Commentary: Judicial Council ruled properly in Virginia pastor case
|
A UMNS file photo by Mike DuBose
Brenda Menzies stands in the sanctuary of First United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tenn. |
Brenda
Menzies, a two-time delegate to General Conference, supports the United
Methodist Judicial Council's recent decision in favor of a Virginia
pastor who would not admit a self-avowed practicing homosexual as a
member. A member of First United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tenn.,
Menzies poses in the church's historic sanctuary, built in 1871. A UMNS
photo by Mike DuBose. Photo #05-792. Accompanies UMNS #662. 11/29/05 |
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
|