logo

Meddling with Membership
Should we ratify the Amended Version of Paragraph 4, Article IV?
By Walter B. Fenton

Perhaps the most far-reaching and potentially divisive petition passed at the 2008 General Conference was a petition submitted by Breaking the Silence, a pro-homosexuality advocacy group in the Texas Annual Conference. Of the eight petitions submitted to amend Paragraph 4, Article IV of the United Methodist Church’s Constitution, its petition was adopted with only minor changes (see text box). While the petition might seem innocuous, it is actually an indirect attempt by special interest groups to ensure the acceptance and full participation of self-avowed practicing homosexuals in all areas of the life of the church.

What clearly prompted the plethora of petitions seeking to amend Paragraph 4 of the Constitution was a fall 2005 Judicial Council decision number 1032. In that ruling, the Judicial Council reversed Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer’s decision to place the Rev. Edward Johnson on an involuntary leave of absence for refusing to receive a self-avowed practicing homosexual as a member of South Hills United Methodist Church in South Hills, Virginia.

The petitions to amend Paragraph 4 were submitted with the intent of having the denomination enshrine in its Constitution the right of all persons to receive the membership vows irrespective of a pastor’s determination of their readiness to receive or abide by them. While such an assertion of individual rights is essential to our national polity, the United Methodist Church has never styled itself a democratic institution where, in the name of pluralism, all choices and lifestyles are to be treated as equally valid. 

Implications. To get a sense of how far reaching and potentially divisive the proposed amendment is, it is important to carefully parse its full meaning. There is no role specified for a pastor or a local congregation in determining a prospective member’s preparedness for receiving the vows, so presumably it is solely the purview of the prospective member to determine when he or she is ready to become a member. And finally, since the concluding sentence states that “no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body,” the entire United Methodist Church is presumably open to all who become members.

It is not hard to envision a number of scenarios that could be highly problematic for a local church, an annual conference, or for the whole denomination were the amended version of Paragraph 4 ratified. Almost every pastor can tell at least one story of an individual wanting to join the church for the wrong reasons (e.g., for a cheaper wedding fee). And in some rare instances a pastor must graciously, but firmly tell a prospective member that he or she is not ready to join the church if he or she insists on harboring and promoting racist attitudes.

But let me cut to the chase and address the actual issue that led to this proposed change to Paragraph 4 in the first place. Were annual conference delegates to ratify the proposed version of Paragraph 4, will a pastor and a local church be required to receive into membership a self-avowed practicing homosexual?

Obviously, at this point in time, it is a hypothetical question. However, if the amended version of Paragraph 4 is ratified, it would not remain a hypothetical question for very long. It is imaginable that the Judicial Council would strike down, on the basis of the newly amended Paragraph 4, any attempt to keep a self-avowed practicing homosexual from joining any local congregation he or she wanted to join, regardless of pastoral assessment. Indeed, on a strict reading of the proffered version of Paragraph 4, it is hard to see how the council could rule otherwise.

But such a ruling would put the entire United Methodist Church in a very awkward situation. On the one hand, we would maintain that we find “the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching,” and yet on the other hand, we would also maintain that we are required to receive into membership a person who openly claims to practice homosexuality. It is not hard to imagine that many of our clergy, not unlike their colleague the Rev. Edward Johnson, would find this a contradiction they could not affirm in practice. Furthermore, many laity would also see this for the glaring contradiction it would be and so decide they could no longer support or be a member of a denomination that countenanced such a contradiction. Obviously, this scenario would plunge the United Methodist Church into the very real crisis that is currently splintering the worldwide Anglican Communion.

It must also be remembered that according to Paragraph 4 as proffered, once a self-avowed practicing homosexual is received into membership he or she is entitled to pursue participation in any area of the denomination since, as the article states, “no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body.” How would the new Judicial Council balance this clear statement enshrined in the Church’s Constitution with ¶ 304.3, which states: “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church”? Again, a gaping contradiction would be created. Such a scenario would without doubt lead to more church trials and stir up further division throughout the denomination.

The coming debate. In order for the amended version of Paragraph 4 to become part of our Church’s Constitution, it must be approved by two-thirds of all the annual conference delegates voting at their 2009 gatherings. This will present the worldwide United Methodist Church with an opportunity to more carefully consider the matter. For the unity and good order of the denomination, it is imperative that annual conference delegates give this petition the close scrutiny it deserves.

 

Walter B. Fenton is director of development and networking for Good News. He is a clergy member of the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference.



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine