News Archives

Commentary: Judicial Council ruled properly in Virginia pastor case
LINK: Click to open full size version of image
A UMNS file photo by Mike DuBose

Brenda Menzies stands in the sanctuary of First United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tenn.

Nov. 29, 2005

A UMNS Commentary
By Brenda A. Menzies*

The United Methodist Judicial Council recently rendered two decisions in the case of the Rev. Ed Johnson of Virginia, a pastor who was disciplined by his bishop for not admitting a self-avowed, practicing homosexual into church membership.

In overturning the bishop’s actions, the court upheld existing church law, as determined by many General Conferences. There was nothing new in the decisions. Yet, there has been a flurry of debate and interpretations in the church. What do the decisions say? What do they not say? How do we process the impact of these rulings on the nuances of the homosexual debate in our church?

The first ruling, Decision No. 1031, related to an administrative complaint against Johnson that led to an erroneous ruling of law by Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer at last summer’s Virginia Annual (regional) Conference. In its decision, the Judicial Council found that Rev. Johnson had been deprived of his fair process rights. Based on the findings, Bishop Kammerer’s rule of law was rightly reversed.

The second, Decision No. 1032, pertained to a pastor’s authority to determine who may be received into membership in the local church. This decision by the council represented no change in the church’s historical stance. Research indicates nothing in any Book of Discipline — in 200 years of church history — mitigates against a pastor’s authority to allow, delay or refuse someone into membership.

“The 2004 Discipline invests discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make the determination of a person’s readiness to affirm the vows of membership (¶217),” the Judicial Council said. “Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows.”

Again, the Judicial Council rightly ruled.

We all recognize the need to reach out to our homosexual brothers and sisters in hospitality and ministry, and to be loving and affirming in the faith. That is exactly what Rev. Johnson was doing. A process of ministry was taking place. The individual whom he was counseling was not the one who brought the complaint and was actively participating in the life of the church.

Sadly, we now have two individuals whose lives have been impacted by the misapplication of church law and improper disciplinary procedure: Rev. Johnson, who by all accounts has served our church faithfully for 24 years, and a self-avowed, practicing homosexual with whom he was ministering.

The historical position and law of the church, set by General Conference, is that the “practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” The question with reference to the Rev. Johnson case is: Was there a prejudicial leaning in favor of the practice of homosexuality placed above administering the law of the church? If so, any pastor seeking merely to uphold traditional church policy and the will of General Conference would be at risk under the leadership of a bishop with differing views.

It is with great consternation and grief that I view the current circumstances of the church. We are an inclusive church. All are invited to participate in the means of grace, which can transform and instill in our hearts a desire to live daily lives under the influence of our vows of membership.

Membership in the church is a covenant, not unlike the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. According to the Discipline, we “covenant together with God and with the members of the local church to keep the vows which are part of the order of confirmation and reception into the church ...”   Two of our vows of membership are “to renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of the world, and repent of (our) sin” and to join in “professing the Christian faith as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.”

We would not expect our ordained clergy to knowingly receive into membership someone who is in breach of the very church vows that he or she is proclaiming. Our clergy have sacred and sole discretion to make the determination as to readiness for making this covenant; after all, the local pastor is the churches’ representative closest to the situation.

Thankfully, the checks and balances in the United Methodist Church resulted in the Judicial Council upholding church law as determined by General Conference. It is disappointing that an issue so plainly addressed in our Book of Discipline had to reach our top layer of accountability to be recognized.

While the Judicial Council’s decisions are comforting and affirmed the relationship between pastor and laity, the potential exists for a backlash in the relationship between the church’s hierarchy and the pastor. Such a backlash could result in an appointment of Rev. Johnson outside the norm for someone of his tenure.

It is quite disturbing that, according to the statement of facts in the case, Bishop Kammerer explored exclusionary measures with Rev. Johnson. The “surrender of credentials” and “early retirement” proposed by Bishop Kammerer would have amounted to nothing less than the exclusion of Rev. Johnson and his ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church. The irony here is that in our inclusive United Methodist Church, the bishop would entertain the notion of excluding a pastor for faithfully carrying out his ordained duties.

Hopefully, the clarity brought to the Virginia Annual Conference by the Judicial Council will enable Bishop Kammerer, the annual conference, the Rev. Ed Johnson and his congregation at South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church to move forward in the unity of proclaiming the grace of Jesus Christ, being true to the Book of Discipline and to the United Methodist Church’s written recognition of the authority of Scripture.

*Menzies, a laywoman from Franklin, Tenn., is a two-time delegate to General Conference and served on the assembly’s Faith and Order Committee and Church and Society Committee. 

News media contact: Tim Tanton, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.

Related Articles

Judicial Council decisions stir debate across church

Two Judicial Council members add opinions to decision

Commentary: Council stands guilty of legislating from bench

United Methodist bishops affirm church membership open to all

Church court reinstates pastor who denied membership to gay man

Pastor denies membership to homosexual, placed on leave

Resources

Decision No. 1032

A Pastoral Letter to the People of The United Methodist Church from the Council of Bishops

Judicial Council Rules of Practice and Procedure