Commentary: Council stands guilty of legislating from bench
|
A UMNS file photo by Mike DuBose
Jim Lane gives the Laity Address at the 1996 General Conference. |
Jim
Lane of Arkansas gives the Laity Address at the 1996 General Conference
in Denver. In a UMNS commentary, Lane says the United Methodist
Judicial Council was "legislating from the bench" in its October 2005
ruling in favor of a Virginia pastor who refused to admit a self-avowed
practicing gay man into church membership. A UMNS file photo by Mike
DuBose. Photo #05-791. Accompanies UMNS story #661. 11/29/05 |
Nov. 29, 2005
A UMNS Commentary
By Jim Lane*
A lot has been in the news
lately about selecting candidates for appointment to the United States Supreme
Court. One of the most often heard criteria is that the person be someone who
will not “legislate from the bench.”
The role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to adjudicate
cases based on whether or not they meet the test of constitutional application.
In a recent ruling, the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church (our
highest judicial body) issued a ruling that, in my opinion, was blatantly
“legislating from the bench.”
A pastor of a United Methodist church denied membership to a person who came
into the church, joined the choir, and became a part of the fellowship, because
the pastor found out that the person was a homosexual.
Paragraph 4, Article IV, of our church Constitution, contained in the Book of
Discipline says: “The United Methodist Church is a part of the church
universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges
that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color,
national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its
worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon
baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the
Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the
connection. In The United Methodist Church, no conference or other
organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any
member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national
origin, status or economic condition.
Key words in the second and third sentences are “all persons.” I do not think
that the caveat “without regard ...” was ever meant to be exclusive of any
characteristic not stated.
In my humble opinion, Article IV of our Constitution sets the precedent for
anything that follows, in the Discipline, relating to church membership.
The pastor in question, the Rev. Ed Johnson of South Hill, Va., should have
applied this prior to his decision to deny membership. I would think that this
statement on inclusiveness would “trump” any further disciplinary definition,
such as the one Pastor Johnson and the Judicial Council hung their hats on.
In the decision dealing with
the authority of a pastor, the council’s ruling stated that Paragraphs 214 and
225 of the Book of Discipline are “permissive and do not mandate receipt
into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm
membership vows.” The operative word in both paragraphs, the ruling says, is
that persons “may” become members. Decision 930 established the premise that
“shall” cannot be used to replace “may” in the Discipline. Thus the
General Conference has determined that any person “may” become a member of any
local church in the connection. This also applies to people who want to transfer
into the United Methodist Church from another denomination, as was the case in
Virginia, the council ruled.
Who are the judge and jury in our church when the paragraph says “may?” What was
the mind of the General Conference when the “may” was inserted in these
paragraphs pertaining to membership? Did it depend on a decision on the part of
the person coming for membership or a decision by the clergy person?
The Judicial Council has now determined that the local pastor is the judge and
jury, no matter what his district superintendent and bishop may advise or direct
in the matter — or, for that matter, what the members of the congregation might
think.
This ruling by our Judicial Council could start a witch hunt in the church.
Suppose that this person had admitted to infidelity within a heterosexual
relationship or admitted to committing a crime of theft?
This debate makes you wonder just whose church this is. We seem so proud of our
open communion and open baptism. Our national media campaign talks about open
doors, open hearts, and open minds. Who are we kidding? We only mean that if
“whoever” is just like us (whatever that is).
I have been honored to be a part of the delegation to the General Conference
five times. Each time, this topic has been debated and debated, and what we now
have in our Book of Discipline is our effort to state what we, at this
point in history, believe about it.
There is one thing that I have
never heard or read in all of my experience in dealing with these issues at the
General Conference, and that was that we would deny membership to anyone because
we knew of a particular thing about them that we perceived as “sin.”
Our biblical and historical mandate as a people called Methodist has always been
to receive people just as they are, relate them to a loving God, train them to
be disciples of Jesus Christ, and then send them out to lead others to the water
that quenches all thirsts.
Our Judicial Council has failed us in this decision. Immediate plans should be
made to appeal the decision and give the church an opportunity to dialogue with
this group of people who serve at our pleasure (we elect them at the General
Conference) and let them know that we do not want them “legislating from the
bench.”
Judge Jon R. Gray, a Judicial Council member and a sitting judge in Kansas City,
said this about the decision in his dissenting opinion: “Having fully mastered
the difficult task of judicial interpretation, my colleagues in the majority
have now chosen to direct their talents to the meticulous work of authoring
legislation. I choose not to join them in that endeavor.”
When the council members said in their decision that the “operative word ? is
that persons ?may’ become members,” they went far beyond the intent of any
preceding General Conference in addressing the issue of eligibility for
membership in the church.
In my opinion, the “may” is now and always has been answered by a loving and
caring Savior.
*Lane, of Sherwood, Ark., is staff associate for the Witness program at the
Foundation for Evangelism and is past president of the National Association of
Annual Conference Lay Leaders. A five-time General Conference delegate, he
delivered the laity address to the 1996 assembly. He can be reached at
jim@jimlane.org.
|
|