WASHINGTON -- The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church has refused to interfere with a decision allowing a Denver pastor, the Rev. Julian Rush, to retain his clergy status despite his acknowledged homosexuality.
At the same time, however, the council meeting in Durham, N.C., remanded to a lower body the case of the Rev. James Carter of Washington D.C., who was found guilty a year ago of violating church law on charges stemming from allegations of sexual harassment.
The council, in effect the denomination's Supreme Court, refused Friday to entertain a challenge to a special investigations committee established by the Rocky Mountain Conference -- Rush's local jurisdictional area -- to determine whether his homosexuality violates Methodist church law barring 'self-avowed, practicing homosexuals' from ordination or appointment to church posts.
The committee had voted 4-3 April 28 that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. A challenge to the panel at that time was rejected by Bishop Roy Sano and his decision was automatically appealed to the council.
Much of the debate surrounding the special committee's decision and rippling throughout the 9.5 million-member denomination has revolved around how to define the term 'self-avowed, practicing homosexual.'
The Rocky Mountain Conference said the term applied to those 'who engage in and openly acknowledge genital sexual behavior with a person or persons of the same sex.' Rush, while acknowledging his homosexuality, has refused to answer questions about his personal life related to that definition.
Rush's opponents challenged the makeup of the special committee, charging that some members had a conflict of interest because they knew or had served with the pastor. That was the challenged rejected by the Judicial Council.
The council stressed, however, it was not discussing merits of the question of whether Rush should be allowed to continue in the ordained ministry.
In the second case, the council sent back to its Northeastern Jurisdiction the case of Carter, a black clergyman found guilty Sept 17, 1985, of violating church rules and suspended for three years on the sex charges that were linked to his service on the staff of the Baltimore Annual Conference.
Carter said he was convicted because of racism, and the appeals 'court' that substantially reduced the penalties imposed on him acknowledged 'the (trial) record was not free of racism.'
The jurisdiction said it did not feel the trial's flaws were 'strong enough to reverse the finding of guilty,' however. In sending the case back, the Judicial Council said the 'court' must make explicit what it meant by saying there was evidence of racism.
