January 9, 2004
A UMNS Commentary
By the Rev. Leicester Longden

I wholeheartedly welcome a recent decision by the United Methodist Judicial Council that should provide much-needed clarity in the ongoing debate over parts of the denomination's Book of Discipline.

A strongly worded decision reversed and set aside the actions of a conference committee on investigation and a jurisdictional committee, which had refused to uphold the Book of Discipline in the case of the Rev. Karen Dammann, a lesbian pastor in Washington state.

The Judicial Council sharply warned the lower courts that "nullification of the Discipline ... is an egregious error of church law." It further cautioned that members of a committee on investigation who are "unwilling to uphold the Discipline for reasons of conscience ... must step aside" and other members should be appointed in order to "enable (the committee) to complete its responsibility."

Predictably, this has raised cries of anger and protest. The Pacific Northwest Reconciling Ministries Network published an Internet response in which it claims to be "saddened, deeply disappointed, and outraged" by the Judicial Council decision. (The decision, No. 980, was issued at the court's last meeting in October. See http://umc.org/judicial/900/980.htm.)

The network, and many others who protest the decision, characterized the church law itself as legalistic and discriminatory. Another principle - inclusivism - has been elevated as the final judge and arbiter of the church's agreements. The very concept of a "trial" has been attacked.

For example, the Rev. Kathryn Johnson, director of Methodist Federation for Social Action, claims there is "a growing tendency within the United Methodist Church to resort to trials and litigation as a means of settling our differences."

This is an odd way of looking at church discipline. When challenges are made to the church's doctrine and discipline, how else is discipline performed than by testing, examining and trying? A "trial" is the procedure a community uses to determine whether departures from its common discipline are justified exceptions or unlawful departures.

There is another contradiction here. When Pastor Dammann wrote her bishop to declare that she was "living in a partnered, covenanted, homosexual relationship," it seemed clear she was attempting to test the church's law. Her bishop, in accordance with church law, filed a formal complaint.

Yet, the conference and jurisdictional committees that reviewed her case dismissed the complaint. The Judicial Council set aside the decisions of these committees because the groups subverted the process of testing. These lower courts apparently thought that by refusing to act on the complaint they could set aside the law that had been established by General Conference.

Such actions are in harmony with an "antinomian" ("anti," against; "nomos," the law) element in the church. This attitude has appeared numerous times in church history. Frequently, it represents an emphasis upon the Spirit, new revelation and Christian freedom in a way that minimizes or dismisses the normative character of moral law, particularly that of the Old Testament.

It is the result of a culture that elevates private experience to a point where it is identified as the "voice of the Spirit." Communal authority is then regarded as restrictive, rigid, exclusive and oppressive.

When critics characterize doctrine as "rigid" and "authoritarian," and make the same claims about church law, they engage in the antinomianism. Unwittingly, by refusing doctrine and then discipline, they reveal the intimate relationship between doctrine and discipline.

Under our traditional understanding of ecclesiology, discipline is doctrine. Church law is the discipline a community develops in order to remain faithful to its doctrinal vision of its life together under God.

Of course, not all those who argue for a change in the church's moral teaching about homosexuality are necessarily opposed to discipline and doctrine. Clearly, there is room in our church for serious ethical and theological deliberation about such matters. But when the General Conference of our church makes a solemn covenant on our common doctrine and discipline, it is inappropriate for dissenters to claim they are exempt from the discipline.

When certain groups claim that dissent and "private conscience" are the only authentic voices, we are observing the historic pattern of antinomianism. And the Judicial Council's decision has, in fact, helped us to identify that tendency.

In its decision, the Judicial Council plainly declared that the United Methodist community of faith has publicly pledged itself to follow in covenant with a particular vision of biblical discipleship. And then, in accordance with our own publicly declared "discipline," the court called to account those who tried to subvert the church's agreed-upon procedures for holding one another accountable.

This was a wise and courageous decision. It points us to the heart of United Methodist polity, reminding us that we are to watch over each other in love.

United Methodist News Service
Leicester Longden is the associate professor of evangelism and discipleship at the University of Dubuque (Iowa) Theological Seminary. He also is a board member of the Confessing Movement and a member of the Confessing Theologians Commission.