Methodist High Court Sides with Pastor Who Denied Membership to Practicing Gay Man

HOUSTON (UMNS) — United Methodist ministers do have the power to decide who becomes a member of the local church, the denomination’s top court has ruled, supporting a pastor who blocked an openly gay man from joining the congregation.

The United Methodist Judicial Council, holding its regular fall meeting Oct. 26-29, issued two decisions related to the case of Rev. Ed Johnson, who was serving as senior pastor at South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church until he was placed on involuntary leave of absence in June.

In Decision 1031, the council dealt with the due process problems in how Johnson was disciplined. Decision 1032 was the more sweeping ruling, saying that the church’s Book of Discipline “invests discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make determination of a person’s readiness to affirm the vows of membership.”

The result of both decisions is that Johnson is to be immediately reinstated to the status he held before being placed on involuntary leave of absence, with all salary and benefits retroactive to July 1, and is entitled to receive an appointment.

The council deliberated over several cases related to homosexuality, including the case of the Rev. Irene Elizabeth “Beth” Stroud (see related story), whose credentials for ordained ministry were again withdrawn as the Judicial Council overturned an appellate court’s decision that had reinstated her.

The denomination’s top clergy leaders, holding their weeklong fall meeting in Lake Junaluska, N.C., spent more than an hour in executive session Oct. 31 reflecting on the Judicial Council’s decisions.

“Because there were so many decisions, (the bishops) felt it important to look at them and reflect on them,” said Stephen Drachler, spokesperson for the Council of Bishops. “They expect to be issuing a more comprehensive response during this meeting.”

In particular, the bishops discussed the ruling involving the Virginia church. “One thing is clear,” Drachler said on behalf of the bishops. “The Constitution and Social Principles of the United Methodist Church have not changed. Our Book of Discipline has not changed. All persons are of sacred worth. Our communion table is open to all persons who profess their belief in Jesus Christ and are seeking forgiveness for their sins. God’s love is unconditional.”

The Virginia case involved an openly gay man who was participating in the South Hill church in a variety of ways, including singing in the choir. The man wanted to transfer his membership from another denomination, and Johnson began a series of meetings with him. The man’s sexual orientation was a significant part of the discussions. Johnson refused to receive the man into membership because he said the man would neither repent nor seek to live a different lifestyle.

The church’s associate pastor, who disagreed with Johnson, contacted the district superintendent, and a disciplinary process began that eventually resulted in Johnson being placed on involuntary leave by a vote of his fellow ministers at the 2005 clergy session of the Virginia Annual Conference.

In the decision dealing with the authority of a pastor, the council’s ruling states 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.

The ruling also cites Paragraph 340.3(a), which includes among responsibilities of pastors as being the “administrative officers of the local church.”

“As part of these administrative responsibilities, the pastor in charge of a United Methodist Church or charge is solely responsible for making the determination of a person’s readiness to receive the vows of membership,” the decision says. “ … The pastor-in-charge is entrusted with discretion in the exercise of this responsibility.”

The ruling continues that “since the pastor is not required by the Discipline to admit into membership all persons …. and since the Discipline designates the pastor to be ‘the administrative officer of the local church,’ … a pastor in charge cannot be ordered by the district superintendent or bishop to admit into membership a person deemed not ready or able to meet the requirements of the vows of church membership. … The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into membership of a local church.”

The Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe, a council member, said in a dissent that the decision “compromises the historic understanding that the church is open to all. The Judicial Council cannot interpret something that is not stated in the Discipline . Nothing in the Discipline gives pastors discretion to exclude persons presenting themselves for membership in the church.” Council members Beth Capen and Jon R. Gray also filed their intent to write dissenting opinions to Decision 1032.

In the due process case, the council ruled that “rules and procedures were not followed” and said it “found several errors in the process.” Primarily, the ruling stated that the Virginia Annual Conference’s board of ordained ministry transformed an administrative complaint into a chargeable offense — a judicial complaint — and therefore did not have the authority to consider the complaint.

The original complaint, “unwillingness to perform ministerial duties,” is an administrative complaint as covered in Paragraph 362.2 of the Book of Discipline. The council said the bishop rightly ruled that it was an administrative complaint. “While the Discipline gives the bishop the right to choose whether to refer as an administrative or judicial complaint,” the ruling says, “the Discipline places parameters around the bishop’s right to choose. Paragraph 362.2 states, ‘If the bishop determines that the complaint is based on … unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties, he or she shall refer the complaint as an administrative complaint …’”

However in its presentation to the clergy session, the conference’s board of ordained ministry changed the complaint to a charge of disobedience, the court said. The board of ordained ministry and conference relations committee have no authority to consider a judicial complaint, the court said.

Oral arguments in the case were heard Oct. 27, in a public session at First United Methodist Church of Houston’s Westchase campus. Johnson attended the hearing but did not address the council. The Rev. Tom Thomas of Virginia and attorney Pat Meadows of Alabama spoke on his behalf.

“Rev. Johnson rejects not the Discipline but the interpretation of the Discipline ,” Thomas said. “He drew the line not at the homosexual person but at homosexual practice.”

“United Methodist bishops have considerable authority,” Thomas said. “They tell elders where to go and they go. Ed Johnson has gone for 24 years. But bishops and district superintendents are not authorized to take charge of the issue of membership. There is no authority to tell pastors who to bring in as members.”

The two cases related to Johnson resulted from requests for rulings of law from Virginia Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer. All bishops’ decisions of law are examined by the Judicial Council. In both cases, the Judicial Council reversed Kammerer’s decisions.

At the oral hearing, Kammerer said the language of the Discipline stresses that “all people” can become professing members in the connection. “The emphasis in our Constitution is on inclusiveness, not exclusiveness,” Kammerer said. “I believe the Book of Discipline requires membership for this gay man. Rev. Johnson singled out one sinful behavior. Offering only participation in church amounts to second-class citizenship.”

“What will this mean,” she asked, “for the hundreds and hundreds of pastors, hundreds and hundreds of churches, who have already accepted gay persons into membership? We should err on the side of grace.”

The Rev. Jeffery Mickle, chairman of Virginia’s board of ordained ministry, and Clark Williams, chancellor for the Virginia Conference, also spoke. “While the United Methodist Church refuses to bless the practice of homosexuality,” Mickle said, “we will not say to a homosexual person that your practice is so objectionable as to exclude you from membership in this body of Christ.”

“Membership is not reserved for the worthy,” Williams said. “It is a means of grace for all of us to become worthy.”

Several other rulings issued Monday by the Judicial Council dealt with issues related to homosexuality and the church.

The council ruled that an annual conference’s own definition of “status” and any refusal to define “practicing” or “practicing homosexual” does not violate the enforceability of Paragraph 304.3 of the Discipline . Decision 1020 affirmed Bishop Beverly J. Shamana’s decisions of law related to items adopted during the 2005 session of the California-Nevada Annual Conference.

In Item 26, the conference defined the word “status” in the United Methodist Constitution “as including sexual orientation such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and trangendered.” In Item 27, the conference refused to define “practicing” or “practicing homosexual.” Shamana ruled that the items did not pre-empt the force of law of Paragraph 304.3, and those rulings were supported by the council, which wrote “regardless of whether there are one definition or many, no such definition may void, violate or otherwise pre-empt the force of law of Paragraph 304.3 of the Discipline .”

In another California-Nevada Annual Conference item, the council upheld Bishop Shamana’s decision of law, in which the bishop ruled that nothing in a resolution titled “We Will Not Be Silent” violated the Book of Discipline . The resolution, adopted at the conference’s annual gathering, contains four inclusion principles, including “to make plans to welcome and include LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons in leadership roles in the church.”

The resolution “concerning lay involvement and leadership … does not encourage or require district superintendents to hold churches accountable for a position specifically at odds with Paragraph 304.3 of the 2004 Discipline , which applies to clergy certification, ordination and appointment,” the court stated in Decision 1028.

The West Michigan Annual Conference asked the council to examine whether action amending the conference health benefits plan to include benefits for dependents including “domestic partners” was in violation of Paragraph 612.19, which directs that no United Methodist funds promote homosexuality.

The court said the “annual conference council on finance and administration is responsible for determining whether funds are being used to supply domestic partner benefits under a conference health benefits plans,” and if so, whether that promotes homosexuality. The council found no indication in its materials regarding the West Michigan Council on Finance and Administration examining whether United Methodist funds were being used to provide benefits to domestic partners. “Normally, the cost of benefits to all dependents, including domestic partners, are paid entirely by the plan participant,” the council said.

Responded to a request from the Minnesota Annual Conference relating to inaccessible supervisory files. The court said the paragraph cited in the request, Paragraph 606.9, deals with personnel records maintained by the annual conference, which are open and accessible. “The Discipline differentiates between personnel records and supervisory records,” the council said. “Supervisory records on ministerial personnel are authorized by Paragraph 423.4. Declaratory relief has not been requested under Paragraph 423.4.”

Gave a mixed ruling of a decision of law by Bishop Edward W. Paup concerning a petition titled “Affirming Our Unity Amongst Diversity of Opinion,” which was approved by the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference at its 2005 annual gathering. The decision of law was reversed in that it held that “the request for a decision of law here posed questions of law, not questions of theological or doctrinal interpretation,” the court ruled. The bishop’s decision of law was upheld in that it affirmed that the petition was a historical document “without prescriptive force to negate, ignore or violate provisions of the Discipline …”

Rejected the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference’s proposed plan of structure and declared it null and void. “Certain provisions of the proposed plan are in violation of the Discipline,” the court said. “The authority for the proposed board of stewards is not provided … in the Discipline and numerous Judicial Council decisions. The Constitution, in Paragraph 15.15, does not permit the establishment of an annual conference board of stewards with broad powers as outlined in the proposed plan.”

Approved the Louisiana Annual Conference’s structure and rules, and commended the conference for its “persistence and diligence” in meeting the requirements for its structure. This was the fifth time the plan had come before the council.

Said district offices do not have to be made handicapped accessible, according to Paragraph 715.2, but they do have to provide for “relocation of events to locations that are accessible.” Paragraph 715.2 “requires agencies and institutions to schedule and hold all events in accessible settings that adequately accommodate persons with disabilities insofar as reasonably possible.” The decision stemmed from a request from the Northern Illinois Annual Conference.

Ruled that it is not permissible to grant a leave of absence during the probationary period for commissioned members because they are to be in “ministries of Word and Service the entire probationary period,” according to Paragraph 326.1. The decision stemmed from a situation in the Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference in which a person was commissioned as a probationary deacon, then granted a leave of absence in the same clergy session. The leave of absence can be granted according to Paragraph 354.1, so the two paragraphs are in conflict. “When provisions of the Discipline are in conflict, the later-enacted provision takes precedence,” the ruling says. Council member Henry-Crowe filed a dissent related to the fact that the clergy session asked the Judicial Council for a declaratory decision. “The Judicial Council does not have jurisdiction to make a decision under Paragraph 2610 … when the request comes from the clergy session only,” she wrote in her dissent. “Paragraph 605.6 does not give the clergy session the authority to act on behalf of the annual conference except on ‘questions relating to matters of ordination, character and conference relations of clergy.’ A request for a declaratory decision must be acted on by the entire annual conference in open session.”

Stated that the council did not have jurisdiction to review a “comprehensive organizational plan” from the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference because the request failed to cite a specific paragraph in the Book of Discipline.

Ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction to decide on a request from the Tennessee Annual Conference to review the allocation of at-large members to general boards and agencies by the secretary of the General Conference because the “matter does not relate to the annual conference or the work therein.” An oral hearing was held on this docket item. An oral hearing was held on this docket item, and the Revs. K. Edward Tomlinson and R. Carl Frazier and Mary Brook Casad spoke on behalf of the Tennessee Conference. Of the council’s nine members, the Rev. Paul Shamwange Kyungu, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, was absent from the deliberations.

*Caldwell is a United Methodist News Service correspondent based in High Point, NC.

"“While the United Methodist Church refuses to bless the practice of homosexuality,” Mickle said, “we will not say to a homosexual person that your practice is so objectionable as to exclude you from membership in this body of Christ.”

“Membership is not reserved for the worthy,” Williams said. “It is a means of grace for all of us to become worthy.”"

For Orthodox Christians, it is clear that leading a life which is not in accordance with the teachings of The Church bars one from reception of the Mysteries of the Faith. Leading a life of homosexual activity, or for that matter, heterosexual activity outside the bonds of marriage, are examples of this. Under those circumstances, the sinner is cut off from the grace of the sacraments, effective from "membership" by his own actions, not those of The Church. In this The Church is being merciful, since, as +Basil the Great wrote:

"What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for 'he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.' What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again."

All of us are sinners,usually of the most miserable sort, but we are called to repent and at least try not to sin again. None of us can ever be "worthy" to receive God's grace, but we can try to live our lives in such a way as to recognize our sinfulness, repent and try to do better. An unrepentant sinner, or worse one who sua sponte decides that that which God has declared sinful is no sin at all, truly does eat and drink to their own condemnation, a fearful matter indeed.

The minister in question did the Christian thing for this fellow. Unless he is willing to put off his old ways, there is no place for him within the Church.

Thank-you for the compliment, however those were not my words or thoughts, but rather those of one of the great Fathers of Christian Orthodoxy esplaining what The Church believes. Human nature hasn't changed one whit in the last 2000 years and The Church and The Faith have nothing to do with time at all except to exist apart from it. The words of the "God-bearing Fathers", because they speak to eternal Truth, might as well as have been said this morning as 1700 years ago. Its a shame the West has, if not rejected them, at least set them to one side. So many occasions for the Evil One to cause strife could have been avoided.

...however those were not my words or thoughts...

I assumed the last 2 paragraphs were yours? Certainly the last? Plus your reply post was a further blessing, so I definitely have you there!

Have you ever been at a point in your faith journey where you sense that you are being drawn close to understanding something about God's nature that's previously been just out of your grasp? I'm in that place and these words helped me get a bit closer:

...and The Church and The Faith have nothing to do with time at all except to exist apart from it. The words of the "God-bearing Fathers", because they speak to eternal Truth, might as well as have been said this morning as 1700 years ago...

"I assumed the last 2 paragraphs were yours? Certainly the last? Plus your reply post was a further blessing, so I definitely have you there!"

Well, yes, those were my words, but all I said was what The Church teaches. Orthodox Christians are members of Christ's Church. We learn from The Church, from what The Church always and everywhere has believed. The Fathers were so advanced in theosis, in fulfilling their, and our, God created purpose of becoming like God, that a consensus of their thought explains to us what the Scripture teaches. The Fathers themselves are not infallible, but their consensus as expressed by The Church, is. So in the end it simply doesn't matter what I think The Faith is, that would define the church of Kolokotronis. But if we try to direct our lives in accordance with the teachings of The Church, often expressed by The Fathers, but certainly also in the Liturgy and devotions and services of The Church and paramountly in the Scriptures, then we are following Christ and not man.

"Have you ever been at a point in your faith journey where you sense that you are being drawn close to understanding something about God's nature that's previously been just out of your grasp? I'm in that place and these words helped me get a bit closer:

That's an interesting question. I suppose the answer is yes but you know, given the ineffable and completely transcendant "nature" of God, I don't believe we can ever understand that nature. The best we can do is comprehend what God is not. We necessarily anthropomorphize God, but in so doing we also necessarily define He how is beyond Eternity in mundane, time bound "created being" terms. The Cappadocian Fathers are reputed to have said, "I believe in God; God does not "exist"."

Now, if the question is, have I come to places along the Ladder where I perceive more clearly what God wants me to be, how to better focus the "eye of my soul" on Him and die to the self, then the answer is a resounding Yes! I hasten to add that acting on that knowledge is a hard thing and I often fail. In any event, whatever your question, I'm happy that what The Church taught me seems to have helped you. God Bless you. Pray unceasingly!

By no means did I intend to suggest that I felt close to understanding the whole nature of God - what I meant is that it seems as though a certain facet of God's nature, something I didn't perceive before, is slowly coming into focus, but still not quite visible to me. And, amazingly enough in light of another poster's reply, I had recently been pondering the 1st Chapter of John, lingering over some passages that I normally just kind of race through, trying to understand what it means that Christ, the Word, was there "with God" in the beginning - trying to to get my mind around some of these ideas.

I am also intrigued by your almost casual mention of "the Ladder" - a term I am not familiar with but instantly imagine to be something akin to Wesley's concept of "sanctification", the ongoing cleansing and maturation of the Christian through the work of the Holy Spirit, the journey towards Christ-like perfection that we are always on but never complete in this life. Is that even close?

Would you have a reference or two of a good place to read more on the Orthodox faith? Not stuff "about" the church but some of the wisdom of the consensus of the Fathers? For example, the quote from the Cappadocian Fathers presents a way of thinking about God that I had not considered before.

"...trying to understand what it means that Christ, the Word, was there "with God" in the beginning - trying to to get my mind around some of these ideas."

Well, the Fathers wrote plenty on that! Far too much to get into here, but you might check you parish library to see if there is a set of the Ante and Post Nicene Fathers there. Its about 36 volumes.

"I am also intrigued by your almost casual mention of "the Ladder" - a term I am not familiar with but instantly imagine to be something akin to Wesley's concept of "sanctification", the ongoing cleansing and maturation of the Christian through the work of the Holy Spirit, the journey towards Christ-like perfection that we are always on but never complete in this life. Is that even close?

Wesley's concept is very close to the process we Orthodox call theosis. To paraphrase +Athanasius the Great, God became man so that man might become god. But it doesn't happen all at once; rather it is a process, like climbing a ladder. One of the Desert Fathers, +John Climacus (the Ladder), abbot of the Monastery of St. Katherine at Sinai in the 6th century wrote a book for the guidance of his monks as they tried to advance in theosis. It is called the Ladder of Divine Ascent and it is divided into steps or rungs. Orthodoxy graphically demonstrates this in the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent. There's a copy of it on my about page. You may find it interesting that Wesley was strongly drawn to Orthodoxy and his concepts of sanctification were greatly influenced by the Eastern Fathers, especially +Gregory of Nyssa (one of those Cappadocians I mentioned), +Ephraim the Syrian, +Basil the Great (another Cappadocian) and a number of others. Conversely, Wesley could be scathing in his criticism of the Western Fathers. Interesting that you should pick that up.

"Would you have a reference or two of a good place to read more on the Orthodox faith? Not stuff "about" the church but some of the wisdom of the consensus of the Fathers? For example, the quote from the Cappadocian Fathers presents a way of thinking about God that I had not considered before."

Wow, that's a tough one, but try to find a little book called "Eastern Spirituality by a Monk of the Eastern Church".

"For example, the quote from the Cappadocian Fathers presents a way of thinking about God that I had not considered before."

Most people in the West never think about God that way. The phronema, or mindset, of the West is very, very different from that in the East. My wife was once asked by the abbess of the monastery outside of my maternal family's village in Greece what she thought the difference between The Church in the West and The Church in the East was. She asked her because my wife had been brought up as a good, believing Congregationalist. My wife replied, "In the West, The Church says 'Do this or you will go to Hell'. In the East The Church says 'Do this and you will become like God'". An ineffable and transcendent God doesn't fit all that well in the first scenario, but is the sine qua non the second.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.