The following paragraph from the Disciple is that addressed by the Bishop in the first paragraph above:
KAREN DAMMANN TRIAL WITNESS
Bishop Tuell analyzes church law on homosexuality,
finds church has no declaration against homosexuality
an interview with Bishop Tuell by Rev. Paul Beeman
Bishop Jack M. Tuell, a member of the Washington State Bar Association , is an acknowledged authority in both church law and civil law affecting the church. His book, The Organization of The United Methodist Church, in its ninth edition, is a standard text in seminary education. He has presided at numerous church trials and is known for his fairness. He was elected bishop in 1972, retiring in 1992. He and his wife, Marji, make their home at Wesley Homes, Des Moines, Washington.
When the church court's verdict in the trial of the Rev. Karen Dammann was announced March 20, the 13-member trial court, a jury of her clergy peers, came to what some call contradictory conclusions.
Behind the court's acquittal stands the testimony of retired Bishop Jack M. Tuell, of Des Moines, Washington. His was at once the most persuasive and most technical of the 14 defense witnesses at the trial.
On the one hand, the jury sustained "the specification that Rev. Karen Dammann is a self-avowed practicing homosexual...." The agreement was unanimous. On the other hand, the jury announced, "The only charge against the Rev. Karen T. Dammann is 'practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,' under ¶2702.1b, relating to the Judicial Complaint of Bishop Elias Galvan."
"(W)e, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented by the church counsel to be clear and convincing that Karen Dammann has engaged in any 'practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings.' We cannot sustain the charge."
The vote was: Not guilty 11, undecided 2, Guilty 0.
To explain his testimony, Bishop Tuell granted an interview on March 26. In answer to questions, he essentially reprised what he had said at the trial, discussing three issues: 1) the history of General Conference legislation on homosexuality; 2) the nature of the language used in the legislation; and 3) the focus of legislation disallowing ordination or appointment of homosexuals as pastors.
I. The history of General Conference legislation on homosexuality
Bishop Tuell traced the history of all legislation regarding homosexuality, beginning with the1968 General Conference, where he was a member. It was that session which called for the formation of a statement of Social Principles. A 32-member commission chaired by Bishop James Thomas was created, and directed to report to the 1972 General Conference with its recommendations.
In 1972 the Social Principles document was presented to the General Conference. In the plenary session, GC member Don Hand, SW Texas, offered, as an amendment to one sentence, the clause, "though we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian doctrine,". A substitute motion was then made by a New Jersey delegate, containing much harsher language about homosexual practice. It was voted down. The vote on the Hand amendment was then taken with almost no debate. Presiding Bishop Eugene Slater responded, "And I believe the amendment carries." In spite of the uncertainty of his ruling, the vote was not challenged.
Until 1980, there was no chargeable offense related specifically to homosexuality. Then the General Conference adopted under "Chargeable Offenses" the language of ¶2702.1b: "practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings;".
Before the vote, General Conference Member Joan Hoover, Iowa, complained that ¶2702.1b was "written in code," avoiding any direct declaration that homosexuality itself is a chargeable offense, although that seemed to be the hidden intent. She claimed that if homosexuality was considered immoral, that immorality was already listed as item (a) under chargeable offenses. "I do not believe in writing the Discipline in code," she said.
The only referent of ¶2702.1b was back to the 1972 statement in the Social Principles, "though we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian doctrine,". [The word doctrine was later changed to teaching.]
At the trial, Bishop Tuell then turned to the record of the last night of the 2000 General Conference. He noted that the Conference had voted, as an addition to the "Preface" of the Social Principles, the statement, "However they are not church law." While the action was clear and was recorded, the statement was omitted from the 2000 Book of Discipline. It can be read only in the Errata Sheet of omissions and mistakes, later issued by the UM Publishing House.
Thus the reference of ¶2702.1b, and the charge against Karen Dammann, are based on a social teaching that is clearly not a law of the church.
II. The nature of General Conference language related to homosexuality
Tuell further claimed that the language of the Discipline regarding homosexuality is "soft," not declaratory. It uses words like, "since," and "we do not condone," and "we consider." "United Methodists know how to make declarations," he said, pointing by way of contrast to the Social Principles' clear statements that "women and men are to be equal...," its condemnation of war, and that "all forms of enslavement are totally prohibited...."
As Bishop Tuell noted, he threw in a homely illustration. "I've lived in a parsonage most of my adult life, often on a busy street where our kids have grown up. We said to them, 'Do not go into the street. You could be hurt. If we see you in the street you will be punished.' We never said to them, 'Now kids, although we do not condone going into the street, and we consider the practice incompatible with your safety, we affirm that God's grace is available to all.'"
As laughter subsided in the court room, Tuell said, "Yes, that is laughable. It's ludicrous. When any authority has responsibility for declaring the law, whether it's the family, the church or the state, simple fairness demands that it be stated clearly, directly and unambiguously. If the state had a criminal statute written with such ambiguity and circuitous language, it would be thrown out of court. Surely the church that has authority over the lives and careers of its clergy must have similar standards."
He said, "The phrasing of these statements of the Discipline never rise to the level of a declaration."
III. The focus of legislation disallowing the ordination or appointment of homosexuals
Tuell pointed out that the provision of ¶304.3, "Since homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching...," falls under "Qualifications for Ordination," and is a directive to Annual Conference Boards of Ordained Ministry, clergy members of Annual Conferences, and Bishops.
Conclusion
In summarizing his testimony, Bishop Tuell said, "After careful study of the history and content of this legislation, it is my considered opinion and judgment that The United Methodist Church has never declared the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching."
After 9 ½ hours of study, prayer and deliberation, the trial court agreed. In its only statement on the decision, the court wrote:
"We have searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.' We did see in the Discipline many declarative statements. An example is: 'Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination.' (Section 6 of The Ministry of All Christians, section VI, 'Called to Inclusiveness,' ¶138, p. 93, second paragraph)."
Beyond the full text of their statement, members of the trial court made a mutual covenant to make no further comments regarding the trial.
The presiding officer of the trial was retired Bishop William B. Grove, West Virginia. He said he realized that persons not attending the trial might misunderstand the verdict and be upset by it. He said, "If they had been there, even though they disagree, they would respect the decision." He added, "I believe that we conducted the trial fairly and honorably according to the provisions in the United Methodist Book of Discipline."
Without a dissenting vote, the trial court had acquitted the Rev. Karen Dammann, who plans to return to ministry.
"We have made every attempt to be faithful to the Book of Discipline in its entirety. We have taken very seriously the mandate to presume innocence unless there is sufficient evidence to bring a different verdict. The church's obligation is to present clear and convincing evidence to sustain the charge. We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.'
"We did see in the Discipline many declarative statements. An example is: 'Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination' (Section 6 of The Ministry of all Christians, section VI, 'Called to Inclusiveness,' Paragraph 138, p. 93, second paragraph).
