The following article was prepared for Commissioners of the 88th General Council (2003). Over the past six years the process has done no more than grind its way through the examination for discovery process, a requirement before the civil trial. Impatient with the pace, Ted Wigglesworth’s lawyer has eventually suggested mediation as a means of quicker resolution. He recommended someone he considered sure to be even-handed in the matter, but recently counsel for the Church expressed concern with that nominee, and named three possible alternatives. Ted’s lawyer considers there is a reasonable chance of bias in the case of all three, and has put forward further names. That is where the matter now rests. It has been a long twelve years.
Justice issues have always been a major preoccupation for the United Church. But that truth is hard to reconcile with some of the Church’s own internal practices in recent years – for example in its treatment of certain members of its clergy.
A prime case here is that of the Rev. Ted Wigglesworth. His removal from his Pastoral Charge in 1997 and subsequent placement on the Discontinued Service List (that is, he was dismissed from the UCC clergy) has been argued through every level of the Church and now awaits a hearing in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta. At the time of his removal from his Pastoral Charge Ted was Chairman of the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations, a renewal group within the United Church.
The core concern in this particular case is that while the Manual describes very precisely the procedures to be followed when a pastoral relationship is terminated, Coronation Presbytery did not follow them. Neither the Pastoral Charge nor the minister asked for a change in the Pastoral Relationship, and a congregational meeting called by Presbytery itself voted by two-thirds majority against a change in the Pastoral Relationship. On January 22, 1997, the Presbytery dissolved it anyway – on one day’s notice, with no warning, and offering no reason.
Subsequently, and surprisingly, a representative of Alberta and Northwest Conference met with Ted to tell him he was not allowed to accept another call until at least September 1997. (the ban was subsequently extended indefinitely.) No hearing had been held, and once again no reasons were provided.
However Ted, admitting that no one is perfect, complied with the direction that he undergo some assessment and retraining. He completed each requirement without difficulty and received glowing comments. But after a year and a half the requirements multiplied, so that the process looked more and more like an arbitrary means of preventing his return to active ministry. This time he refused to continue, appealing to the Conference that he was in effect being harassed. This refusal to continue with the process led to his being placed on the Discontinued Service List. And subsequent appeals within the Church culminating with one before a Panel at the 37th General Council (in 2000), all failed.
The result? For twelve years now this minister has been unable to follow God’s call into ministry.
How reasonable and fair has all this been? Given just cause, Presbyteries do have the right to discipline Pastoral Charges and ministers. But the Basis of Union, the Manual and the laws of Canada insist on due process, including the right to know what is at issue as well as the opportunity to rebut allegations. It is almost unbelievable that this view has apparently now been accepted, with the Alberta Conference’s ruling in favour of its Presbytery including this statement: “A Presbytery may act on the belief that a certain minister should not continue to serve a certain pastoral charge without laying a charge or alleging misconduct or any other matter which would subject that minister to discipline.” (emphasis added).
Apparently this view has now been accepted by every level of Church courts. Fundamental issues of justice are at stake here – critical issues for every Pastoral Charge and minister. The grassroots church needs to understand that (a) the Church’s own procedures must always be followed carefully, and that (b) even then, without fairness of spirit, process is of itself no guarantee of just treatment.
Geoff Wilkins,
Chair. NACC