Posted on 07/01/2005 12:13:05 PM PDT by mbarker12474
Local minister placed on involuntary leave
Refusal to admit homosexual as member an issue
By Mike Bollinger
Staff Writer
SOUTH HILL - A controversial national issue has made its presence felt in the local area as a South Hill minister has been placed on "involuntary leave of absence" after refusing to admit a homosexual member to his church.
The Rev. Edward Johnson of South Hill United Methodist Church has been placed on a one-year, unpaid leave, according to the Rev. W. Anthony Layman, district superintendent for the Petersburg District of the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church.
"The pastor has been placed on an involuntary leave of absence by the board of ordained ministry after a vote in executive session," Layman said Monday.
A congregation member said Monday that Layman along with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer visited South Hill Methodist Sunday and explained the situation to the congregation.
Layman would make no comment Monday other than to say Johnson has been placed on leave. Associate Pastor Lee Warren also declined to comment further Monday. No church officials would speak on the record about why Johnson was placed on leave.
Gary Creamer, a member of South Hill UMC, said Monday that the sexual preference of the prospective member was the reason for Johnson's being placed on leave. Creamer said he echoed the opinion of many other members concerning Johnson.
"I feel Rev. Johnson was holding to Biblical principle in denying membership to that individual," Creamer said. "I feel extremely sad and grieved. I feel a terrible injustice was done."
Creamer said he has not yet decided whether he will continue to attend the church.
"I haven't made up my mind whether to leave or to stay and be a part of the loyal opposition," he said.
The decision to place Johnson on leave was made, Creamer believes, without taking into account the feelings of the local congregation. Church members were "completely excluded" from the process, he said.
"I just feel like the congregation as a whole was ignored," he said. "I don't think anyone had any idea of the gravity of what was going on."
Creamer said he did not believe the church would react in such a harsh way in response to Johnson's actions.
Reached for comment Monday, Kammerer would not comment on the details of Johnson's leave. To do so, she said, would violate his confidentiality.
She said the United Methodist Church is guided by the Book of Discipline, which is reviewed globally by elected delegates every four years. Any portion of that book may be amended during these reviews, she said.
Over the last 30 years, the United Methodist Church has consistently maintained the prohibition of ordination of gay clergy, Kammerer said. However, that prohibition does not apply to church membership.
"In regard to membership in the United Methodist Church of laypersons, homosexuality has not been prohibited as a reason for not accepting someone," she said.
Kammerer said if Johnson meets terms provided for him while on leave, he would be reinstated as a United Methodist minister in good standing. In all probability, he would be reassigned to another church, she said.
"He would be eligible for reappointment, regardless of where it is," she said.
Layman will meet with the staff-parish committee, the local church personnel committee, this week and begin work on providing an interim pastor for South Hill UMC, Kammerer said.
"He will tell them who that person is and why they are a good match. The committee commented that an interim pastor would be a good request, and we will work toward that," she said.
Clergy matters are not subject to input from local congregations, according to Kammerer. She said they are handled in executive session by the board of ordained ministers, as was done in this case.
"He is accountable to the annual conference as a clergy member. He is not subject to any one local church," she said.
The process has been ongoing for approximately four months, Kammerer said.
"As Rev. Johnson's bishop, I wish he and his family well and pray for healing in the life of the congregation in South Hill," she said.
Creamer said the individual in question had been worshipping at the church for some time and was singing in the choir.
"This person was never discouraged from coming to church. That would be un-Christian. However, actual membership would be another story," he said.
The congregation, Creamer said, found about the decision late last week. The decision was made by a vote taken at the Virginia Annual Conference in Hampton last week, he added.
The Rev. Johnson and the person who sought admission to the church, along with Denny Hardee, the chairman of the church's staff-parish committee, and several other church members were all contacted in connection with this story. All chose not to comment.
I'm not willing to assume anything. You appear ready to jump to a conclusion. Do you KNOW how this came to light? Do you know this person did not confess their homosexuality as a sin? I attended a Methodist church in another location where I felt that the congregation had a very "holier than thou" attitude. (That was where the minister made his "we're all sinners" sermon. He wasn't popular with his flock). I left for several reasons, but one was that I saw people who sinned, confessed it, and repented. And were still ostracized by the congregation. There are unfortunately Christian congregations who profess the faith greatly, but practice it little.
I've stated my position given the possible alternatives here, and stand by it.
Unforunately, using the term "confessed" is problematic here as that usually implies some level of repentance. If the person admitted or proclaimed it, denying membership would have been the only correct option.
> Do you know this person did not confess their homosexuality as a sin?<
Based on this quote it is obvious they allowed him to come to Church.The man was said to be a homosexual not a former homosexual.If he was repentent and renouncing homosexuality why didn't the so called Bishop acknowledge that? Why did he choose to injure the church body if he was a Christian(required for membership in all Christian churches I know of)?
Your take on this requires a suspension of reason and placing your faith in the statements of a church hierarchy clearly in rebellion against the word of God.
Creamer said the individual in question had been worshipping at the church for some time and was singing in the choir.
Memo to self:proofreading is your friend.The quote I refered to in the previous post was pasted out of context.
I used to be a Methodist, then I started doing some investigating. The Board of Church and Society is a group of Marxists, the Council of Bishops is not much better. They(United Methodists) are contributing members of the Mational Council of Churches, and the World Council of Churches. Both organizations have very deep Comnmunist/ Marxist ties. Check out discoverthenetwork.org to learn about NCC and WCC. here is a link to the board of church and society:http://archives.umc.org/frames.asp?url=http%3A//www.umc-gbcs.org
I am aware of this. However, you have some misconceptions about how the UMC is run. First off, the Board of Church and Society has long been a semi-independent group within the UMC--it has its own endowment, which prevents its checking by the other bodies within the church. Second, yes, the UMC is a member of both the NCC and WCC. This does not reflect individual congregations of any given conference. The theological conservatism and Biblical adherence of any given portion of the UMC is determined roughly by region. The Southern conferences tend to be very conservative, as are the two Indiana conferences and some of the other Midwestern conferences. The left coast and the Northeast both tend to be extremely liberal, theologically.
Also note that there are large revivalist movements within the UMC, notably the Good News Movement and the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church.
I have to agree with the Bible on this one.
I Corinthians 5:9-13
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
The Scripture is clear: Those who call themselves Christian "brothers", yet persist in open, notorious sin, are to be expelled from the church, and indeed to be socially shunned as well ("do not eat" with them).
The moment they give up their sin, they are welcome to return. Otherwise, not.
They did not say he cant come to church just cant be a member
Chronic sinners who refuse to repent are to be shunned by the church.
In fact the bible is pretty straight forward on how to deal
with members who refuse to repent and choose to live in habitual sin...
They are to be cast out...and to be denied fellowship with the believers..they are to be BARRED from the church..
The truth is..once this sinner has heard the word and refuses to repent and insists his sin is not only OK but
insists on his own way...
He is to be banned from that church until the time of his
sincere repentance...and then he 'may' be restored to
the church..
The Bishop who went after the minister who was doing God's will in the matter is wrong...and evil..and should also
be barred from worship let alone holding a position of authority...this church is apostate
All the believers should either throw the bad guys out or if this is not possible ...leave taking all their support with them
imo
Do you mean to say that each individual church can decide whether it will provide money to NCC and WCC? My understanding is that each conference is required to give a % of the collections of each of the churches in it's region
that is designated for NCC and WCC as well as other projects.
>- but I guess socializing with them on a forum is ok ??<
I would look at it more as ministering to than socializing with.
X would be able to tell you more accurately than I (he's an ordained elder in one of the Ohio conferences), but it's my understanding that individual members can specify where their tithes go, and can, as a congregation, vote to withhold apportionments.
I don't believe it's really "socializing" but more like "shining the light of truth."
Another reason why EACH individual church should be locally governed by elders/deacons, as was done in the 1st century.
Or bring 50 new homo buddies with him, in which case they'll overrun the place and everyone ELSE will leave.
Actually, they SHOULD have been refused. I know,we don't do that anymore. The Apostle Paul would have,though.
That certainly seems to be how this one is unfolding, sure enough.
I can tell you right now that in any of the churches I have been in, a couple living together without being married would definately not be allowed to vote as members.
They would also be strongly encouraged by the pastor to get married.
I would say that Rev. Johnson was within the text of the Book of Discipline to deny membership. The text clearly states that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."
One is not talking about denying attendance, access, prayer, counseling unto salvation, etc. One is talking about denying membership in a denomination that says, "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."
How could the pastor do otherwise?
Each individual church can decide where its money goes. The best way to do this is to pay specific line items of the apportioned money to those areas that one supports.
If the church doesn't vote additional money to the unpaid line items, then those items don't get funded.
Most methodist regions are in financial straits due to declining membership. If they are not now, they will soon become sensitive to targeted giving by the various congregations.
The Grammarian is correct that there is a large renewal movement within the UMC that is having significant impact. Because our polity only allows slow change, we are slowly changing for the better. Hang in there. The true gospel has prevailed at the last 5 or 6 General Conferences in a row with an INCREASING majority each time.
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.