A Church Trial, Not a 'Just Resolution,' Will Be Best for Suspended Bishop and the UMC

Editorial Analysis

by

A United Methodist Insight Special

So it appears that the protracted investigation of church complaints against Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño is headed for trial. The trial "appears" to proceed because an alternative remains available, a negotiated settlement known as "just resolution."

Whether a trial or a "just resolution" will be better for Bishop Carcaño and the church poses a sharp dilemma. Given what observers have uncovered during 14 months of investigation, a church trial with all its strain probably affords the better solution for the sake of both transparency and accountability. That's because "just resolution" often functions as a non-disclosure agreement, burying the truth in the UMC's practice of confidentiality surrounding complaints.

Transparency

Ever since Bishop Carcaño was suspended March 9, 2022, only those deep inside the Western Jurisdiction episcopal college and bureaucracy have known exactly the complaints against her. Unlike a civil or criminal trial where evidence must be presented to support charges, allegations against United Methodist clergy or laity are kept confidential, supposedly out of concern for the reputation of the accused. In reality, the United Methodist Church's practice of confidentiality benefits the institutional church far more than it protects the accused and the complainants. This certainly has proved true in Bishop Carcaño's case.

After nearly half a century of commendable ministry, Bishop Carcaño's reputation has been shredded by her unprecedented suspension. Rumors about the complaints, about her administration, and about her personal behavior have run rampant, not only around the Western Jurisdiction but throughout the entire UMC.

The UMC's confidential process, as used by the Western Jurisdiction, must bear the blame for besmirching Bishop Carcaño. It's no secret among United Methodist clergy and knowledgeable leaders that political motives often play a strong role in bringing complaints. Much like issues brought before staff-parish relations committees in local congregations, complaints against clergy and sometimes laity can be brought for the most petty of personal reasons. Sadly, both ordained and lay leadership have endured unjust church complaints simply because someone didn't like the way they went about their ministries. Even sadder, those with responsibility to assess complaints often shirk their duty to have the parties involved deal directly with the conflict.

Silence doesn't heal either unfounded complaints or the consequences of willful harm. The #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements uncovering rampant sexual oppression, along with the recent verdict in E. Jean Carroll's civil suit against Donald Trump for sexual assault, bear out this truth.

Some speculation about the complaints against Bishop Carcaño's administration has centered on her attempt to reclaim Glide Memorial, a formerly United Methodist congregation that has been ruled over decades by its pastor emeritus, the Rev. Cecil Williams, and a rebellious board of directors of its attendant non-profit corporation. The convoluted machinations behind that conflict, in which the bishop attempted to assert the authority of the United Methodist trust clause, may never be fully known, unless it plays a role in the evidence presented in a church trial. At least one former senior pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jay Williams, left Glide after only a year, reporting that the entrenched leadership refused to accept his authority to supervise and guide the church's ministry and mission. Glide has since disaffiliated from the UMC, and a civil trial reached a negotiated settlement returning a dedicated portion of its endowment to the California-Nevada Annual Conference.

Accountability

The UMC's biggest interpersonal and personnel failing stems from its inability to deal frankly with conflict. Given the secrecy that has hidden proceedings thus far, only a church jury of faithful United Methodists that can weigh publicly presented facts may be able to evaluate Bishop Carcano's past performance. After all, she is one of the public leaders of the worldwide United Methodist Church and has dealt, as the saying goes, "with kings and presidents." If she is at fault in her episcopal administration, the church and the public deserve to know the truth.

Furthermore, the UMC has been harmed because Bishop Carcaño has been subjected to such a lengthy suspension clouded by the aforementioned rumors. Bishop Carcaño's case in fact marks a historical development.

The last time a United Methodist bishop was brought to public investigation was in 1981, when Bishop Mel Wheatley faced a complaint from a Georgia pastor over his advocacy for the inclusion of LGBTQ persons in The United Methodist Church. A Council of Bishops committee openly investigated the complaint and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring Bishop Wheatley to trial for heresy and disobedience to United Methodist law. His advocacy for LGBTQ inclusion continued until his death in 2009 at age 93.

Would that the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops could have dealt as openly with complaints against Bishop Carcaño, saving her and the entire UMC a year of purgatory. What could possibly have gone through the minds of Western bishops to subject their episcopal colleague and the rest of the church, especially the California-Nevada Annual Conference, to such an agonized wait? Outside observers contend that the jurisdiction's leadership parlayed the church's system in a deplorable way, ignoring required timelines and obfuscating reasons for delay. The Western Jurisdiction has long been known for its boundary-pushing actions, yet it resisted breaking the rules to give Bishop Carcaño a fair hearing long before now.

Thus cause exists to seek accountability not only of Bishop Carcaño, but of the entire Western Jurisdiction. One way to accomplish such accountability would be for the Council of Bishops to take up Bishop Carcaño's case, which Paragraph 413 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline empowers it to do. The UMC's "high court," the Judicial Council, has confirmed the constitutionality of Paragraph 413 in Judicial Council Decision 1484. Even before the high court's ruling, the Council of Bishops, led by its president Bishop Thomas Bickerton of New York, set up a task force to explore the ramifications of Paragraph 413 rather than accept the authority the law gives it.

UMC leadership rightly deserves criticism from dissident United Methodists for its lack of accountability; that unresolved criticism resulted in the strictures found in the Transitional Book of Doctrine and Discipline of the Global Methodist Church. Yet tighter rules and harsher enforcement aren't the way to go; only practices that favor true justice over institutional preservation, that commit the church to resolving conflict directly, will serve the future.

Conclusions

Back in the first century of what's now called the Common Era, the poet Juvenal became famous for his "Satires," a series of 16 poems critiquing Roman society and culture. One of Juvenal's observations has come down through the ages, "Quis custodient ipsos custodes." Roughly translated into English, it means: "Who guards the guardians?" Contemporary parlance has rendered the saying anew: "Who watches the watchers?"

If the United Methodist Church has any hope of continuing as a viable, relevant denomination once this season of disaffiliation ends, its leaders must eliminate the confidentiality practice being used as a weapon. Requests to monitor the process from the UMC's two accountability agencies, the General Commission on Status and Role of Women and the General Commission on Religion and Race, apparently have gone unanswered, a tacit refusal to allow light into a dark process. Furthermore, it's no surprise to observers that the Western Jurisdiction's announcement of a church trial for Bishop Carcaño occurred immediately after JCD 1484 affirmed the Council of Bishops' constitutional power to assume adjudication of complaints against their peers.

Whether she is found to have committed the charges laid against her, or is permitted to finish her episcopal ministry until retirement, Bishop Carcaño has become an unfortunate example of all that is wrong with the institutional governance of The United Methodist Church. As the bishop's personal travail plays out, will the church at large learn the stark lessons afforded by the secretive mismanagement of L'affaire Carcaño?

Veteran religion journalist Cynthia B. Astle serves as Editor of United Methodist Insight, an online journal she founded in 2011 as a communications vehicle for marginalized and under-served voices in The United Methodist Church. To reproduce this content elsewhere, please email the Editor for permission.