Archive: Bishop Wheatley Stirs Contention

by James Robb

A Western Jurisdiction investigative committee meeting in Los Angeles May 20-21 cleared Bishop Melvin Wheatley on charges that he had spread false doctrine. But the committee’s action only added fuel to the raging controversy that began last year when the bishop reappointed a self-avowed, practicing homosexual to a United Methodist Church.

The investigative committee was called when charges were received against Bishop Wheatley by three small churches in Georgia, pastored by Rev. Dr. David Hendrix. The churches accused the bishop of disseminating doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of the church with his statement,  “… I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin.”

Bishop Wheatley made that statement in a November 20, 1981 letter to all the ministers in his Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, explaining why he had appointed Rev. Julian Rush to a Denver church. Almost immediately, the letter was circulated throughout the denomination. Charges were filed by the Georgia churches, which stated that Wheatley’s letter had undermined “the authority of Holy Scripture.” Tyler Street United Methodist Church in Dallas soon filed an identical set of charges.

A group of United Methodist laymen in Boulder, Colorado, also filed charges against the bishop, accusing him of gross misconduct and maladministration in his handling of last year’s appointment of Julian Rush after Rush had revealed himself as homosexual.

The investigative committee acted as a church grand jury, deciding whether the charges against the bishop merited a full church trial. The seven-member committee said in its final report that it found no “reasonable grounds” for accusing the bishop. While admitting that there are “Biblical statements condemning homosexual activity” the investigative committee countered, “It is debatable what perspective on homosexuality and homosexual activity emerges when Biblical witness as a whole is brought into interaction with tradition, experience and reason.”

By taking the position that clear passages of Scripture can be overruled by the supposed overall message of the Bible, together with tradition, reason, and experience, the committee echoed the argument of the bishop himself. Bishop Wheatley denied that his actions had undermined Scripture. On the contrary, he said, “I may have well precipitated more Bible study than all bishops combined.” He said what he was talking about is doing “more Bible study,” implying that a more intense study of Scripture would support his case.

The Rev. Donald Sanders, the bishop’s counselor, had his own idea about the root cause of the charges: “The real issue is not Bishop Wheatley’s conduct but homophobia. It has permeated the air,” he stated. “Is there a doctrine of sin in the United Methodist Church today? Yes. Denying people the right to be fully human is probably the best definition of sin in the church today.”

The committee hearing lasted over six hours, followed by eight hours of deliberations. At the end, committee chairperson Rev. William Ritchey said he hoped the committee’s report would “lead to talks about the issue [of homosexuality and ordaining homosexuals].” He said he hoped an atmosphere would now exist where “we as a church can get our heads together on this.”

The conclusions of the committee were not totally surprising. Two members of the investigative committee, Rev. James Lawson and Rev. Barbara Troxell, were already on record as opposing the statement in the Discipline that homosexuality is not a Christian lifestyle. At the 1980 General Conference in Indianapolis, both of them had signed a minority report asking that the statement in the Social Principles be removed that reads, “We do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Good News quickly expressed its disappointment with the results of the hearing. Dr. James V. Heidinger, II, Editor/Executive Secretary of Good News, said that the 1980 General Conference had clearly intended to rule out homosexuality as a valid Christian lifestyle. “Our church’s inability to affirm that intent, in recent months,” he stated, “has caused the denomination the loss of both pastors and laypersons. This is tragic and unnecessary.” He noted that other mainline Protestant churches have spoken clearly on the issue of homosexuality in recent years, and United Methodists are “disillusioned and embarrassed that their church is unable to be clear.”

Good News Board Chairman Rev. Mike Walker said, “It appears that our doctrinal indifferentism is leading us to moral indifferentism.”

During the hearing Bishop Wheatley related that one of his family members is homosexual. In a news release to the media, Good News suggested that this fact might seriously impair his objectivity on the issue. The news release also stated, “the lingering questions from this hearing only reinforce the need for specific prohibitive legislation to be brought before our 1984 General Conference concerning the ordination and appointment of practicing homosexuals.”

Meanwhile the committee’s findings were being challenged, beginning at Bishop Wheatley’s home base, the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, meeting the second week in June in Denver. Several resolutions barring the ordination of practicing homosexuals were presented. But all were either tabled or referred to committee for study. The young man whose appointment last year started the controversy,  Julian Rush, had decided to go to school this year, preventing any challenge to his appointment. But not all measures proposed by conference members holding orthodox views on ordination were deflected. One minister gained the floor and asked Bishop Wheatley to rule on an abstract question: whether a probationary member of the annual conference who is a self-avowed, practicing homosexual could, in his opinion, be ordained an elder. When the bishop answered in the affirmative, the minister immediately asked for a vote to refer the bishop’s ruling to the Judicial Council, to test the ruling’s legality. More than the necessary 20 percent of the conference members voted for the referral, which indicated discomfort with Bishop Wheatley’s pro-ordination stance right in his own conference.

But although the minority position on the question of homosexuality had triumphed for the moment in the Western Jurisdiction, elsewhere around the church the views of the majority were being clearly voiced.

A number of annual conferences, meeting in the first weeks of June, passed strong resolutions in support of the church’s present stand against the practice of homosexuality. Several conferences passed resolutions calling for stronger language in the Discipline on the issue.

The Kentucky Annual Conference passed nearly unanimously what is probably the first petition to the 1984 General Conference. The petition asked the General Conference to add a paragraph to each section of the Discipline which discusses moral qualifications of persons eligible for ordination, stating that no self-avowed homosexual “shall be eligible for candidacy, ordination, appointment, or reappointment by a Bishop or Superintendent in the United Methodist Church.”

The Missouri West Annual Conference overrode a committee in adopting a resolution which asks that the 1984 General Conference alter the Discipline to bar “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” from the ministry.

Two Pennsylvania conferences acted. The Central Pennsylvania Annual Conference formally asked the Council of Bishops to rule on whether Bishop Wheatley, in ordaining a homosexual, was acting on his own or whether he speaks for the whole council. The conference affirmed that homosexuality is an expression of original sin found in humanity.

The Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference passed a resolution stating, “the annual conference instructs [the bodies charged with approving candidates for ordination] … to not knowingly approve the candidacy, except for conference membership, or ordain a practicing homosexual.”

The Northwest Texas Annual Conference, after listening to an episcopal address by Bishop Louis Schowengerdt in which he said, “It is wrong to ordain a homosexual or appoint a homosexual as a pastor of a local United Methodist Church,” passed a resolution affirming the present language in the Social Principles. The resolution stated that the language is clear and ought to be obeyed. The conference also passed a resolution calling on all general agencies not to rent office space to homosexual groups.

The South Georgia Annual Conference stated in a resolution that homosexuals “have no place in the spiritual leadership ” of the church. The resolution affirmed the rights of annual conferences, but only within the context of the Discipline. The conference said the issue of homosexuality must be dealt with uniformly.

Bishop Joel McDavid of the Atlanta Area, writing in his conference newspaper, said, “It is clear that the church would disapprove the ordination of any known homosexual.” The bishop stated, “It matters not what any United Methodist minister or lay person, church leader or follower may say or claim, the position of the church is clear.”

The East Ohio Annual Conference passed a resolution strongly affirming the present Social Principles, and passed another one opposing the candidacy and ordination of practicing homosexuals and recommending the termination of present pastors who are practicing homosexuals.

One annual conference, Northern New Jersey, passed a resolution supportive of Bishop Wheatley’s position. It asked the 1984 General Conference to delete the sentence from the Social Principles which states, “… though we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. ”

But every one of the other seven annual conferences that took action did so clearly in opposition to Bishop Wheatley’s unorthodox stance on homosexuality.

So now many thoughtful United Methodists are asking with a hopeful voice: After a struggle lasting more than a decade, is the writing finally on the wall concerning the ordination of practicing homosexuals into the United Methodist ministry?