Dealing with Sexual Misconduct Allegations

I believe in zero tolerance and I believe in fair process.

Based on long experience, I find that those sometimes conflict.  The difficulty is that it can get difficult to distinguish between perception and reality.  

I would love to enjoy the luxury of just believing one side or the other, no matter what.  Women have rightly pointed out that we have tended to believe only the men and never believed the women in the past.  I have examined too many sexual misconduct cases in our denomination to know only believing the men has been grossly unjust.

That is why I am a little worried about using zero tolerance to mean that we must believe women and never believe men when allegations come up.  Again, in my experience, careful examination of the available information showed that in some cases, the women lied.  But the Church officers refused to consider that as a possibility and the ministers' careers and lives were ruined.

So while I agree that women, children, and men should always be safe in the church and that there is no room for any form of sexual misconduct (zero tolerance), we must also have zero tolerance for lying about it.

That will take two additional steps for us to take before we can enforce zero tolerance.  We have to define what is sexual misconduct compared with norrmal human interaction.  With only vague definitions (such as "He seemed to be leering at me"), anyone could destroy another human being's life.  So we should develop lists of the kinds of misconduct causing harm that give specificity to what can be alleged against someone else.  We may even wish to prioritize them in order of harm done so that punishments can be established that fit the crime.

Then we have to apply fair process.

And that fair process has to be exercised by people who seek fairness and justice.  Right now, the Church uses zero tolerance to simply remove anyone accused.  

I have always been concerned about abuse of power.  I do not think it is a good idea to grant an unlimited power to anyone.  Just as it was unjust to only believe men when they are faced with allegations of sexual misconduct, we must beware of granting women the power to have the privilege of always being believed.  

We must take everyone's allegations seriously. But what is to be done when it appears that we have a "he said/she said" situation.

There are ways to verify what is true.  Those ways need to be applied to both men and women when allegations arise.  There are many verification processes that are not intrusive.  There need to be reasonable guidelines with checks and balances to protect each party when verifying may require coming close to intrusion.  

Finally, the evaluation of an allegation may come down to the judgment of a handful of people (a jury, a judge and his/her clerks), a committee) to make the decision about the truth of the allegation and the seriousness of the event.

Everyone of us would love to solve a problem by making the decision ourselves.  Everyone of us would love to be believed no matter what we say,  But we have to realize that we are not always right.  Women (our mothers, our sisters, our wives) have not let us men forget that!  

I wish I could not have to say that there are men who do not do worse with the women in their lives.  Obviously, I can't and won't.  Too many men dominate women (and often everyone else) in their lives and unfortunately they have physical strength to enforce them.

So we have to use the best means to protect the weaker among us from the bullies, no matter how elegantly they apply their power.  And we have to try to keep those means from being in the hands of those who want bullying power.

There is no easy way to avoid harm.  But we have to establish a fair way.  

There are such means that have been established in many nations, cultures, and fields of vocation.  It is time to use those and improve upon them in ways that all parties are safe within them, whether interviews, hearings, or trials.  And if a particular means is not adequate, then let's work hard to improve them for the sake of everyone involved.  

I'm glad that the national conversation has swung to the issue of sexual harassment and misconduct.  I hope we use this opportunity to handle the allegations in fair and just ways that are not as bad as what the victims have already faced.

Unity Out of Chaos, A Look at JCD 1341

"Warning," I wrote on an earlier draft I shared with a friend, "this contains mature materials that some will find offensive."  In my experience, both the far right and the far left hate my point of view, because each has decided to set in stone their respective basic premises.  Eventually, of course, both will fail because they are not based on reality.  That is, if we survive the next ten years.

UNITY OUT OF CHAOS, A LOOK AT JCD 1341

When the Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto was elected bishop, there were challenges and charges brought and all kinds of legal mayhem.  Like in any other chaos situation, things began to pattern out.  The fact that the South Central Jurisdiction forwarded a request for a declaratory decision meant the focus would fall upon the Judicial Council.  That meant that complaints against her and others involved in her election, consecration, etc. could be put on hold pending the decision of the Council.  And everyone sort of relaxed for awhile, except for those preparing briefs for the Council's session of last Fall.  Only there was a deferral to allow the Council time to study the issue.  From the length of Decision 1341, they needed that extra time.

My reading of the original motions stating the request left me feeling that the Council could not take jurisdiction. By long precedent, the questions had to be conference specific, affecting what was going on in their own precincts.  The intent of the request as I read it was to remove Rev. Oliveto.  The Council is an appellate body, not a trial court, so it would note her fair process rights and not remove her.  

Speculation about this new Council raised several concerns.  For one, there is the depth of the politics surrounding homosexuality.  It is such that it would be hard for Council members to refrain from acting.  The prospect was that the Council would be very conservative.  Would that manifest in the kind of polarization we saw with the Holsinger Council or would there be a strong emphasis on precedent?

For a second concern, there was the problem I've experienced with a Council that felt it had to give a little to both sides.

A third fear I had was that the Council would feel beholden to its respective nominators, usually the Council of Bishops, and lay out a decision helpful to them rather than to the whole Church.

Finally, there is a skeptic's rule of thumb about appellate bodies, that the Council would first decide what they wanted and then twist and bend Disciplinary passages and prior rulings to make it sound like the decision was based on law.

After years of studying decisions, upon reading Decision 1341, I felt that the majority of the Council acted in good faith and tended not to be affected by the concerns I've noted.  It felt like good-hearted people were trying to find their way through what the General Conference had given them in the way of laws, what prior Councils had decided, and the multifaceted request for a ruling on actions in another jurisdiction.  If so, their ruling could show us where we are in our experiment with use of law to define our nature as a denomination.

The decision is relatively simple.  The Council said that it and the SCJ are limited in their options.  It said that at most the only issue that could be interpreted as having general applicability was regarding consecration.  But the Council pointed out that the bishop is due fair process.  Only the Western Jurisdiction could act on that and she could not be removed from office without fulfillment of the complaint process against her.  Even her marriage license was only presumptive, something that could start a review but could be rebutted upon review.

In effect, the only thing changed by the request and the decision is that now the Western Jurisdiction's College of Bishops will have to act on the complaints they had shelved.  

There are several things I see in the main text and the opinions added at the end which deserve more attention.  I will do that when I prepare the commentary of the Council's whole set of decisions.  You will find them at www.aiateam.blogspot.com when I get done later this spring.

But there is one phrase that the Council used again and again that struck me: "highest ideals."  I got to thinking, as I'm sure others have.  What are the highest ideals to which we should aspire?

In Jesus' day, which were the higher ideals, to respect the men, the husbands, or to also respect the women, wives, and children?

In Jesus' day, which were the higher ideals, to respect Jews or to also respect Samaritans?

In Paul's day, which were the higher ideals, to respect the slave holders or to also respect the slaves?

In our day, which is the higher ideal, to respect the married or to also respect the divorced?

How about this: which are higher ideals, to respect the heterosexual singles in their chastity and the married in their fidelity, or to respect both heterosexual and homosexual singles and marrieds in their chastity and fidelity?

Which is the higher ideal, the view that practicing homosexuality is against nature or Navajo recognition of four sexes: male/males, male/females, female/females, and female/males? 

These last two questions have as their premise that, as with the eunuchs of Jesus' day that some were made by God and some were made by man, there are at least some homosexuals who are made by God. (Note: Most God-made Gay people are aware of their predisposition before they enter junior high.)  

These two questions are also based on the contemporary experience of encountering all kinds of different people who just do not fit into a simple categorizing as "male" or "female."  Science is helping us discover that sexuality is more on a continuum, and expresses itself in many more outcroppings than just as "men" and "women."

In the old days, the actual numbers of these variations could be hidden.  Now with the population explosion, we have a greater chance to encounter more of these variations.

Science is also aware that there are people who, against their own predisposition, choose to emulate those whose nature is different.  An African friend pointed it out to me as a major bad influence in his country.  In my own country I saw a man claiming to be Gay rather than face the reality of his children's genetic illnesses.  I saw people claiming to be Gay in order to get or keep their jobs in certain parts of the country and in some occupations.  

Yes, God-made and man-made homosexuals exist among us and that really complicates our perception of the reality around us.

But the goal of establishing the highest ideals touches all of us and requires that all of us have to rethink just what those highest ideals are.  If we are to be perfect in loving our neighbors as God is, that makes all of us realize how far short of God's highest ideals our laws are.

Maybe our homework as a denomination is to re-evaluate our highest ideals and let that re-unify us.

Talk about chaos!  What new ideals do we need to consider?  Which ideals are higher?  How will we know?  Who will decide?  

It will all pattern out.  Just as we did with other moral dilemmas, we will figure out something.  And we won't necessarily have to divide over it like we did over slavery.  How did we get past all the other conflicts like divorce?  By looking at the realities because we cared as God cares.  And then we changed our laws accordingly.

Thank you, Judicial Council.  You may have provided the right new focal point for our search for unity: highest ideals.

Trumpism in the Church, a Satirical Observation

 Peter Milloy has a marvelous sense of humor.  He put this in the newsletter of the church he serves.  He is a retired member of the Minnesota Annual Conference serving in the New England Annual Conference.  

Trumpism in the Church,  a Satirical Observation 

In order to boost growth, United Methodist officials have been promoting the ideal of  “strong pastoral leadership.” (This is code for “Do it my way.”)  They’ve recognized that many people respond well to forceful, confident pastors who project an attitude of certainty about their beliefs and have a definite vision for what they want their congregations to be and do.

     I think they’re right.  Driving back from voting in New Hampshire a few months ago, I resolved to be that kind of a leader.  Because I know that’s what all 500 of you want.  We’ll make South Hadley Methodist great again.

     Churches that have strong pastoral leaders grow better than others.  Ever since I started signing executive orders instead of consulting the church council and the trustees about everything, we’ve just been packin’ them in like sardines.  I’m sure you’ve noticed.  Anybody that says otherwise is lying.  

     We can’t just let anybody in, however.  We need extreme vetting of people who want to join our church.  In addition, I will build a big wall to prevent so many people from getting onto our property.  The Catholics will pay for it.  I know that all 800 of you support me in this.

     I also know that my plan to re-write the Bible will be a success.  A huge success.  We need a Bible that tells it like it is, am I right?  I’m gonna drain the swamp.  All those apostles and prophets left over from the Bible of the previous administration, well, they gotta go.  So the new Bible might sound different from what you’re used to.  But I have alternative facts.  If you disagree, you’re fired.  

     Remember that Jesus said, “Blessed are those who look like you, talk like you, and think like you.”  Or somebody told me he said that.  If he didn’t, he should have.  He was a fine savior, though, wasn’t he, folks?  I’m gonna find a place for him on my leadership team here.  We need somebody like him—all 2,000 of us.

    And in conclusion: I want all 5,000 of you to pray for those affected by the Bowling Green Massacre.   And pray that what happened in Sweden won’t happen here.  What happened in Sweden?  I can’t tell you.  It’s classified.  It was terrible, folks, but what happens in Sweden stays in Sweden.

by

Rev. Peter Milloy

Which Christian theocracy?

In yesterday's "The Pen," a liberal newsletter, the writer posed the question, which founding father said this? 

"The National Government will therefore regard it as its first and supreme task to restore to our people unity of mind and will. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our  nation rests. It will take under its firm 

protection Christianity as the basis of our morality, and the family as the nucleus of our nation and our state."  

He then wrote, "No, it wasn't Thomas Jefferson, nor Alexander Hamilton, nor James Madison either. Benjamin Franklin, no way.  

"No, it was Adolf Hitler, the founding father of Nazi Germany, from his first radio speech to the German people, in his newly appointed position as Reich Chancellor, on January 31, 1933." 

The writer claimed that President Trump rarely ever read the Bible but he kept by his bedside and read nearly daily the speeches of Adolf Hitler. The writer pointed to the first Mrs. Trump who said that about him. 

For the fun of it, let's presume that the conservative religious leaders are right that America was meant to be a Christian nation. And we can ignore whether or not Hitler influences President Trump more than Jesus does. 

Which Christian faith should we build our nation upon? I've heard Mr. Trump likes Norman Vincent Peale and his "Power of Positive Thinking." Mr. Trump's personal chaplain tends to that kind of thinking. Anyone who knows of Karl Barth's theology would die laughing at the shallowness and selfishness of that theology and would never go along with using Peale as the focus of the new theocracy. 

My own denomination developed in parallel with and is organized very similarly to the U. S. government. I would be tempted to hope the theocracy built on John Wesley's viewpoint would be just right. But we United Methodists would have this problem.  Those of us from the more liberal schools of theology would put a theocracy together one way.  Those from a more conservative seminary would put it together another.  They would not be satisfied with ours nor we with theirs. 

And what of our Lutheran citizens or Roman Catholic? Their denominations are already the state religion of many European countries. They'd be ready to go right now as far as establishing their denominations as our national theocracy. 

Guess what, folks, there ain't none of us that would be happy with someone else's denomination being in charge of our nation and having the privilege of the last word theologically. 

Why do you think the forefathers wanted to avoid a national religion and chose a secular state in which all religions had equal freedom? They saw how the religious wars in England tore it up over the centuries and still roils under the surface between the Northern Irish and the English. The KKK in our country and some of the militias with similar theology have used violence against Catholics, Jews, and ethnics in our lifetime. These radical right religionists would never accept Jesus talking about how God will judge us on our treatment of strangers, the sick, the hungry (Matthew 25: 31-46) or doing unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matthew 7:12).  

"Our kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said (John 18:36). Too many people forget that.

I'm partial to allowing religious freedom and not requiring everyone to abide by my religion. That's America to me.

What should you do if you get a call from the bishop?

What should you do if you get a call from the bishop?

Know your rights as granted in the Book of Discipline.

---

Guidelines for responding

As a pastor in the United Methodist Church, you may find yourself facing a complaint by a lay or clergy person or a Cabinet member.  The superintendent or bishop may call you to a personal meeting at which you without prior warning may be confronted with accusations.  The usual strategy is to get you to admit you did wrong and get you to take a leave of absence or withdraw from conference membership, and that you have to make that decision within 24 hours.

YOU CANNOT TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS!  SAY NOTHING  ABOUT WHAT YOU MAY THINK IS INVOLVED.  SAY NOTHING ABOUT IT NO MATTER HOW GUILTY YOU FEEL!

Here's how to respond:

1. Do NOT attend any meeting with the bishop or superintendent alone, if at all possible,

2. Do NOT try to charm or persuade them because everything you say will be used against you!

3. Do NOT admit to any behavior or feelings related to the complaint or any implied complaints they bring up.

4. Do NOT relinquish any of your Fair Process rights. 

5. Do NOT verbally agree to anything they suggest except a possible meeting time after you get an advocate

6. Do NOT sign any agreement of any kind other than acknowledging you have received a written copy of the complaint and supporting documents.

7. Do NOT think the complaints are frivolous because the DS and bishop obviously do not think so!

8. Do NOT think that going along with the bishop or DS will "make everything easier" or "get it over with." 

9. DO ask for a copy of the complaint so you may prepare a response.

10. DO ask for any support materials they have about the complaint.

11. DO ask for time to get an advocate (an experienced and respected Elder, preferably retired).

12. Do ask what the next step is as they understand it.

13. Do thank them for their time and get out of there gracefully and rapidly.

14. DO keep the faith.  God is at work here and you have not seen why or how just yet.

---

Complaints

For administrative complaints: "Unsatisfactory performance" (P 363) such as "incompetence, ineffectiveness, or inability to perform ministerial duties" (P 355 2b)

For judicial complaints: see Paragraph 2702.1* 

*When the 2016 Discipline is available, the numbers of these citations may change.

---

Fair Process Rights (as listed in the 2012 Book of Discipline*)

1. Presumption of innocence (P 2701)

2. The right to be heard before any final action is taken (P 362.2a)

3. Notification of "reasons for the proposed procedures with sufficient detail to allow the respondent to prepare a response and no less than 20 days prior to the hearing" (P 362.2b)

4. The right to have an advocate present with voice at any interview or hearing to which the respondent (pastor under complaint) is subject (P 362.2c)

5. The right to be present whenever any member of a hearing body is speaking with the one bringing the complaint (P 362.2d)

6. The right to all records relied upon, including oral statements by the decision makers in your case at least seven days before any hearing (P 362.2e)

7. The right to assurance that attention has been given to racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the church is represented on all the groups dealing with your case (P 362.2)

8. The right to ask the bishop to "ensure fair process" (P 415.3)

*When the 2016 Discipline is available, the numbers of these citations may change.

---

Read the following from the Book Of Discipline of 2012*

Paragraph 362-364 - Administrative Fair Process

Paragraphs 343-345 - Appointment to Extension Ministries

Paragraph 416.5 - Transfer to another annual conference

Paragraphs 351-352, 354-356 - Leaves of absence

Paragraph 357 - Medical leave

Paragraph 358 - Retirement

Paragraph 359 - Honorable Location

Paragraphs 320, 355.1, 358.3, 363.1 and 415.3 - Role of Cabinet members

Paragraph 2701 - Judicial Fair Process

*When the 2016 Discipline is available, the numbers of these citations may change.