January 27, 2006
A UMNS Report
By Neill Caldwell

United Methodist leaders in Virginia have filed requests for reconsideration of two Judicial Council decisions that have stirred debate within the church on the issues of homosexuality and pastoral authority.

Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, who leads the Richmond (Va.) Area, and the Virginia Annual (regional) Conference Board of Ordained Ministry have separately filed motions for reconsideration of Decisions 1031 and 1032. Both rulings relate to the Rev. Ed Johnson, senior pastor at South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church, who was placed on involuntary leave last summer by the clergy executive session of the Virginia Conference for refusing to admit a practicing gay man into membership at the church.

At its Oct. 26-29 meeting in Houston, the Judicial Council ruled in favor of Johnson, reinstating him with all salary and benefits. As a result, Kammerer reappointed Johnson to South Hill Church.

Council President James Holsinger has placed the motions for reconsideration on the non-docket agenda for the court's spring session, set for April 26-28 in Kansas City, Mo. That means that at least five members must agree to reconsider the decisions.

The Rev. Keith Boyette, secretary of the council, has instructed the other parties in these two matters, including Johnson, to file any written response to the motions within 30 days. The motions and briefs will be delivered to the council's nine members for consideration once the 30-day period has expired.

Under Judicial Council rules, only parties directly involved in rulings may file appeals.

"After very careful and prayerful review of the Judicial Council Decisions 1031 and 1032, I made the decision to ask for reconsideration, which is within the rules and procedures of the Judicial Council," Kammerer said in a statement issued Jan 27.

"As a matter of integrity and keeping faith with my understanding of the Virginia case, it is crucial for the Judicial Council to review its own rulings, which have brought harm to the Body of Christ represented in the United Methodist Church," she said.

Errors in the process

Johnson's case involved an openly gay man who was participating in the South Hill church and wanted to transfer his membership from another denomination. The man's sexual orientation was a significant part of discussions between the lay person and the pastor, and Johnson ultimately refused to receive the man into membership because he said the man would neither repent nor seek to live a different lifestyle. Johnson's district superintendent contacted the bishop, starting a disciplinary process that resulted in Johnson being placed on involuntary leave last June by a vote of his fellow clergy.

Decision 1031 dealt with how Johnson was disciplined. The council found errors in the process, mainly that the Virginia Conference's board of ordained ministry transformed an administrative complaint into a chargeable offense – which is a judicial complaint – and therefore did not have any authority to take action.

The original complaint against Johnson, "unwillingness to perform ministerial duties," is an administrative complaint under Paragraph 362.2 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The council said Kammerer correctly ruled that it was an administrative complaint. In its presentation to the clergy session, however, the board of ordained ministry changed the complaint to a charge of disobedience, which is covered by Paragraph 2702.1(e). According to the Discipline, a board of ordained ministry does not have the authority to consider a judicial complaint.

The more controversial Decision 1032 said the Book of Discipline "invests discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make determination of a person's readiness to affirm the vows of membership." Paragraphs 214 and 225 of the Discipline are "permissive, and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows," the council said.

The ruling went on to say that the "pastor in charge cannot be ordered by the district superintendent or bishop to admit into membership a person deemed not ready or able to meet the requirements of the vows of church membership. ... The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into membership of a local church."

In a Nov. 2 pastoral letter approved unanimously by the Council of Bishops, the church's top clergy leaders disagreed, saying that "pastors are accountable to the bishop, superintendent and the clergy on matters of ministry and membership." The letter also emphasized that "while pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a barrier for membership."

The Rev. Tom Thomas, a Virginia pastor who spoke on Johnson's behalf during oral arguments before the court in October, said that "bishops and district superintendents are not authorized to take charge of the issue of membership. There is no authority to tell pastors who to bring in as members."

Kammerer's concerns

In a statement issued Jan. 27, Kammerer cited several concerns related to the decisions. Regarding 1031, she said errors were made in the council's statement of facts; a chargeable offense not listed in Paragraph 2702 of the Book of Discipline was used by the council in its decision; and a statement of background information "was used as if it were a decision of law and the case was treated as a matter of appeal of fair process instead of a decision of law."

With 1032, Kammerer said the Judicial Council did not refer to Article 4 in the church's Constitution regarding inclusiveness, which would have taken precedence over the two paragraphs cited in the decision.

Kammerer also said the church's Constitution "makes a strong declaration that the United Methodist Church is a part of the Church Universal, which is One Body in Christ. The particular layman denied membership was already a member in good standing of the Church Universal. All the United Methodist Church membership ritual calls for is that such a person promise loyalty to the United Methodist Church."

The Book of Discipline does not give discretion to the pastor "to make the determination of a person's readiness to affirm the vows of membership," Kammerer said. The Discipline grants discretion in two specific instances – Paragraphs 216.3 and 224 – and "further application would appear to require the action of the General Conference" – the denomination's lawmaking body, she said.

Routine docket

Apart from these appeals, the Judicial Council has a short and routine docket for its spring meeting. Council members will hear:

• A request from the Dakotas Conference for a decision on Amendment VII to the church's Constitution regarding voting rights of members of the annual conferences. The amendment, adopted by the denomination's top lawmaking assembly, was ratified by the annual conferences in 2005 and verified this month by the Council of Bishops.

• Appeals of two separate bishop's decisions of law in the Western Michigan Conference, one related to the conference parsonage standards, and the other concerning funds held in escrow by the conference's United Methodist foundation. The council reviews all bishops' decisions of law.

• A request from the California-Pacific Conference on Paragraph 324.14 of the Book of Discipline and withdrawal of a recommendation for probationary membership by the conference board of ordained ministry in response to the lack of an appointment for a candidate for ministry.

• A request from the California-Pacific Conference concerning Paragraph 327 of the Book of Discipline with respect to the discontinuance of a probationary member who has continued on probation beyond eight regular sessions of the annual conference.

• A review of a bishop's decision of law in the Rocky Mountain Conference related to whether elders and licensed local pastors may be permitted to waive compensation under the conference's clergy minimum compensation plan.

• A review of a bishop's decision of law in the Mississippi Conference regarding the removal of trees from the property of a local church.

United Methodist News Service
Neill Caldwell is a freelance writer based in High Point, N.C.