logo

NEWS
Bishop applauds homosexual
membership as “courageous”
By Linda Green

The pastor of a Virginia United Methodist church has granted membership to the gay man whose 2005 denial of membership by the previous pastor prompted controversy across the denomination on the issues of homosexuality and pastoral authority.

During worship services on March 11 at South Hill (Virginia) United Methodist Church, the Rev. Barry Burkholder accepted the man’s transfer of membership from a Baptist church to South Hill (Virginia) United Methodist Church.

The development follows a series of rulings related to the case, including one on pastoral authority, by the denomination’s highest court. “The Judicial Council’s ruling says that the pastor of the church is the person in authority to determine whether an individual is ready to receive the vows of membership,” Burkholder said. “And having spokenwith this individual and him having professed Christ as his savior, his belief that Jesus Christ died for his sins tells me that he is ready to receive the vows of membership.”

The Rev. Edward H. Johnson had refused to receive the man into membership in 2005, saying the man would neither repent nor seek to live a lifestyle that does not include homosexuality.

The man has continued to worship at the South Hill Church and to participate in its music ministry. Johnson was placed on involuntary leave of absence in June 2005 by a vote of fellow clergy of the Virginia Annual Conference after he refused to receive the man into membership.

Four months later, the nine-member Judicial Council ruled that United Met h o d i st pastors have authority to decide who becomes a

member of a local church and reinstated Johnson (he was appointed pastor at Dahlgren (Virginia) United Met h o d i st Church.)

Specifically, the Judicial Council ruled that “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.”

Burkholder said he based his decision to receive the man into membership on the council’s ruling,the criteria for membership found in Paragraph 214 of the 2004 Book of Discipline and the invitation for membership found in the Service of Word and Table 1 of the United Methodist Hymnal.

“Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin, and seek to live in peace with one another. This is my definition” (of membership), he said. Following the close of the March 11 worship service, the man and two others who transferred membership that day were greeted by most of the church’s members, according to Burkholder.

“A vast majority of the congregation came forward and warmly welcomed all three of these people into the life of the church,” said the pastor, adding that he was “very gratified at seeing that.”

 

The bishop’s response
The congregation and its pastor have taken a “very courageous step,” said Bishop Charlene Kammerer. Sheadded that she could not imagine what kind of courage it has taken for the man “to continue to be an active participant as a baptized Christian in this congregation where he had been clearly rejected and set apart.”

“I thank God for the ways that I believe that Christ is continuing towork in his life,” she said. “What has happened here in the same congregation is that one pastor made a decision and another pastor made a different decision,” Kammerer said.

She singled out the South Hillchurch as a “local congregation who has struggled mightily to understand the meaning of membership and what really has happened to them and particularly to the man in this journey.”

The bishop said there are membersof South Hill who disapprove of theman’s lifestyle and sexual orientation,but “these same members would notexclude him from membership in theUnited Methodist Church based onthat reality alone.”

She said it is her hope and prayer“that no United Methodist pastorwould use discretion to bar anyonefrom membership in the United Methodist Church.”

Linda Green is a United Methodist News Service news writer based in Nashville, Tennessee.

 

Decision 1032: Theologians debate its implications
by Robin Russell

When the United Methodist Church’s high court upheld in October 2005 the decision by a Virginia pastor to refuse membership to an openly gay man, it cited pastoral authority. That decision has raised larger questions for many in the church, though, about the nature of the UM Church’s theology of inclusiveness, as reflected in its motto: “Open hearts, open minds, open doors.”

To explore how United Methodists should think about membership, church structure, and leadership based on Judicial Council Decision 1032, the denomination’s General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM) invited theologians, pastors, scholars, and agency staff to a February consultation in Nashville, Tennessee.

The consultation sought to bring theological light to the nature and practice of church leadership and identity, rather than be a “referendum on homosexuality.” Its bottom line? Who may join the church, and on what basis? What is the nature of the church that people are invited to join? And who decides who may join the church? Moreover, how does Decision 1032 fit in with other official statements that govern the church?

Some argue, for instance, that because the church’s Constitution is fundamental to United Methodist identity, Article IV’s emphasis on church inclusiveness should take precedence over everything else. Others say that Paragraph 304.3 of the Book of Discipline—which says the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching—should be the guiding principle. What’s a United Methodist to think?

Critical time
“Judicial Council 1032 has created a defining moment in the life of people called United Methodists,” the Rev. Jerome King Del Pino, top executive of the GBHEM, told the consultation. Indeed, the court’s decision has generated continued dialogue among United Methodists. Is a pastor “solely responsible” for deciding if a person is ready to receive the vows of membership?

Do bishops have authority over that decision?

These kinds of issues belong to the whole church, Dr. Del Pino said in a phone interview. “This is about what drives our view of hospitality, in a church that claims to be motivated by grace. Hospitality is not just the social graces. Hospitality is what we understand as the divine mandate about how we incorporate people into the body of Christ.”

The Nashville consultation, he added, was “a stellar moment that showed we are capable of the best of what we call ‘holy conferencing.’ It was exemplary in showing how Christians are willing to speak truth in love to one another, even when they disagree on their vision of that truth.”

Dr. Del Pino hopes the consultation will become a paradigm for how to negotiate discussions about issues that are “exceedingly controversial yet critical to the life of the church.”

If the Council of Bishops and the church’s general agencies have similar discussions, it could provide theological resources for delegates elected at Annual Conferences, he added.

Membership and grace
Consultation participants agreed that church membership is a means or form of grace, and that the churchexists by the grace of God. After that, varying theological perspectives collide. One says a local church can receive persons into the community of faith ifthey repent of their sins and promise to grow in faith. The other says people should be welcomed into the fellowship, in hopes that in time, they will learn what it means to be a Christian.

The Rev. Elaine Robinson, a pro­fessor at Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth, Texas, agrees with the latter.  “The United Methodist Church and its historical antecedents have always upheld the primacy of grace,” she said in her position paper. “Without grace, we cannot be the church. . . . God’s prevenient grace always pre­cedes our understanding as human beings.”

And though the Book of Discipline contains conflicting criteria for mem­bership, the Wesleyan understanding of grace suggests “that membership should be seen, perhaps, as a start­ing point for the Christian journey,” Dr. Robinson said. “Growing into the fullness of love takes a lifetime of responding to grace.”

United Methodists, she added, should show the same “radical hospi­tality and inclusiveness” that Jesus did when he approached marginalized people.

Reform ‘lax habits’
The Rev. Leicester Longden, a professor of evangelism and dis­cipleship at the Univer­sity of Dubuque Theological Seminary, agreed that Decision 1032 is an opportunity for the church to “recover its ecclesial understanding of church membership.”

But he said the ruling should prompt United Methodists to “reform our lax habits of membership reception” and to confront “our cultural accommodation and fear of being judgmental.”

Dr. Longden warned against con­fusing the nature of the church with a “polity of toleration,” saying the dia­logue would then merely become “a debating society of divergent opinions and theological parties, rather than a communion of believers engaged in

Christian conferencing on the ulti­mate grounds of our life together in Christ.”

He asked for clearer definitions: “Is membership to be under­stood as ‘inclusion’ into a polity of affirming toler­ance? Or as Baptism into communion by means of ‘costly grace,’ redemption from sin, power to live a new life, and a call to radi­cal holiness?”

The Rev. William (Billy) Abraham, professor of Wesley Studies at Per­kins School of Theology in Dallas, said he doubted there would even be a debate over membership if it weren’t for the issue of homosexual practice, which he called “the elephant in the room.”

But whenever there’s disagreement over an issue, canon (or church) law is the key to denominational unity, he said. And for United Methodists, canon law comes through General

Conference and its deliberations.
“Canon law is never perfect; it never com­mands full assent; and it is subject to change. However, for better and for worse, it represents the voice of the whole church,” Dr. Abraham said in his presentation.

General Conference has determined that homosexual practice is

incompatible with Christian teach­ing. That, however, conflicts with “a vision of holiness that is rejected by a passionate minority within the church as a whole,” Dr. Abraham said, which is why Decision 1032 has met with such controversy. The Judicial Coun­cil’s ruling has now shifted the dispute from ordination (something already covered by the Discipline) to readiness for membership.

 

A ‘lightning rod’
On the topic of Episcopal author­ity, Dr. Abraham called Decision 1032 a “lightning rod” for United Methodists who worry that bishops will “give themselves an upgrade and see themselves as a third order beyond deacon and elder.” (In United Methodism, bishops are elders who have been set apart to perform certain functions).

He also warned against using “inclusive­ness” as a moral trump over all else. “Inclusive­ness can sometimes be a good servant, but it is a bad master,” he said.

African American pastors may have something to add to the conver­sation, the Rev. Martin McLee, pastor of Union United Methodist Church in Boston, told the consultation. Conflicts over issues such as homosexuality, he said, can only be resolved by the leadership of the entire church and “should not be entrusted to the wisdom of individual pastors.”

“While I would like to believe that all pastors in United Methodism are centered in justice and fairness, I know that is not the truth,” he said.

When church membership is dic­tated by pastoral preference, it cre­ates a “flawed church membership paradigm,” he added. His own church was established in 1818 by African Americans who did not feel welcome at a white congregation, because the Anglo members were uncomfortable with the African style of worship.

“Churches organized by pastoral preference would have a devastating impact on United Methodism,” Mr. McLee said.

Robin Russell is the managing editor of The United Methodist Reporter in Dallas. Reprinted with permission of The United Methodist Reporter (www. umportal.org).

 

Scholarship fund set up in memory
of Robert D. Snyder
by James V. Heidinger II

The East Ohio Evangelical Fellowship (EOEF) has announced the establishment of a scholarship fund in honor of the late Rev. Robert D. Snyder, a long-time evangelical leader and member of the East Ohio Conference. The scholarship, honoring Snyder’s long and faithful ministry in that conference, will provide funds to help ministerial students who are attending seminary and seeking ordination in the East Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church.

Bob was admired and respected by ministerial colleagues all across the East Ohio Conference, even by those who might not have agreed with his evangelical theological stance. Following graduation from seminary in 1959, Snyder served effectively in numerous appointments in the East Ohio Conference. He also served on District and Conference committees on Evangelism, Missions, Ordained Ministry, Personnel, and Planning and Evaluation, to mention just a few.

He was vitally involved in the life of the annual conference. It is fitting that the EOEF recognize Snyder with a scholarship fund, for Bob was one of the co-founders—along with the Revs. Budd Sprague and Arthur Kirk—of the EOEF in 1969.

The evangelical fellowship arose out of discontent with the camping program of the annual conference. Out of the fledgling evangelical fellowship came numerous youth camping ministries that continue to this very day, including the Senior High Christian Youth Festival, which was to become the largest high school camping experience in the conference. It was followed by the Jr. High Christian Youth Festival, a 5th and 6th grade Bible Bowl, and not long afterward, the Youth Witness Tour, which sent a youth choir of some 50 young people across the annual conference sharing their faith. Snyder was actively involved in all of these youth camping experiences. On three occasions, the East Ohio Conference elected Bob as a delegate to General Conference—in 1984, 1988, and 1992. He retired from fulltime ministry in 1992, but continued in ministry serving smaller churches and doing supply work on a regular basis. In 1992, the year of his retirement, Bob was awarded the Denman Award for outstanding ministry in evangelism. Bob and his lovely wife, Peg, worked with the Good News team in Denver at the 1996 General Conference and in Cleveland in 2000.

Snyder was a lifetime member of the Good News board of directors, having been elected a board member in 1973, and a lifetime member in 1994. He and his wife, Peg, served as chairpersons for three national Good News Convocations—Ashland in 1979, Dennison in 1983, and Cincinnati in 1998, co-chairing the latter with Bill and Carolyn Hines.

In 2004, because of Bob and Peg’s dedicated service together, they were the joint recipients of the fourth annual Edmund W. Robb Jr. United Methodist Renewal Award in recognition of their outstanding contribution to renewal ministries within the United Methodist Church.

The Robert D. Snyder Scholarship Fund will remain a fitting memorial for a faithful and fruitful pastor whose life touched thousands of persons across the East Ohio Conference and beyond.

Contributions to the Snyder Scholarship Fund can be sent to the Mrs. Lynn Carper, 800 N. Market St., Minerva, OH 44657. For further information about the Scholarship Fund, go to: www.eoefboard.org or email: Snyderfund@earthlink.net.

James V. Heidinger II is the president and publisher of GOOD NEWS



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