STATEMENT FROM GOOD NEWS
ABOUT JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECISIONS
AND BISHOPS’ PASTORAL LETTER
November 7, 2005
The United Methodist Judicial Council made two very important
rulings at its October 26-29, 2005 meeting in Houston. The United
Methodist Council of Bishops has recently sent a “Pastoral Letter” to
United Methodists concerning one of the decisions. The following
statement deals with first, the important decisions by the Judicial
Council and second, a response to the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter.
First, in the case of the Rev. Beth Stroud, formerly the
associate pastor of First United Methodist Church of Germantown,
Pennsylvania. In a letter in April of 2003, she had disclosed that she
was “a lesbian living in a committed relationship with a partner.” She
told her church about her struggle “to respond to God’s calling” while
“a lesbian living in a committed relationship with a partner.” In May
of 2003, Rev. Stroud’s presiding bishop, Bishop Peter Weaver,
initiated the complaint process to “bring [her] membership in the
ministerial office of Elder under review.” She was charged with
engaging in “practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be
incompatible with Christian teachings,” a chargeable offense under
Par. 2702.1 of the 2000 Discipline.
At her trial in December of 2004, the trial court jury found
Rev. Stroud guilty of the specifications and charge by a vote of 12-1.
In the punitive stage, the court took away her ministerial
credentials. It appeared that the church processes had worked and that
our standards had been upheld.
However, this past April, the Northeast Jurisdiction Committee
on Appeals reversed the trial court’s verdict by an 8-1 vote and set
aside its penalty. Rev. Stroud had her credentials reinstated. While
this reversal was utterly unjustifiable, we knew it would
automatically go to the Judicial Council for review. We felt sure it
would be overturned. And that is exactly what happened.
At its October meeting, the Judicial Council reversed the
Appeals Committee action and reinstated the verdict and penalty of the
trial court, which had found Stroud guilty and had removed her
ministerial orders. This is what we had expected would happen, and
thankfully, it did. The Judicial Council upheld the church’s standards
that being a self-avowed practicing homosexual is, indeed, a barrier
to serving as an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church.
Then, in the controversial case dealing with Rev. Ed Johnson, a
pastor in the Virginia Annual Conference, there were two important
decisions. The case dealt with the action of the Virginia Annual
Conference placing Rev. Ed Johnson on “involuntary leave of absence.”
The problem was that Rev. Johnson refused to receive into membership a
man who was in a homosexual relationship with another man and was
unrepentant about it.
Rev. Johnson was involved in ministering to the man who was
attending the South Hill United Methodist Church, where Johnson was
senior pastor. When the man expressed interest in joining the church
by transfer of membership from another church, he was counseled by
Rev. Johnson that that move would need to be postponed. Johnson made
that decision because of the practicing homosexual relationship with
another man, about which the potential member was unrepentant. He was
still attending the church and singing in the choir, however.
When Johnson’s District Superintendent learned of the
situation, he spoke with Bishop Charlene Kammerer, who sent word that
he was to receive the man into membership. When Johnson refused to
abide by the bishop’s directive, the D.S. filed a complaint charging
him with “unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties.”
After a number of hearings with the Board of Ordained Ministry,
that body recommended that the conference place Rev. Johnson on
“involuntary leave of absence,” with health benefits but no salary.
The clergy session supported that action and Johnson had to leave the
South Hill United Methodist Church this past July 1, where he had
served faithfully as pastor for six years. Questions of Law were
raised and that brought the case before the Judicial Council at its
recent meeting.
Here are the two rulings on this case. First, in Decision
1031, the Council reversed Bishop Kammerer’s response to the
Question of Law by ruling that the Virginia Board of Ministry had
wrongly treated the administrative complaint as if it were a
chargeable offense, which it didn’t have the authority to do.
Therefore, Rev. Johnson is entitled to reinstatement as pastor,
should be appointed immediately, and gets all salary and benefits
retroactive to July 1, 2005. This is exactly what needed to
happen.
Second, in Decision 1032 on the same case, the Council
again reversed Bishop Kammerer’s response to the Question of Law,
stating that 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 (Par. 217).” Once again, we agree with
this ruling. The senior pastor is the one who should make the
determination about a person’s readiness for full membership in the
church.
The Pastoral Letter from the Council of Bishops
In recent days, United Methodist pastors have received the “Pastoral
Letter” from the Council of Bishops, which was passed unanimously
at its recent fall meeting. Many United Methodists have been confused
and troubled by the bishops’ response to the recent Judicial Council
actions.
We are disappointed that the Bishop’s Pastoral Letter does not
affirm more clearly the Judicial Council decision, but instead appears
to be raising questions about it. For example, Decision 1032 affirmed
the pastor’s responsibility to determine one’s readiness for
membership. The Bishops’ letter, however, states “We affirm. . .that
pastors are accountable to the bishop, superintendent, and the clergy
on matters of . . .membership.” Are they expressing their
disagreement with Decision 1032? It is not clear what they have
affirmed in that statement.
We wonder, personally, what the intent is of their response. As
the Pastoral Letter was sent by our bishops to their annual
conferences, one bishop said in an accompanying email, referring to
Decision 1032, “That decision was wrong in its interpretation of our
beliefs concerning membership in the church.” Another said in his
accompanying email, “Methodism is in danger of becoming as pharisaic
as the religious leaders during the time of Jesus.” These are
egregious remarks from episcopal leaders about decisions from the
denomination’s Judicial Council. They must remember that neither they
nor their annual conferences have the right to negate, deny, or ignore
the actions of General Conference or the standards of the United
Methodist Church.
One wonders, then, whether the Council of Bishops were
questioning, publicly disagreeing with, or merely seeking to clarify
the Judicial Council’s decisions. The tone and content of the Pastoral
Letter seem to be an attempt to clarify that United Methodism is
inclusive in its ministry. What is significant is what the Pastoral
Letter does not say. It does not state that it “disagrees”
with the Judicial Council, or that Decision 1032 was wrong, nor
does it ask the Judicial Council for a review or
reconsideration of the decision. They might have tried any of the
above three options, but it is doubtful such action would have
received unanimous approval. So what was being said?
First, the Council of Bishops’ pastoral seems to be
concerned that Judicial Council Decision 1032 will communicate to
folks across the country that the United Methodist Church is not
welcoming and involved in ministry with gays and lesbians. This is not
the case. Remember that Rev. Ed Johnson was involved in
ministering to the man, whose membership he postponed. The Pastoral
Letter states what all United Methodists have already affirmed, that
we are committed to be in ministry to all persons.
Second, the Bishops’ pastoral acknowledges that “pastors
have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership.” That is
what the Judicial Council affirmed and what we have always understood.
This is to be done, of course, within the guidelines of Article IV, of
our UM Constitution in our Discipline. We are an inclusive
church and willing to receive those who meet the requirements of
membership.
An important part of this context is Par. 138, “Called to
Inclusiveness.” In this paragraph is the explanation of what we mean
by “inclusiveness.” It states: “In The United Methodist Church
inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all
persons who meet the requirements (emphasis ours) of The United
Methodist Book of Discipline.” To speak of meeting the
“requirements” indicates there are, indeed, substantive
requirements one has to meet in being considered for membership. This
is what we have always assumed, for without any “requirements,”
membership and vows made publicly before the congregation would mean
nothing.
Third, the Bishops’ pastoral states that in
considerations for membership, “homosexuality is not a barrier.” At
this point, the Bishops were not clear about what they mean. We would
assume, being very familiar with this debate, that they purposefully
mentioned simply “homosexuality,” rather than “homosexual practice.”
For most all of us, homosexual orientation or inclination is not in
itself a barrier to membership. We have many persons in our churches
struggling with many problems, conflicts, inclinations, and
temptations, who are active members.
Since the Pastoral Letter was reported to have been approved
unanimously, it is our assumption that this phrase was not talking
about homosexual practice, but rather orientation or inclination. Were
the letter to mean “homosexual practice,” then that would run counter
to our affirmations about human sexuality in the Discipline,
which state in part: “Although all persons are sexual beings whether
or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in
the marriage bond.” (Par. 161.G) We also affirm the marriage covenant
to be one of “shared fidelity between a man and a woman.” (Par. 161.C)
Our biblical standard of “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in
singleness” is relevant for heterosexual relationships and precludes
homosexual behavior. To state that self-avowed practicing homosexuals
should automatically and without question be received as members of
the church would violate our church’s standards, the clear teachings
of Scripture, and two millennia of church teaching. This is
unacceptable to us and to the great majority of our
membership—including evangelical, orthodox, and centrist United
Methodists.
The Pastoral Letter is helpful in citing several passages from
our church’s Social Principles. However, the selective quoting of the
Social Principles risks sending a distorted message to our church and
a watching world. The carefully-balanced statement of our Social
Principles affirms the sacred worth of every person, while at the same
time clearly acknowledging the Biblical witness that certain behaviors
are contrary to God’s will and Christian teaching. Our confused,
sexually licentious society needs to hear a clear word of faithful
teaching and correction, not an ambiguous message that would lead some
to believe sinful behavior is somehow acceptable to God.
Evangelicals take seriously the mandate to be in ministry to
all persons. A distinction we make, however, is that our ministry is
aimed at helping persons find healing from sexual brokenness,
liberation from homosexual behavior, and a reorientation of their
sexuality to either heterosexuality or to a commitment to celibacy.
Ministry is not, for us, an affirming of homosexual behavior and
celebrating it as a gift from God. Rather, we are called to “make
disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” That
transformation begins with each individual’s transformation from sin
toward holiness. To be faithful, the church needs to reach out to all
persons in love to offer the transforming power of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, not to affirm persons in their bondage to sin.
Fourth, the Bishops’ pastoral states “We also affirm our
Wesleyan practice that pastors are accountable to the bishop,
superintendent, and the clergy on matters of ministry and membership.”
This is a statement that all of us who are clergy would affirm
regarding most matters. We realize our accountability in the
covenantal community. None of us would want a totally independent
status, to be lone operators as pastors. At the same time, as I was
reminded recently by a pastor from a more liberal background, United
Methodist clergy have always had as their discretionary right
the freedom of the pulpit, decisions about whom to marry, and
decisions about whom to receive into membership in their churches. It
is that latter discretionary right that Decision 1032 has affirmed. We
trust the bishops do, in fact, affirm that pastors “have the
responsibility to discern readiness for membership.”
In conclusion, we should remember these two points. The recent
Judicial Council decisions have:
1.) In the Beth Stroud decision, upheld the church’s standards
prohibiting the appointment of clergy who are self-avowed practicing
homosexuals; and
2.) Affirmed that pastors have the right to make the
determination about a person’s readiness for full membership in the
church;
Once again, let us remember that Rev. Ed Johnson was, indeed,
responsibly involved in ministry with the man he was counseling about
membership in his local church. Let us affirm that God’s love embraces
all persons, no matter who we are or what we have done, for the
purpose of transforming us into the image of Christ. The church must
be faithful stewards of the “good deposit” of the Gospel that Christ
has entrusted to us. The transforming message of Jesus Christ is
available to us all, even those of us afflicted with various forms of
sexual brokenness. Our Lord’s message and invitation to his hearers
from the very start was one of repentance. He came to them preaching,
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” (Matthew 4:17).
Steve@goodnewsmag.org