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).