On June 15, 2001, Rev. Mark Williams, pastor of Woodland Park UM Church in Seattle acknowledged to his colleagues in the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference that he was a practicing gay man.” Nearly 12 months later, on May 30 of this year, a committee on investigation of that conference dismissed a complaint against Williams. He will not face a church trial and will continue as pastor of the Woodland congregation (see news article).
The United Methodist Church seems to have the remarkable capacity to find new and breathtaking ways of shooting itself in the foot. Here a conference committee on investigation received a complaint initiated by the bishop against a pastor who had acknowledged before the entire annual conference that he was a practicing gay man! When the committee finally met 11 months later, it asked Williams the obligatory question mandated by Judicial Council Decision 920 about whether he is engaged in genital sexual acts with a person of the same gender.” (This was included to guarantee fairness, in case one had been misunderstood.) Williams simply refused to answer the question. With that, the investigating body announced it found there was not reasonable cause to forward this matter for a church trial.” The ruling surprised even Williams' supporters and sympathizers.
What we have here is a particular situation illustrating the message sent by delegates at the Western Jurisdictional Conference in July of 2000. In a statement, We Will Not Be Silent,” approved almost unanimously by delegates there, the Western Jurisdiction was saying officially that it disagreed with the votes at General Conference 2000 affirming the'Discipline's standards on homosexuality.
We cannot accept discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender persons and, therefore, we will work toward their full participation at all levels in the life of the church and society (meaning homosexual ordination and same-sex covenants),” the Western Jurisdiction statement said. This, of course, is nothing new for the Western Jurisdiction.
For a committee on investigation to allow Williams not to answer the question about whether he was involved in same-gender sexual activity is simply an abdication of duty. In a criminal case, persons may take the fifth” to avoid self-incrimination. But they don't have that option in a civil case, and neither do they in a church hearing, where we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of holy living” (Par. 304.3, 'Discipline).
This entire sordid matter comes at a time when the Roman Catholic Church is under enormous public criticism for failing to uphold and enforce its teachings on sexual ethics. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of 'First Things journal, writing in the June/July 2002 issue, has words that are hauntingly relevant for United Methodists. He says the crisis in the Catholic Church is about three things: fidelity, fidelity, and fidelity.
1. The fidelity of bishops and priests to the teaching of the Church and to their solemn vows,” wrote Neuhaus. Let's remember that Rev. Williams took public vows upon entering the ministry, we assume voluntarily and carefully, in which he said he had studied the church's teachings, agreed with them, and would be faithful in teaching them. Sadly, he must not have meant what he promised.
2. The fidelity of bishops in exercising oversight in ensuring obedience to that teaching and to those vows, Neuhaus reminds us. It is a stated Presidential Duty (Discipline, Par. 415.2) of our UM bishops to ensure that the annual conference and general church policies and procedures are followed. Bishop Galvan should have instructed both Williams and the committee on investigation that the question about same-gender sexual activity must be answered. What happened was a mockery of our system.
3. Neuhaus wrote, Fidelity of the lay faithful in holding bishops and priests accountable. Many United Methodists are beginning to wonder if we have the institutional mechanisms for holding bishops (and pastors for that matter) accountable. We must keep trying.
Why do some priests
not live by their solemn oaths of chastity and celibacy, Neuhaus asks.
His answer sounds all too familiar: Because bishops turned a blind eye
to what seminarians were being taught; or, even worse, bishops by their
own example indicated that sacred vows do not really mean what they really
say, and what the Church says they mean. He went on to say the
Church's academic and theological dissent on sexuality has served
only to issue permission slips for an era of wink-wink, nudge-nudge,
the consequences of which are now on scandalous public display.
When United Methodist bishops and pastors advocate the acceptance of homosexual practice as normative and affirm same-sex covenants, they are not being faithful to their vows of ordination and consecration. They are undermining the integrity of the church by encouraging behavior explicitly forbidden by their church's official teaching.