The battle over homosexuality issues continued.
In January 1997, a new movement, "In All Things Charity," was formed by 15 UM pastors who distributed a "A Statement of Conscience: In All Things Charity" in which they called for an end to the United Methodist Church's discrimination regarding same-sex union services and ordination and requested signatures of supportive clergy (UMNS, 1997a, Bloom, 1997b). A month later, 651 clergy from 48 states had registered their support. See Appendix P for text of statement.
In response to the In "All Things Charity" statement, a group of evangelical UM clergy and lay members from 20 states issued a statement, "The More Excellent Way: God’s Plan Re-Affirmed," signed by 47 UM clergy and lay members. (See Appendix R for text.) In their statement, the evangelicals called for an end to "needless debate over an issue settled centuries ago and upheld throughout history by the unanimous witness of scripture and Christian tradition" (UMNS, 1997c; Concerned Methodists, first item under third red heading, The Good Stuff).
In the spring of 1997, a major national mail campaign authorized by the Good News governing board charged UM leaders with an "unabashed campaign" to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. According to a UMNS story (1997d), the Rev. James V. Heidinger III, president and publisher of Good News, asserted that such ‘unbiblical standards’ as same-sex unions, if they should become church law and/or practice, would split the church."
According to the UMNS story (1997d), Heidinger cited three illustrations of what he described as the campaign by UM leaders to approve homosexuality as "acceptable, even good": the Reconciling Congregation Program, the 15 bishops who issued the Denver statement disagreeing with the denomination’s stance on homosexuality; and the fifteen UM clergy who released the "In All Things Charity" (IATC) statement. Heidinger raised concerns about each of the groups, saying that RCP does not call for repentance or transformation and does not consider homosexual practice sinful; that the bishops’ statement raises questions about how they will be able to support denominational policy if they disagree with it; and that the clergy who issued the IATC statement are not acting in accordance with the UM Discipline (UMNS, 1997d).
Also in 1997, resolutions were presented in several annual conferences that called for the Reconciling Conferences to rescind their RC status, but these proposals were not passed (Green, 1997). A variety of other resolutions regarding homosexuality issues were proposed and discussions on them were held in a number of annual conferences (Green, 1997). For more detail, see History Timeline, Appendix G.
Jimmy Creech, an ordained UM pastor in Nebraska, conducted a 1997 covenant ceremony for two lesbian women. Charges were brought against him and validated, and Creech was suspended from his church appointment as pastor of First United Methodist Church, Omaha (Wood, 2000, p. 97), and a trial was scheduled for 1998.
In 1998, the Gay and Lesbian Historical Society presented its annual award to the clergy and lay organizers of the Council on Religion and Homosexuality 34 years earlier. Among those honored were United Methodist pastors Ted McIlvenna, Lew Durham, Cecil Williams, and Fred Bird (Moore, 2000b).
Also in 1998, the United Methodist Judicial Council (JC) ruled that annual conferences could not call themselves "Reconciling" or "Transforming" (JC Decision 847;
Floyd, 1998; UMNS, 1998c). In part, JC Decision 847 says that a conference "may not identify or label itself as an unofficial body or movement." In making this decision, the JC reversed two of its earlier rulings that permitted the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns to call itself a "Reconciling Commission" (JC Decision 665) and the Wisconsin Annual Conference to identify itself as a "Reconciling Conference" (JC Decision 794) (Floyd, 1998; JC Decision 847; UMNS, 1998c).
A local church or any of its organizational units may not identify or label itself as an unofficial body or movement. Such identification or labeling is divisive and makes the local church subject to the possibility of being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of The United Methodist Church. The ruling of Bishop Alfred J. Norris is reversed. (JC 871, 1999)
Although some RCs quit using the "Reconciling Congregation" label, many RCs continued to use the name in spite of the Judicial Council ruling. Some chose to use the words ‘reconciling congregation’ or some other use of the word ‘reconciling’ as an adjective, beginning with a lower case r, to denote their continued support of the Reconciling Congregation Program (personal knowledge). Presently, statements of continued support from seventeen RCs appear on the RMN web site. And despite the ban on the use of the name, additional congregations have continued to adopt the program and name of Reconciling Congregation, with the most recent congregations joining the RC program in April, 2002 (RMNa, ).
Also in 1998, a March trial was held to determine the outcome of charge against Jimmy Creech (that he had violated church rules), and the Social Principles’ 1996 ban on covenant services was cited. Creech was suspended from his appointment as pastor of First United Methodist Church, Omaha. Creech argued that the Social Principles were not binding law, and he was not convicted. Only eight jurors voted for conviction, and the Discipline required a minimum of nine votes to convict (Wood, 2000, p. 97; UMNS, 2001d).
Creech retained his ordination credentials, and because of the acquittal, his suspension was lifted, and he returned to his church (Wood, 2000, p. 97). But his return was short-lived. In June, Nebraska UM Bishop Joel Martinez chose not to reappoint Creech to his Omaha church and gave him three choices: take another Nebraska appointment; look for an appointment in another church; or take a leave of absence. Creech chose the leave of absence (Wood,2000, pp. 97-98).
But that was not the end of issue of covenant or union ceremonies.
The UM Council of Bishops issued a statement in May in which the Council reaffirmed "its belief that it is wrong to perform marriages for same-sex couples" and that the Social Principles, as part of the Book of Discipline, are church law. In the statement, they say, "We are committed to uphold the theological, ethical and polity matters defined in the Book of Discipline" (AP, 1998).
The Council pledged to uphold "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" (UMNS, 1998a). They also affirmed their "pastoral responsibility to all peoples, including those who feel excluded from the church" (UMNS, 1998a). This statement brought response from both sides of the issue. "Conservative groups that have been most vocal about issues related to homosexuality in the church have expressed guarded praise" for the Bishops’ statement (UMNS, 1998a). The executive committee of the evangelical Good News caucus issued a statement indicating they were pleased with the bishops' public statement to uphold the Book of Discipline and the Social Principles, but they also expressed displeasure that the Council didn’t call a special GC session to resolve the issue. Good News also questioned the "unanimous action" on this issue, pointing out that the bishops do not agree with the Discipline’s statements regarding homosexuality (UMNS, 1998a).
The Confessing Movement issued a one-page statement expressing similar concerns (UMNS, 1998a).
The liberal groups (Affirmation and CORNET, the Covenant Relationships Network) also expressed concern because they believed the bishops did not address significant questions and seemed to be selectively supporting the Discipline (UMNS, 1998a). Morris Floyd, one spokesperson for Affirmation, the unofficial UM caucus that advocates for GLBT concerns, said the action "simply reiterated the administrative status quo" (UMNS, 1998a). Among the questions raised by the liberal caucuses are, "Does the church exist to serve its members and make them comfortable or to reach out to people who might be unlike people already in the church? Is it to support convention or to confront injustice?" (UMNS, 1998a).
Dr. Maxie Dunham, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, wrote, "If the practice of same-sex marriages is allowed to stand . . . our beloved denomination will be seriously fractured if not completely divided. . . . if we have to call a special session of the General Conference to prevent such schismatic action, let's do so. My heart is heavy. I am grieving for the church" (Historical . . . , in chronological order; Morris, in chronological order).
Thirty UM clergy publicly declared that they would "celebrate rites of union with all couples, regardless of gender." The "Proclaiming the Vision Committee" invited other UM clergy to sign such a statement (Newscope, 1998; Morris, in chronological order).
Bethany UMC in San Francisco adopted a statement saying they would allow Holy Unions to be conducted in their building (Bethany, 1998). The California-Nevada UM Annual Conference staff, including the bishop, supported Bethany UMC in this action, noting that the Social Principles "are not law" (Morris, in chronological order).
The South Central bishops called for a Judicial Council ruling regarding the legal status of the Social Principles, and in August of 1998, the Judicial Council ruled that the Social Principles had the force of law (UMNS, 1998b; UMNS, 2001d; JC Decision 833). Although this ruling did not affect Creech, it established more severe consequences for pastors who would choose to conduct such services (Wood, 2000, pp. 97-98; UMNS, 2001d). Given this JC ruling, UM clergy who conduct or allow same-gender ceremonies in UM churches can be charged with breaking church law (UMNS, 1998b).
Across the country, discussion about the new ruling, that the Social Principles statement forbidding UM pastors to conduct union ceremonies has the force of law, took place. More formal discussions took place in the North Texas Conference, where a "day of listening" was held, during which lay and clergy leaders addressed and listened to concerns on both sides of union ceremony issue, the new JC ruling and the UM policies that seemed contradictory. Leaders stressed that the day was not a day for reaching conclusions or decisions (UMNS, 1998bb).
And in September, Greg Dell, UM pastor of Broadway UMC, Chicago, conducted a same-sex union ceremony for two male members of his congregation (UMNS, 2001d).
In January 1999, 150 lay and clergy leaders of the California Nevada Annual Conference of the UMC celebrated a Holy Union ceremony for Jeanne Barnett, California/Nevada Annual Conference lay leader, and her partner, Ellie Charlton, a Conference trustee. Charlton and Barnett had been in a monogamous relationship with each other for 15 years. Sixty-eight clergy participated in the event, and an additional 70 UM clergy participated in absentia (UMNS, 2001d; Sacramento 68 web site; Wood, 2000, p. 98). In March, two persons (David Bennet, the district superintendent for the district in which the Holy Union took place, and Ardith Allread, the dean of the local UM Cabinet), filed charges against the 68 participating clergy with Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, the presiding bishop of the conference. The 70 who participated in absentia and the lay participants who were present were not charged (Sacramento 68 web site).
And in late March, 1999, charges were heard in another UM trial court, this time for Greg Dell, the UM pastor who conducted a ceremony celebrating the union of two male members of his church, Broadway UMC, Chicago. Dell was found "guilty of disobedience to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church" (Wood, 2000, p. 98) and was initially suspended indefinitely. It was later decided that the suspension should have a specific ending date, and he was allowed to return as pastor of Broadway UMC in June of 2001 (UMNS, 2000c).
Other 1999 events included a November trial for Jimmy Creech, who had conducted a second union ceremony for two gay men in April. This time, after being found guilty, Creech was stripped of his ministerial credentials, the first UM minister to receive such a sentence for conducting a same-sex ceremony (UMNS, 2001d; Creech, 2000). Mark Bowman left the Reconciling Congregation Program and Marilyn Alexander became interim Executive Director (RMN, 2001b). Additionally, the Open Hands Advisory Committee and its publisher, the Reconciling Congregations Program, began plans for the magazine to become an independent publication (RCP, 2000c, p. 17).
In Georgia, Bishop Lindsey Davis announced that UMC clergyman Dr. Charles Sineath of First UMC, Marietta, would not be reappointed after 22 years at the church. It was reported that the people in the church believed the decision to move [him] was punishment for the church, because the church had withheld some of its funds from the denomination as a protest over the national church’s stand on homosexuality. Following that announcement, the board at Marietta First UMC voted to withhold all of the conference and denominational funds. Church leaders said they had wanted to withhold all funds the year before, but because Dr. Sineath had recommended otherwise, they withheld only about 25% of the total funds. Church lay leader Robin Burruss said, "The Methodist system is broken and corrupt, and I don't think we should put a penny into a broken and corrupt system." (This information comes from Appendix E of Allen O. Morris’ undated electronic publication, The Church in Bondage, where he credits Tucker McQueen of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Alice Smith, Executive Director of the Georgia UM Communications Council for the information.)
The board of UM-related Southern Methodist University approved adding ‘sexual orientation’ to the University’s nondiscrimination policy but voted against extending benefits to same-sex domestic partners (UMNS, 1999b).
In 1999, twenty annual conferences voted to support the denomination’s position on homosexuality and same-sex unions, against changing Discipline language, and/or in favor of adding more restrictive language to the Discipline: Alabama-West Florida, Baltimore-Washington, Central Texas, Dakotas, Eastern Pennsylvania, Holston, Illinois-Great Rivers, Kansas West, Kentucky, Missouri West, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Alabama, North Arkansas, North Carolina, North Texas, Northwest Texas, Red Bird Missionary, Western North Carolina, Western New York. South Georgia referred a petition to General Conference supporting the prohibition of union ceremonies without voting for or against (Tanton, 1999).
Most 1999 annual conferences that addressed the homosexuality issues (20 conferences) approved resolutions affirming the denominational stance and Discipline language regarding homosexuality and same-gender union services, and seven annual conferences voted to remove the Discipline language regarding homosexuality and/or to change it to be more accepting. Those annual conferences included California-Nevada, California-Pacific, Minnesota, New York, Northern Illinois, Oregon-Idaho, and Pacific Northwest. Other annual conferences (15) addressed the homosexuality issue in some form but did not necessarily vote on the Discipline language (Tanton, 1999).
United Methodists became involved in the Boy Scout debate over homosexuality the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America could not ban gays from its membership (Swade, n.d.; Legal Information Institute, 2000; Henderson, 1999). This ruling was in response to a suit filed in 1992 by James Dale of New Jersey after his adult membership was revoked by the Boy Scouts in 1991 because he was gay and a gay rights activist. Dale had been a member of and participant in scouting programs for over 10 years (Legal Information Institute). The governing members of the UM Board of Church and Society petitioned the Boy Scouts to change its policy of excluding gays. In part, the board’s statement says, "This discrimination conflicts with our [church's] Social Principles" (UMNS, 1999d). Taking a different stance, the Commission on United Methodist Men supported the right of the Boy Scouts to determine their own standards (Renew). Many UM Eagle Scouts turned in their Eagle badges and disassociated themselves from the Boy Scouts, and UM churches experienced conflict and criticism over their sponsorship of Boy Scout troops (personal knowledge).
And in November, 50 UMs gathered in Illinois for "In Disagreement Charity, A Conversation on Homosexuality," sponsored by the UM Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns. The two-day event did not involve voting, debating, resolutions or legislation; instead, the participants listened to the diverse stories of UMs and worshipped together (UMNS, 1999e).
1996-2000