Briefs crystallize debate points over Judicial Council decisions
 April 19, 2006
A UMNS Report
By Neill Caldwell*
The United Methodist Judicial Council is hearing from parties across
the church eager to weigh in on the issue of pastoral authority, which
the court will consider when it meets next week.
Briefs filed with the Judicial Council highlight both sides of the
debate over whether or not the church court should reconsider two
decisions that it made regarding a pastor's authority to deny someone
membership in a congregation. The denomination's supreme court will
discuss those questions as non-docketed items during its April 26-29
spring session in Overland Park, Kan.
The two rulings – Decisions 1031 and 1032 – stirred much debate in
the denomination when they were handed down last fall. Both deal with
the case of the Rev. Ed Johnson, pastor of South Hill (Va.) United
Methodist Church, who blocked a practicing homosexual from joining the
congregation. While the United Methodist Church holds gay people to be
persons of sacred worth, it also officially states that the practice of
homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
On recommendation by the Virginia Conference Board of Ordained
Ministry, Johnson was placed on involuntary leave by his clergy peers
last June, and his advocate asked for a bishop's decision of law on the
action. Bishop Charlene Kammerer, who leads the conference, affirmed the
suspension. The case went to the Judicial Council, which ruled in
Johnson's favor in October, and the pastor was returned to his pulpit.
In a nutshell, here's what the rulings said:
- Decision 1031 — "Rules and procedures were not followed" by the
conference. The conference's errors included the board of ordained
ministry transforming an administrative complaint into a judicial
complaint without the proper authority.
-
Decision 1032 — Paragraphs 214 and 225 of the denomination's law book, The Book of Discipline,
are "permissive, and do not mandate receipt into membership of all
persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows." In
other words, the pastor in charge of a local church has authority to
determine a layperson's readiness for membership.
Virginia Conference filings
The Judicial Council has received briefs from the active participants
in the Virginia case, including Johnson, Kammerer and the conference
board of ordained ministry. In addition, a number of "friend of the
court" briefs have been filed.
|
|
Bishop Charlene Kammerer |
Kammerer describes three reasons for reconsideration of each ruling.
For Decision 1031, she wrote that the ruling's Statement of Facts
contained errors, that a chargeable offense not listed in Paragraph 2702
of The Book of Discipline was used by the council in making the
decision, and that "a statement of 'background information' was used as
if it were a decision of law and the case was treated as a matter of
appeal of fair process instead of a decision of law."
For Decision 1032, Kammerer says the United Methodist Constitution,
specifically Article 4 on inclusiveness, takes precedence over the
paragraphs cited in the ruling, which deal with the administration and
order of the church. The Constitution, the bishop writes, also includes a
"strong declaration that the UMC is part of the church universal, which
is one body in Christ," and since the layperson in question was already
a member in good standing of another denomination and the "church
universal," he only needed to affirm his loyalty to the United Methodist
Church.
The bishop also challenges the council's ruling that The Book of Discipline
gives the pastor the discretion to determine a person's readiness for
membership. She says the book only grants that kind of discretion in two
specific instances (Paragraphs 216.3 and 224), which deal with the age
of potential confirmands and people who are physically unable to stand
before a congregation to affirm a vow of membership.
A brief filed by the Virginia Board of Ordained Ministry, led by the
Rev. Jeffrey Mickle, includes a detailed narrative of the events leading
up to Johnson being placed on involuntary leave by the clergy executive
session at the 2005 annual conference.
"The council … stated that the process for a judicial complaint must
be followed," the brief says. "That process involves investigation in a
complex method of fact finding. The council has, with no fact finding
and with virtually no facts, reached a conclusion on this matter. … The
manifest injustice is that the council has taken upon itself the role of
prosecutor, judge and jury, and without the benefit of facts, rendered
an irrevocable verdict.
"Decision 1031 crosses the historic line of demarcation between
authority of the Judicial Council and that of an annual conference," the
brief adds.
The board of ordained ministry also says "the reasoning of 1032 comes
close to blurring the legislative and judicial powers of the
connection. The legislative power of the General Conference has
consistently upheld the principle of exclusivity in church membership.
At stake in this decision is the connectional definition of membership
as opposed to a congregational definition."
Johnson's brief
|
|
The Rev. Ed Johnson |
The brief submitted by Johnson, his clergy advocate, the Rev. Tom
Thomas, and advocate Pat Meadows responds specifically to those
submitted by Kammerer and the board of ordained ministry. Johnson's
brief states that the arguments by the bishop and conference are "mere
legal quibbling largely based on alleged technicalities and contentions
that change nothing regarding the meat and substance of the rulings."
"Decisions 1031 and 1032 have generated widespread interest and
renewed hope across the denomination," the Johnson/Thomas/Meadows brief
says. The decisions "have provided clear assurance that the fair process
rights of clergy persons who are made subject to the complaint
provisions of the Discipline must be observed with integrity by
those holding supervisory authority, and have also upheld in
straightforward fashion the pastor's unique and historical role in
discerning a person's readiness for church membership without hindrance
or dictation by episcopal officers. …
"Unfortunately, in certain quarters, misrepresentations and
disciplinary ignorance have been used to generate controversy about the
decisions," the brief continues. "The noise and stir this evidenced over
Decisions 1031 and 1032 appear to be confined to certain groups whose
recent aims have been to radically change the Discipline. …
"Common sense suggests that the 'law of the church' is not intended
to be a minefield, full of procedural pitfalls, which are virtually
impossible to negotiate," the brief states. "The playing field for these
very serious matters must always be a level one and the mocking cry of
'gotcha' must never be felt or heard by those who find themselves
exposed to the process."
The Johnson brief concludes: "The first sentence of Paragraph 2609.10 of The Book of Discipline
reads 'All decisions of the Judicial Council are final.' Now is the
time for this decision to be final. Steadiness and firmness must be
watchwords during these times."
Additional views
A number of additional briefs include a filing by the Council of
Bishops in support of reconsideration. The bishops' brief cites several
"serious problems of law" in both decisions. Regarding Decision 1031,
the Council of Bishops argues that "grounds for the complaint being
treated administratively may overlap considerably with grounds for it
being treated judicially. The fact that both routes are available does
not indicate that only the judicial route is correct."
With Decision 1032, the bishops state that it is "essential to
underscore and affirm a pastor's amenability to the district
superintendent and the bishop. Decision 1032 undermines the authority of
the district superintendent and the bishop to provide oversight and
supervision of clergy and congregations."
A brief filed by the United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity
and Interreligious Concerns examines the decisions for "adverse effects"
on ecumenical issues for the United Methodist Church. The question of a
member of another denomination transferring into a United Methodist
Church, as was the case in the Virginia situation, is tied to the
church's policy of "universality of membership" and the recognition of
one baptism, the brief says.
Lonnie Brooks, a layman in the Alaska Missionary Conference and a
member of the Christian Unity commission, and five co-signers note that The Book of Discipline
gives pastors discretion in specific areas, such as whether or not to
perform a wedding, but not in admitting members. "General Conference has
shown clearly where it has provided discretion, and, by necessary
implication, where it has not."
As to the debate over the meaning of the phrase "shall be eligible"
in Paragraph 4 of the Constitution, the Brooks brief uses the analogy of
a fishing license: "If one is eligible for a fishing license, if one
wants a fishing license, and if one makes proper application for a
fishing license, then there is nobody who has the authority to deny the
applicant a fishing license. Those persons who are charged with the
responsibility to issue fishing licenses must issue the applicant a
license. The discretion … lies solely with the applicant."
*Caldwell is a freelance writer in High Point, N.C.
News media contact: Tim Tanton, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
|
