

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

ATTACHMENT - Copy of Open Letter dated February 8, 2000, sent to Bishop Robert C. Morgan, President of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, and copied to the rest of the active members of the Council.
 
 

February 8, 2000

Bishop Robert C. Morgan
2000 Warrington Way, Suite 280 Browenton Building Louisville, KY 40222-3407

Dear Bishop Morgan:

Greetings to you in the name of Christ Jesus, our Lord, from the board of directors of Good News.

We have become aware, as you may have, that United Methodist bishop Susan Morrison signed a public statement on January 19 in support of proposed Vermont legislation recognizing "committed" relationships between people of the same gender as "marriage."  You may also be aware that Bishop Roy Sano participated in a public rally January 23rd and spoke out in opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative, which will appear on a March
7 ballot in California.

We grieve that our church is in turmoil over the issue of homosexuality. The Council of Bishops assured United Methodists by public letter recently that they have covenanted together to uphold the stand of the church regardless of their personal views. We are deeply saddened that some bishops are making that covenant meaningless by their public disregard for the stance of the church. In a time when our bishops have rightly called us to prayer and fasting on behalf of unity in the church, some of those bishops would make a mockery of that desire for unity by their blatant disregard for the Book of Discipline. In a time when we seek to interpret to the people of God that our church has a clear stand on the issue of same sex "marriage," Bishops Susan Morrison and Roy Sano have chosen with impunity to challenge, and therefore undermine that stand, and give our people reason to believe that our stated positions carry no meaning.

We are aware that, short of the complaint process, there is no court of appeal to deal with inappropriate and anti-disciplinary actions on the part of bishops, except to appeal to members of the Council of Bishops themselves. While some among us would wish to move immediately to that complaint process, we would prefer to allow the bishops to stand behind their own word to hold one another accountable and deal with this internally.

We ask you, as President of the Council, either on your own or in consultation with your colleagues:

1.  To clarify to the Vermont and California legislatures and to our United Methodist Church at large that Bishops Morrison and Sano have made a statement in violation of the church's stand and do not represent the church on this issue.

2. To clarify before the Vermont and California legislatures and the United Methodist Church that Bishops Morrison and Sano's statements must be understood to be those of private individuals and not as bishops of the church.

3.   To provide for the church an interpretation of the Council of Bishops' previous statement to uphold the Book of Discipline that would include an explanation as to         what, if it does not cover actions like those of Bishops Morrison and Sano, it is supposed to mean.

We have chosen to make this an open letter so that our constituency and other United Methodists, among whom the trust for our leaders is already at an all-time low level, can see that someone, somewhere believes that such public statements in violation of our life and order together should not go unnoticed.

Because of the pressing nature of this situation, not only in regard to the Vermont and California legislatures, but also because of its relevance to General Conference, we would like your response by March 1. In the absence of such response, we will assume the bishops are either unable or unwilling to hold one another to corporate accountability as pledged, that they are not themselves committed to the same unity they have urged on the church through prayer and fasting, and that there is indeed a conspiracy of silence within the Council whenever this issue comes up for public discussion.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
 
 

James V. Heidinger II President and Publisher on behalf of the Board of Directors

cc: Council of Bishops

CONFESSING MOVEMENT RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA/NEVADA DECISION TO BRING NO CHARGES AGAINST 68 PASTORS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: PATRICIA MILLER - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000 317-356-9729 DR. IRA GALLAWAY - ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
505-797-2996

Bishop Melvin Talbert Announces No Charges Will Be Brought Against 68 Pastors Who Performed Same-Sex Union

When charges were filed in the California/Nevada Conference against Don Fado and his colleagues for performing a same-sex union on January 16, 1999, these charges were effectively disregarded and charges designed by Bishop Talbert and his Cabinet were substituted.

These charges were finally brought before the Committee on Investigation and a lengthy hearing was held on February 1 - 3, 2000. Following that hearing the Chairman of the Committee made this statement, "The Committee on Investigation for Clergy Members does not certify the Judicial complaint dated May 10th, 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 (68 pastors charged), as a charge proper for trail."

Bishop Talbert then issued a statement which said in part, "…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". The decision of Bishop Talbert and the leadership of the California/Nevada Conference is a clear rejection of the plainly stated doctrine and discipline of the United Methodist Church prohibiting the performance of same-sex unions as upheld by the ruling of the Judicial Council. These decisions indicate that Bishop Talbert and California/Nevada Conference leaders feel free to act as if they were a sovereign entity unto themselves.

It is our deep conviction that Bishop Melvin Talbert, the leadership of the California/Nevada Conference, and the 68 pastors who performed the same-sex union have broken covenant with their colleagues in the rest of United Methodism. Our covenant is not restricted to Conference boundaries, but includes the whole of the connection. It is obvious that the decision of the California/Nevada Conference is in violation of Church Law. The question is, will Bishop Talbert and his colleagues in the Conference be held accountable? This arrogant usurpation of power and disregard for the action of General Conference and the decision of the Judicial Council cannot be allowed to stand. To do so would surely bring a division in the United Methodist Church. One would wonder if this is the intent of Bishop Talbert and his colleagues in the California/Nevada Conference.

If the Council of Bishops or the Judicial Council do not find a way to hold Bishop Talbert and his colleagues in the California/Nevada Conference accountable, then the General Conference meeting in Cleveland will be facing the most divisive decision it has faced in over 100 years. This crisis is brought about by a determined minority of the Church which is committed to forcing the rest of the Church to accept and approve homosexual practice as moral. Such approval is clearly rejected in scripture and over 3000 years of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It the United Methodist Church follows the example of Bishop Talbert and the California/Nevada Conference, it will break its apostolic tie with over 98% of Christendom.