****************************************************************
Comments from Selected Bishops on the Dammann Trial

Here are some comments from several bishops in the United Methodist Church weighing in on the Dammann trial. Please take a moment to pray for them and if you get the chance, write them a letter or e-mail of encouragement for the stand they are taking on this matter. (I would like to recognize Rev. Allen Carmichal and Lloyd Corbett for providing me with several of these comments)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 22, 2004

The following is a joint statement from Bishop Mike Watson, South Georgia
Resident Bishop, and Bishop Lindsey Davis, North Georgia Resident Bishop,
regarding the recent Dammann trial in the Pacific Northwest Annual
Conference:

The Discipline is the connecting covenant within our Church. We support
The Discipline and on this issue we believe that The Discipline is clear.
We are profoundly disappointed in the recent church trial decision in the
Seattle Area. It is a clear sign of rebellion when a group chooses to
flagrantly ignore The Discipline, substituting their own perspective for
the corporate wisdom of the General Conference. While we as bishops have
neither voice nor vote at General Conference, we call upon elected General
Conference delegates to go to Pittsburgh in April prepared to discuss this
situation and to consider an appropriate response which will respect our
connectional covenant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear North Carolina Conference United Methodists:
I join with many United Methodists around our church who are saddened and confused by the recent not guilty verdict rendered at the church trial of Reverend Karen T. Dammann of the Pacific Northwest Conference of The United Methodist Church. I find it incomprehensible that a clergy jury can place itself above the law of the church.
The Book of Discipline 2000, paragraph 304.3, is very clear: "...Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." This paragraph is located in the legislative section of The Book of Discipline dealing with the ministry of the ordained. Therefore, it is the principle by which we are to be guided and is thereby the position of our United Methodist Church!
As you engage in conversation in your local church and communities around this issue, please make the following note and clear distinction; the action taken on March 20, 2004 in The Pacific Northwest Conference is the action of one group in one place at one specific time. It does not reflect the position of the Church as a whole.
The position of our denomination regarding homosexuality has not changed as the result of the misguided action taken at the Dammann church trial. This church trial jury has stepped outside The Book of Discipline and injected its perspective in place of the corporate wisdom of the General Conference. Their decision places them in opposition to the letter and spirit of the General Conference and its legislative law. According to our church polity, an appropriate response to the findings of the church court trial in the Pacific Northwest Conference will be left to the elected delegates this coming April at General Conference in Pittsburgh, Pa.
As the Bishop of The North Carolina Annual Conference, I recognize that there are those within our church who do not agree with our church?s position. I reach out in love to you across our differences and desire to remain in dialogue with you! However, I reaffirm my position and the position of our church as found in the Social Principles of The Book of Discipline 2000, ¶161.G, "...Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationship with God, with others, and with self. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God?s grace is available to all. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."

Bishop Marion Edwards
North Carolina Annual Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Verdict
I was appalled and shocked that a jury composed of 13 clergy could render a verdict so contrary to the law of The United Methodist Church as expressed in The Book of Discipline. It is important to remember that this one jury does not speak for the entire United Methodist Church. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, has that authority.
In my opinion, the verdict of "not guilty" in the recent clergy trial of the Reverend Karen Dammann is not supported by The 2000 Book of Discipline. Those members of the trial jury who for reasons of conscience or otherwise could not uphold The Discipline should have stepped aside so that others who would have upheld the law of the church could have been selected.
Numerous Judicial Council decisions have quoted and affirmed that The 2000 Book of Discipline expressly states that "we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider the practice incompatible with Christian teaching" (par. 161G). Paragraph 304.3 of The 2000 Book of Discipline likewise declares, "While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."
At the conclusion of its deliberations, the jury issued the following statement:
"The only charge brought against the Rev. Karen T. Dammann is 'practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,' under paragraph 2702.1b relating to the Judicial Complaint of Bishop Elias Galvan. While sustaining the specification that Rev. Karen Dammann is a self-avowed practicing homosexual, we, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented by 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.
"We, the trial court, reached our decisions after many hours of painful and prayerful deliberation, and listening for and to the word of God. We depended on the prayers of the whole church, which undergirded our process. We depended on the leading of the Holy Spirit.
"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)
"Although we, the trial court, found passages that contain the phrasing 'incompatible with Christian teaching,' we did not find that any of them constitute a declaration.
"We realize that the church is divided regarding issues of homosexuality. We, as the trial court, are far from unanimous regarding biblical and theological understandings.
"The beginning sentence of 'Our Theological Task,' paragraph 104, conclusion, p. 85, says: 'Doctrine arises out of the life of the Church?its faith, its worship, its discipline, its conflicts, its challenges from the world it would serve.' In this spirit, we have engaged in this judicial task."
This verdict, in my judgment, cannot be upheld by either the intention or the language of The 2000 Book of Discipline.
This verdict of "not guilty" will, without a doubt, heighten the United Methodist Church's theological discussion around issues related to homosexuality, the authority of scripture, the meaning of marriage, the meaning of family and the witness of the church in all areas related to sexuality. Such conferencing needs to be informed by grace, which beckons us to remember that those about whom we speak on either side of this vexing issue are children of God and should be treated with reverence and respect.
While bishops do not have a voice or a vote at General Conference, it is my persistent and fervent prayer that the lay and clergy delegates to the upcoming General Conference will find a way to be redemptive while holding steadfast to that which affirms the highest standards of sexual expression. Likewise, I hope that a way can be found to hold this jury accountable for it misinterpretation of our Book of Discipline. Please remember that only General Conference speaks for the whole church.
This issue must not cause us to lose our central focus, which is to make disciples. We must stay focused on worship, nurture, missions and evangelism. To be distracted by this one verdict, rather than to be called by our primary mission, is the greater evil.
Joe E. Pennel Jr., Bishop
Virginia Conference, United Methodist Church