Monday, March 19, 2012
Judicial council decisions
Decision No. 1032
In Re: Review of Bishop's Decisions of law in the Virginia Annual Conference Related to the Authority of a Pastor under ¶¶ 214 and 225 of the 2004 Discipline to Exercise Judgment in Determining Who May Be Received into Membership in the Local Church.
DIGEST OF CASE
The decisions of law of Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer are reversed. 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 (¶ 217). Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On December 8, 2004, the associate pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church contacted the Petersburg District Superintendent informing him that a person had expressed interest in becoming a member of the Church. He had been participating in the life of the Church in a variety of ways. The pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church met with the person aspiring to membership on at least five occasions over a two-month period discussing his membership request. The person was a member of another denomination and was seeking to become a professing member by transfer of his membership from another denomination. The aspiring member's sexual orientation and practice was a significant part of the ongoing discussions between him and the pastor. Although he continued to be in ministry to the person, including enrolling him as a constituent member of the Church, the pastor refused to transfer him to the Church from another denomination.
On January 26, 2005, the district superintendent discussed the situation with the pastor, and the pastor informed the district superintendent that he would continue to be in ministry with the person but that he would not receive him into membership in the Church. On January 27, 2005, after consulting with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, the district superintendent met again with the pastor and informed him that he was required to receive the person into membership in the Church as well as anyone else who acknowledged that they would receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promise to fulfill the vow. Since the pastor would not acquiesce, the district superintendent filed a complaint charging him with "unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties."
On March 15, 2005, the bishop referred the administrative complaint to the Board of Ordained Ministry for review of the district superintendent's charge. Following a number of hearings and meetings, the Board of Ordained Ministry sustained the complaint against the pastor and recommended to the annual conference clergy session that the ninety-day notice be waived and recommended that he be placed on involuntary leave of absence along with other remedial actions. The recommendation of the Board was taken to the June 13, 2005, clergy session. Following the approval of the waiver of the ninety-day notice, the members of the clergy session voted the place the pastor on involuntary leave of absence, with health benefits, by the required two-thirds affirmative vote (448 for, 114 against, 18 abstentions). Decision 1031 addresses certain aspects of the procedures followed by the Virginia Annual Conference in this case.
Following the action of the clergy session of the Virginia Annual Conference, questions of law were posed to Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer who ruled as follows:
Question 1:
Must a clergy person at the direction of a bishop and/or district superintendent and subject to their administrative complaint or charge, receive into the membership of a local United Methodist church anyone who is able to receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promises to fulfill the vow and who at the same time acknowledges and impenitently practices homosexual relations?
Bishop's ruling of law: The bishop ruled "that the bishop and district superintendent are charged to give guidance, as they did to Rev. Johnson in this matter."
Question 2:
In a June 9, 2005, Hearing Presentation by the Board of Ordained Ministry the Board identifies three paragraphs from the Book of Discipline on which to base their recommendation of Involuntary Leave of Absence. Does the permissive language of ¶ 214 and ¶ 225 grant the appointed senior minister, in this case the Rev. Ed Johnson, the right and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into church membership of a local church?
Bishop's ruling of law: The bishop "ruled in the negative in this case."
Oral hearings were held in Houston, Texas on October 27, 2005. Rev. H. O. Thomas, Jr. and Pat Meadows, Esquire, spoke seeking reversal of the decision of law. Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, Rev. Jeffrey P. Mickle and Clark Williams, Esquire, spoke seeking affirmation of the decision of law.
Jurisdiction
The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under ¶ 2609.6 of the 2004 Discipline.
Analysis and Rationale
Paragraph 340.3(a) of the 2004 Discipline includes among the responsibilities and duties of elders and licensed pastors their being “the administrative officers of the local church.” Paragraph 340.3(b)(1) further provides that elders and licensed pastors are to “administer the provisions of the Discipline.” As part of these administrative responsibilities 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. The vows of membership for uniting with a United Methodist church (¶ 217) are detailed and explicit.
The pastor-in-charge is entrusted with discretion in the exercise of this responsibility. Paragraph 214 states: "Eligibility – The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may [emphasis added] attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . . ” The operative word in connection with the phrase "become members in any local church in the connection" is "may." Decision 930 established the premise that "shall" cannot be used to replace "may" in the Discipline. Thus, the General Conference has determined that any person “may” become a member of any local church in the connection.
Paragraph 225 states: "Transfer from Other Denominations – A member in good standing in any Christian denomination who has been baptized and who desires to unite with The United Methodist Church may [emphasis added] be received as either a baptized or a professing member by a proper certificate of transfer from that person's former church, or by a declaration of Christian faith, and upon affirming a willingness to be loyal to The United Methodist Church (see ¶¶ 214-217) . . . ." Decision 930 applies to this paragraph of the Discipline as well, and may means may.
Since the pastor is not required by the Discipline to admit into membership all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm the vows of membership, and since the Discipline designates the pastor "to be the administrative officer of the local church" (¶ 340.3a) and to "administer the provisions of the Discipline” (¶ 340.3b(1)), a 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 of The United Methodist Church. The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church.
The rulings of law of Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer on Questions 1 and 2 are reversed. The disciplinary language of ¶¶ 214 and 225 is permissive.
Decision
The decisions of law of Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer are reversed. 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 (¶ 217). Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows.
October 29, 2005
Shamwange P. Kyungu was absent.
Jon R. Gray, Beth Capen and Susan T. Henry-Crowe dissent.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent with my colleagues on Decision 1032. This decision compromises the historic understanding that the Church is open to all. The Judicial Council cannot interpret something that is not stated in the Discipline. Nothing in the Discipline gives pastors discretion to exclude persons presenting themselves for membership in the Church. (See ¶4 and ¶138)
Susan T. Henry-Crowe
October 29, 2005
Dissenting Opinion
Having fully mastered the difficult task of judicial interpretation, my colleagues in the majority have now chosen to direct their talents to the meticulous work of authoring legislation. I choose not to join them in that endeavor. Although I join in the dissenting statement filed by my colleague, I write separately to offer legal reasons why I differ with the majority opinion.
The Book of Discipline is the book of law of The United Methodist Church that covers nearly every aspect of church governance. There are, however, gaps that exist in the Discipline because there are issues that the General Conference has not addressed. Where the General Conference has not spoken, the Judicial Council is not imbued with creative license to engage in conjectural improvisation. Legislative power resides exclusively with the General Conference. Para. 26. The responsibility of the Judicial Council is to interpret the law of our church from a strictly legal standpoint. Decision 59. The Judicial Council has no authority other than as specified in Paragraphs 55 through 58.
Great care must be exercised to insure that the central role remain that of judicial interpretation. The issue of whether a pastor has the right and responsibility to exercise “reasonable pastoral judgment” to determine who may be received into membership appears to be a question of first impression. I find nothing in the Discipline or in the whole of our jurisprudence that suggests that this issue has ever been addressed. The Discipline is silent on the issue. If the Judicial Council is to remain true to its traditional role as interpreter of church law, it should resist the urge to interpret provisions that do not exist. The Judicial Council may not substitute its judgment where the General Conference has not spoken, nor should the Judicial Council attempt to write legislation between sessions of the General Conference.
The General Conference has enacted very few provisions that grant pastors the right to exercise “discretion” of any kind. Paragraph 224, for example, grants pastors “discretion” to receive persons into membership outside of normal congregational settings. Under paragraph 216.3, pastors are granted “discretion” to guide younger persons who have not yet completed the sixth grade in the preparation for the experience of profession of faith and confirmation. There may be other paragraphs that would become apparent after more thorough review of the Discipline. Because there are very few such provisions, I am led to the ineluctable conclusion that whenever a grant of discretion has been determined appropriate, the General Conference has said so in clear and unmistakable terms. The Judicial Council's role is purposefully limited to that of interpretation. In fulfilling its role, the Judicial Council should not impose its own preferences or priorities on the church.
Elementary rules of construction require that the plain text of a document be given its reasonable effect and intendment. Text should not be supplemented. It certainly should not be invented or pulled from out of thin air. Powers should not be inferred or imagined. Interpretative guidance should be gleaned from the text of the entire document rather than the interpreter's personal philosophy. Since the paragraphs cited by the majority do not speak to the issue presented, and the Discipline is otherwise silent, we must look to other declarations contained in the Discipline for guidance. From a sound legal perspective, the paragraphs contained in the question presented must be considered in the light of General Conference declarations that bear upon the issue contained elsewhere in the Discipline. For reference I commend all of my colleagues to paragraph 161 entitled "The Nurturing Community". In an effort to shed light upon the subject, I specifically cite paragraph 161(G) which reads in pertinent part as follows:
“. . . Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and the emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all and will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and the church not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to being a ministry for and with all persons.”
The majority's decision now condones the denial of the fellowship of the church to persons in need of its ministry and guidance who are homosexual. The decision eviscerates our statement that God's grace is available to all and reduces it to an empty platitude. More tragically, the same Judicial Council charged with giving effect to the intent of the enactments of the General Conference has turned a cold and rejecting ear to its plea that families and churches not reject lesbian and gay members and friends.
Paragraphs 214 through 225 provide guidance on the issue of church membership to clergy and laity alike. The cited paragraphs make very few references to pastors at all and in none of those references does the General Conference bestow upon pastors the type of discretion as contemplated by the majority. The permissive language contained in paragraphs 214 through 225 is an invitation to persons who seek membership. The permissive language does not equip clergy with the power or authority to erect a bar to membership. The permissive language is an open invitation to any and all who seek God’s grace through membership within our denomination.
There is nothing contained in the majority opinion that prevents pastors from exercising “discretion” to refuse membership to persons whose eating habits convict them of the sin of gluttony, whose personality traits convict them of the sin of pride, and whose work habits convict them of the sin of sloth. There are a total of seven such scenarios that I can imagine, none of which were involved in this case as a basis for denying membership. Under the majority’s opinion, pastors who form a reasonable belief that any of the foregoing scenarios exist would have the “discretion” to deny membership to such persons. Because of the majority’s ruling, pastors across our great connection will not only enjoy the rights and privileges of ordination, they will also enjoy the additional power, discretion and authority that are now ordained by judicial fiat. Pastors will be able to screen out persons seeking membership to safeguard our churches against all varieties of sinners. While churches without sinners may be a precursor of heaven, the decision to pursue such a path must, under our system of church governance be made by the General Conference after the idea has been debated, tested and refined in the legislative processes of our church.
I am also critical of the majority opinion because it does nothing to offer true guidance as to what constitutes “responsible pastoral judgment”. In its haste to make its pronouncement, the majority has done more harm than good. The language of the question posed asks whether pastors have “the right and responsibility to exercise reasonable pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into membership of a local church.” Yet, the majority’s ruling obfuscates the issue by using the term “discretion” interchangeably with the words “responsible pastoral judgment.” The Judicial Council had repeatedly reminded the General Conference and the various Annual Conferences that terms require definition in order to promote a general understanding of their meaning. Inherent in the majority’s decision is a roving commission. This panoply of new terms that has now been engraved upon our jurisprudence is not accompanied by any guidance as to their meaning and import. We do not serve our function well by coining new phrases with amorphous meaning. Any guidance that the majority opinion purports to provide is purely illusory. A thoughtful legislative process would not only set parameters of “responsible pastoral judgment” or “discretion” but would also provide a method to regulate the exercise of such judgment and guard against abuses of discretion. Yet the majority, through some unaccountable infatuation, has chosen to endow pastors with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men and women; that being the power and ability to separate the mind from the motive.
We cannot begin to comprehend the unwanted and undesired consequences of this ruling. The majority’s ruling has dangerous potential to create adversarial relationships between pastors and persons who seek membership in our denomination. It encroaches upon the authority of the office of bishop by judicial whim rather than through a deliberate legislative process. It upsets the delicate system of checks and balances inherent in our governance. These consequences will result in serious ramifications. However, I fear most that the majority decision will prove harmful to the credibility of the Judicial Council because it abandons the traditional and limited role of the Judicial Council as interpreter of church law and assumes a new mantle as creator of church law.
I am greatly concerned about this ruling that my majority colleagues have banded to pronounce. My greater concern is that its pronouncement may be a harbinger of things to come. Will we begin to see cases where membership has been denied based on economic status? Or educational status? Will pastors deny membership to those who do not support all of our Social Principles? Or those who fully support our Social Principles? We all aspire to break the bonds and reject the forces of sin. Nevertheless, we choose a perilous course when even “responsible pastoral judgment” is granted to allow pastors the “discretion” to select among a multitude of sins for which some persons will be refused membership.
I also dissent because this question does not present as a frequently recurring problem within our denomination. There was no emergency that required the Judicial Council to act at all let alone to act precipitously. The majority’s action has fashioned a rule that will now apply across the connection. The legal maxim that hard cases make bad law is given life and breath by the majority's ruling. The maxim has grown up in the secular world in those situations when courts have made the ill-advised decision to legislate rather than interpret. The bad law that results brings many unintended and undesired consequences.
I finally state that although the General Conference has clearly prohibited self-avowed practicing homosexuals from becoming ordained clergy, it has never determined that being a self-avowed practicing homosexual constitutes a bar to membership. The Judicial Council has previously acknowledged homosexuality to be a sensitive and volatile issue. Dec. 702. It is the equivalent of ideological legerdemain for the Judicial Council to declare “discretion” where there is none and to grant pastors “responsible pastoral judgment” where the General Conference has not done so. As a Judicial Council, the better angels of our nature require that we restrain ourselves from making up rules that do not exist.
Because I did not join the majority, I am unable to move for its reconsideration. I would implore my majority colleagues to admit that the Judicial Council has made a grievous and harmful error in its pronouncement and reconsider and recall its decision.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I vociferously, yet respectfully dissent. Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God.
Jon R. Gray
November 8, 2005
Susan T. Henry-Crowe joins in this dissenting opinion.
Concurring Opinion
Contrary to what some will assert, our decision here is not a statement that homosexuals are barred from membership in the local church. Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer was asked two specific questions and made two very brief rulings which are under review. Bishop Kammerer was asked:
Must a clergy person at the direction of a bishop and/or district superintendent and subject to their administrative complaint or charge, receive into the membership of a local United Methodist church anyone who is able to receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promises to fulfill the vow and who at the same time acknowledges and impenitently practices homosexual relations?
Bishop Kammerer ruled “that the bishop and district superintendent are charged to give guidance, as they did to Rev. Johnson in this matter.” Bishop Kammerer was then asked:
Does the permissive language of ¶ 214 and ¶ 225 grant the appointed senior minister, in this case the Rev. Ed Johnson, the right and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in defining who may be received into church membership of a local church?
Bishop Kammerer “ruled in the negative in this case” thus holding that the clergyperson appointed to serve as the administrative officer of the local church has neither the right nor the responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in defining who may be received into church membership of a local church.
The Judicial Council has reversed Bishop Kammerer’s rulings and held 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 (¶ 217), and that ¶¶ 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows. As one can plainly see from the Decision and Digest of the Judicial Council as well as the Analysis and Rationale, there is nothing in such language that can remotely be construed as making a sweeping declaration that the Judicial Council has held that “homosexuals” are barred from membership in the church.
As an individual member of the Judicial Council who supports the decision rendered here, I specifically affirm the provisions of ¶ 161(G) of the Discipline. Questions of law are always asked in a particular factual context. However, when decisions of law come before the Judicial Council, no evidentiary proceedings have occurred as might occur in a church trial. Nevertheless, the record provided by the Virginia Annual Conference indicates that the individual seeking membership continued to be welcomed in worship, continued to be administered the sacraments, and continued to meet with the pastor for counseling and discernment throughout the period prior to the submission of the questions of law to the presiding bishop. Thus, the fellowship of the church to persons in need of its ministry and guidance who are homosexual was provided. The questions of law, the resulting decisions by Bishop Kammerer and our decision here do not address other ways in which local churches are to be in ministry to homosexual persons or others. Thankfully, God’s grace has never been dependent upon membership to be imparted. Membership has never ensured that an individual is availing them self of God’s grace.
Furthermore, nothing in the Judicial Council’s decision eliminates the continued applicability of numerous provisions of the Discipline that place limitations on the pastor’s exercise of discretion with respect to membership. For example, the discretion of the pastor-in-charge must be exercised consistent with ¶ 4 of the Discipline. Paragraph 4 which is Article IV of our Constitution, specifically provides:
Inclusiveness of the Church – The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith become professing members in any local church in the connection.
[Emphasis added]. As we have held in Decision 1027, regulation of the practice of homosexuality does not violate the “status” provisions of the Constitution. As we stated in Decision 1027, “[n]o provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from the ordained ministry of The United Methodist Church.” Likewise, no provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from membership in The United Methodist Church, and, in fact, I believe that ¶ 4 specifically prohibits the use of such orientation, as opposed to practice, as a basis for excluding a person from membership in The United Methodist Church.
Paragraph 138 of the Discipline does not support the conclusion that all persons who are willing to give voice to the vows of membership must be received into membership. In fact, a portion of ¶ 138 states:
In The United Methodist Church inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of The United Methodist Book of Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place.
[Emphasis added]. Thus, ¶ 138, even in its affirmation of inclusiveness, states that such inclusiveness has boundaries, which would include at a minimum making and keeping the vows of membership outlined in ¶ 217. In fact, ¶ 221 specifically requires the local church, acting through its pastor and its agencies, to hold members accountable to the vows of membership outlined in ¶ 217. To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and by those who dissent would result in the anomalous result that a person who could not affirm the vows of ¶ 217 being admitted to membership and then immediately being subject to discipline as required by ¶ 221. The Discipline does not require such a nonsensical result. The decision here applies the explicit words of the Discipline. To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and supported by those who dissent would require judicial legislation ignoring explicit language in the Discipline.
Where a pastor in the exercise of his or her discretion determines that a person, for whatever reason, is not ready to affirm the vows of membership, that discretion is not unfettered. Clearly the exercise of such discretion may be questioned by the lay leadership of the local church. Because of the corporate nature of the body of Christ, one would fully expect that ongoing consultation and reflection on the matter would be engaged in by the pastor, the laity of the church, the district superintendent and the bishop. If it was determined that the pastor had exercised his or her discretion in such a way as to violate ¶ 4 or other provisions of the Discipline, appropriate disciplinary procedures exist to challenge the pastor’s exercise of discretion.
The Judicial Council was not asked in this case to review the specific basis and propriety of the pastor in exercising discretion here. We were asked to review two specific rulings of law by a bishop. The Council is required by the Discipline to review such decisions. See ¶¶ 56.3 and 2609.6. The Council has done its duty.
I wish to comment on one final aspect of Decision 1032. The decisions of law under review in Decision 1032 were rendered by the presiding bishop of the Virginia Annual Conference, the annual conference of which I am a clergy member. The minutes of the Virginia Annual Conference reflect that as consideration of this matter was brought before the Annual Conference, I immediately was granted the privilege of the floor and informed the Conference that I was not participating in the matters under discussion by the Conference because of my membership on the Judicial Council. See Decision 1031. Because I did not participate in the matters before the Virginia Annual Conference, I was not a party to its actions under review in Decisions 1031 and 1032, and therefore I chose to participate in the deliberations and decisions of the Judicial Council in these two decisions. The issues raised by these Decisions are not unique to Virginia but have impact on every clergyperson in our connectional system. In my view, it would be inappropriate for me to recuse myself under such circumstances, and I exercised my right as a member of the Judicial Council to make that determination. I would follow the same course again on a matter of the application of the Discipline to the Virginia Annual Conference which was applicable to the church as a whole and in which I was not directly involved. I have chosen not to recuse myself in the past under similar circumstances. See Decision 985. However, where the issue only had applicability in the Virginia Annual Conference and/or I have had a personal involvement in the matter, I have chosen to recuse myself. See Decision 984.
Keith D. Boyette
November 15, 2005
Rodolfo C. Beltran joins in this concurring opinion.
Saturday, October 29, 2005.
In Re: Review of Bishop's Decisions of law in the Virginia Annual Conference Related to the Authority of a Pastor under ¶¶ 214 and 225 of the 2004 Discipline to Exercise Judgment in Determining Who May Be Received into Membership in the Local Church.
DIGEST OF CASE
The decisions of law of Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer are reversed. 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 (¶ 217). Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On December 8, 2004, the associate pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church contacted the Petersburg District Superintendent informing him that a person had expressed interest in becoming a member of the Church. He had been participating in the life of the Church in a variety of ways. The pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church met with the person aspiring to membership on at least five occasions over a two-month period discussing his membership request. The person was a member of another denomination and was seeking to become a professing member by transfer of his membership from another denomination. The aspiring member's sexual orientation and practice was a significant part of the ongoing discussions between him and the pastor. Although he continued to be in ministry to the person, including enrolling him as a constituent member of the Church, the pastor refused to transfer him to the Church from another denomination.
On January 26, 2005, the district superintendent discussed the situation with the pastor, and the pastor informed the district superintendent that he would continue to be in ministry with the person but that he would not receive him into membership in the Church. On January 27, 2005, after consulting with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, the district superintendent met again with the pastor and informed him that he was required to receive the person into membership in the Church as well as anyone else who acknowledged that they would receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promise to fulfill the vow. Since the pastor would not acquiesce, the district superintendent filed a complaint charging him with "unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties."
On March 15, 2005, the bishop referred the administrative complaint to the Board of Ordained Ministry for review of the district superintendent's charge. Following a number of hearings and meetings, the Board of Ordained Ministry sustained the complaint against the pastor and recommended to the annual conference clergy session that the ninety-day notice be waived and recommended that he be placed on involuntary leave of absence along with other remedial actions. The recommendation of the Board was taken to the June 13, 2005, clergy session. Following the approval of the waiver of the ninety-day notice, the members of the clergy session voted the place the pastor on involuntary leave of absence, with health benefits, by the required two-thirds affirmative vote (448 for, 114 against, 18 abstentions). Decision 1031 addresses certain aspects of the procedures followed by the Virginia Annual Conference in this case.
Following the action of the clergy session of the Virginia Annual Conference, questions of law were posed to Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer who ruled as follows:
Question 1:
Must a clergy person at the direction of a bishop and/or district superintendent and subject to their administrative complaint or charge, receive into the membership of a local United Methodist church anyone who is able to receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promises to fulfill the vow and who at the same time acknowledges and impenitently practices homosexual relations?
Bishop's ruling of law: The bishop ruled "that the bishop and district superintendent are charged to give guidance, as they did to Rev. Johnson in this matter."
Question 2:
In a June 9, 2005, Hearing Presentation by the Board of Ordained Ministry the Board identifies three paragraphs from the Book of Discipline on which to base their recommendation of Involuntary Leave of Absence. Does the permissive language of ¶ 214 and ¶ 225 grant the appointed senior minister, in this case the Rev. Ed Johnson, the right and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into church membership of a local church?
Bishop's ruling of law: The bishop "ruled in the negative in this case."
Oral hearings were held in Houston, Texas on October 27, 2005. Rev. H. O. Thomas, Jr. and Pat Meadows, Esquire, spoke seeking reversal of the decision of law. Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, Rev. Jeffrey P. Mickle and Clark Williams, Esquire, spoke seeking affirmation of the decision of law.
Jurisdiction
The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under ¶ 2609.6 of the 2004 Discipline.
Analysis and Rationale
Paragraph 340.3(a) of the 2004 Discipline includes among the responsibilities and duties of elders and licensed pastors their being “the administrative officers of the local church.” Paragraph 340.3(b)(1) further provides that elders and licensed pastors are to “administer the provisions of the Discipline.” As part of these administrative responsibilities 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. The vows of membership for uniting with a United Methodist church (¶ 217) are detailed and explicit.
The pastor-in-charge is entrusted with discretion in the exercise of this responsibility. Paragraph 214 states: "Eligibility – The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may [emphasis added] attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . . ” The operative word in connection with the phrase "become members in any local church in the connection" is "may." Decision 930 established the premise that "shall" cannot be used to replace "may" in the Discipline. Thus, the General Conference has determined that any person “may” become a member of any local church in the connection.
Paragraph 225 states: "Transfer from Other Denominations – A member in good standing in any Christian denomination who has been baptized and who desires to unite with The United Methodist Church may [emphasis added] be received as either a baptized or a professing member by a proper certificate of transfer from that person's former church, or by a declaration of Christian faith, and upon affirming a willingness to be loyal to The United Methodist Church (see ¶¶ 214-217) . . . ." Decision 930 applies to this paragraph of the Discipline as well, and may means may.
Since the pastor is not required by the Discipline to admit into membership all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm the vows of membership, and since the Discipline designates the pastor "to be the administrative officer of the local church" (¶ 340.3a) and to "administer the provisions of the Discipline” (¶ 340.3b(1)), a 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 of The United Methodist Church. The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church.
The rulings of law of Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer on Questions 1 and 2 are reversed. The disciplinary language of ¶¶ 214 and 225 is permissive.
Decision
The decisions of law of Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer are reversed. 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 (¶ 217). Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows.
October 29, 2005
Shamwange P. Kyungu was absent.
Jon R. Gray, Beth Capen and Susan T. Henry-Crowe dissent.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent with my colleagues on Decision 1032. This decision compromises the historic understanding that the Church is open to all. The Judicial Council cannot interpret something that is not stated in the Discipline. Nothing in the Discipline gives pastors discretion to exclude persons presenting themselves for membership in the Church. (See ¶4 and ¶138)
Susan T. Henry-Crowe
October 29, 2005
Dissenting Opinion
Having fully mastered the difficult task of judicial interpretation, my colleagues in the majority have now chosen to direct their talents to the meticulous work of authoring legislation. I choose not to join them in that endeavor. Although I join in the dissenting statement filed by my colleague, I write separately to offer legal reasons why I differ with the majority opinion.
The Book of Discipline is the book of law of The United Methodist Church that covers nearly every aspect of church governance. There are, however, gaps that exist in the Discipline because there are issues that the General Conference has not addressed. Where the General Conference has not spoken, the Judicial Council is not imbued with creative license to engage in conjectural improvisation. Legislative power resides exclusively with the General Conference. Para. 26. The responsibility of the Judicial Council is to interpret the law of our church from a strictly legal standpoint. Decision 59. The Judicial Council has no authority other than as specified in Paragraphs 55 through 58.
Great care must be exercised to insure that the central role remain that of judicial interpretation. The issue of whether a pastor has the right and responsibility to exercise “reasonable pastoral judgment” to determine who may be received into membership appears to be a question of first impression. I find nothing in the Discipline or in the whole of our jurisprudence that suggests that this issue has ever been addressed. The Discipline is silent on the issue. If the Judicial Council is to remain true to its traditional role as interpreter of church law, it should resist the urge to interpret provisions that do not exist. The Judicial Council may not substitute its judgment where the General Conference has not spoken, nor should the Judicial Council attempt to write legislation between sessions of the General Conference.
The General Conference has enacted very few provisions that grant pastors the right to exercise “discretion” of any kind. Paragraph 224, for example, grants pastors “discretion” to receive persons into membership outside of normal congregational settings. Under paragraph 216.3, pastors are granted “discretion” to guide younger persons who have not yet completed the sixth grade in the preparation for the experience of profession of faith and confirmation. There may be other paragraphs that would become apparent after more thorough review of the Discipline. Because there are very few such provisions, I am led to the ineluctable conclusion that whenever a grant of discretion has been determined appropriate, the General Conference has said so in clear and unmistakable terms. The Judicial Council's role is purposefully limited to that of interpretation. In fulfilling its role, the Judicial Council should not impose its own preferences or priorities on the church.
Elementary rules of construction require that the plain text of a document be given its reasonable effect and intendment. Text should not be supplemented. It certainly should not be invented or pulled from out of thin air. Powers should not be inferred or imagined. Interpretative guidance should be gleaned from the text of the entire document rather than the interpreter's personal philosophy. Since the paragraphs cited by the majority do not speak to the issue presented, and the Discipline is otherwise silent, we must look to other declarations contained in the Discipline for guidance. From a sound legal perspective, the paragraphs contained in the question presented must be considered in the light of General Conference declarations that bear upon the issue contained elsewhere in the Discipline. For reference I commend all of my colleagues to paragraph 161 entitled "The Nurturing Community". In an effort to shed light upon the subject, I specifically cite paragraph 161(G) which reads in pertinent part as follows:
“. . . Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and the emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all and will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and the church not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to being a ministry for and with all persons.”
The majority's decision now condones the denial of the fellowship of the church to persons in need of its ministry and guidance who are homosexual. The decision eviscerates our statement that God's grace is available to all and reduces it to an empty platitude. More tragically, the same Judicial Council charged with giving effect to the intent of the enactments of the General Conference has turned a cold and rejecting ear to its plea that families and churches not reject lesbian and gay members and friends.
Paragraphs 214 through 225 provide guidance on the issue of church membership to clergy and laity alike. The cited paragraphs make very few references to pastors at all and in none of those references does the General Conference bestow upon pastors the type of discretion as contemplated by the majority. The permissive language contained in paragraphs 214 through 225 is an invitation to persons who seek membership. The permissive language does not equip clergy with the power or authority to erect a bar to membership. The permissive language is an open invitation to any and all who seek God’s grace through membership within our denomination.
There is nothing contained in the majority opinion that prevents pastors from exercising “discretion” to refuse membership to persons whose eating habits convict them of the sin of gluttony, whose personality traits convict them of the sin of pride, and whose work habits convict them of the sin of sloth. There are a total of seven such scenarios that I can imagine, none of which were involved in this case as a basis for denying membership. Under the majority’s opinion, pastors who form a reasonable belief that any of the foregoing scenarios exist would have the “discretion” to deny membership to such persons. Because of the majority’s ruling, pastors across our great connection will not only enjoy the rights and privileges of ordination, they will also enjoy the additional power, discretion and authority that are now ordained by judicial fiat. Pastors will be able to screen out persons seeking membership to safeguard our churches against all varieties of sinners. While churches without sinners may be a precursor of heaven, the decision to pursue such a path must, under our system of church governance be made by the General Conference after the idea has been debated, tested and refined in the legislative processes of our church.
I am also critical of the majority opinion because it does nothing to offer true guidance as to what constitutes “responsible pastoral judgment”. In its haste to make its pronouncement, the majority has done more harm than good. The language of the question posed asks whether pastors have “the right and responsibility to exercise reasonable pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into membership of a local church.” Yet, the majority’s ruling obfuscates the issue by using the term “discretion” interchangeably with the words “responsible pastoral judgment.” The Judicial Council had repeatedly reminded the General Conference and the various Annual Conferences that terms require definition in order to promote a general understanding of their meaning. Inherent in the majority’s decision is a roving commission. This panoply of new terms that has now been engraved upon our jurisprudence is not accompanied by any guidance as to their meaning and import. We do not serve our function well by coining new phrases with amorphous meaning. Any guidance that the majority opinion purports to provide is purely illusory. A thoughtful legislative process would not only set parameters of “responsible pastoral judgment” or “discretion” but would also provide a method to regulate the exercise of such judgment and guard against abuses of discretion. Yet the majority, through some unaccountable infatuation, has chosen to endow pastors with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men and women; that being the power and ability to separate the mind from the motive.
We cannot begin to comprehend the unwanted and undesired consequences of this ruling. The majority’s ruling has dangerous potential to create adversarial relationships between pastors and persons who seek membership in our denomination. It encroaches upon the authority of the office of bishop by judicial whim rather than through a deliberate legislative process. It upsets the delicate system of checks and balances inherent in our governance. These consequences will result in serious ramifications. However, I fear most that the majority decision will prove harmful to the credibility of the Judicial Council because it abandons the traditional and limited role of the Judicial Council as interpreter of church law and assumes a new mantle as creator of church law.
I am greatly concerned about this ruling that my majority colleagues have banded to pronounce. My greater concern is that its pronouncement may be a harbinger of things to come. Will we begin to see cases where membership has been denied based on economic status? Or educational status? Will pastors deny membership to those who do not support all of our Social Principles? Or those who fully support our Social Principles? We all aspire to break the bonds and reject the forces of sin. Nevertheless, we choose a perilous course when even “responsible pastoral judgment” is granted to allow pastors the “discretion” to select among a multitude of sins for which some persons will be refused membership.
I also dissent because this question does not present as a frequently recurring problem within our denomination. There was no emergency that required the Judicial Council to act at all let alone to act precipitously. The majority’s action has fashioned a rule that will now apply across the connection. The legal maxim that hard cases make bad law is given life and breath by the majority's ruling. The maxim has grown up in the secular world in those situations when courts have made the ill-advised decision to legislate rather than interpret. The bad law that results brings many unintended and undesired consequences.
I finally state that although the General Conference has clearly prohibited self-avowed practicing homosexuals from becoming ordained clergy, it has never determined that being a self-avowed practicing homosexual constitutes a bar to membership. The Judicial Council has previously acknowledged homosexuality to be a sensitive and volatile issue. Dec. 702. It is the equivalent of ideological legerdemain for the Judicial Council to declare “discretion” where there is none and to grant pastors “responsible pastoral judgment” where the General Conference has not done so. As a Judicial Council, the better angels of our nature require that we restrain ourselves from making up rules that do not exist.
Because I did not join the majority, I am unable to move for its reconsideration. I would implore my majority colleagues to admit that the Judicial Council has made a grievous and harmful error in its pronouncement and reconsider and recall its decision.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I vociferously, yet respectfully dissent. Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God.
Jon R. Gray
November 8, 2005
Susan T. Henry-Crowe joins in this dissenting opinion.
Concurring Opinion
Contrary to what some will assert, our decision here is not a statement that homosexuals are barred from membership in the local church. Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer was asked two specific questions and made two very brief rulings which are under review. Bishop Kammerer was asked:
Must a clergy person at the direction of a bishop and/or district superintendent and subject to their administrative complaint or charge, receive into the membership of a local United Methodist church anyone who is able to receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promises to fulfill the vow and who at the same time acknowledges and impenitently practices homosexual relations?
Bishop Kammerer ruled “that the bishop and district superintendent are charged to give guidance, as they did to Rev. Johnson in this matter.” Bishop Kammerer was then asked:
Does the permissive language of ¶ 214 and ¶ 225 grant the appointed senior minister, in this case the Rev. Ed Johnson, the right and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in defining who may be received into church membership of a local church?
Bishop Kammerer “ruled in the negative in this case” thus holding that the clergyperson appointed to serve as the administrative officer of the local church has neither the right nor the responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in defining who may be received into church membership of a local church.
The Judicial Council has reversed Bishop Kammerer’s rulings and held 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 (¶ 217), and that ¶¶ 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows. As one can plainly see from the Decision and Digest of the Judicial Council as well as the Analysis and Rationale, there is nothing in such language that can remotely be construed as making a sweeping declaration that the Judicial Council has held that “homosexuals” are barred from membership in the church.
As an individual member of the Judicial Council who supports the decision rendered here, I specifically affirm the provisions of ¶ 161(G) of the Discipline. Questions of law are always asked in a particular factual context. However, when decisions of law come before the Judicial Council, no evidentiary proceedings have occurred as might occur in a church trial. Nevertheless, the record provided by the Virginia Annual Conference indicates that the individual seeking membership continued to be welcomed in worship, continued to be administered the sacraments, and continued to meet with the pastor for counseling and discernment throughout the period prior to the submission of the questions of law to the presiding bishop. Thus, the fellowship of the church to persons in need of its ministry and guidance who are homosexual was provided. The questions of law, the resulting decisions by Bishop Kammerer and our decision here do not address other ways in which local churches are to be in ministry to homosexual persons or others. Thankfully, God’s grace has never been dependent upon membership to be imparted. Membership has never ensured that an individual is availing them self of God’s grace.
Furthermore, nothing in the Judicial Council’s decision eliminates the continued applicability of numerous provisions of the Discipline that place limitations on the pastor’s exercise of discretion with respect to membership. For example, the discretion of the pastor-in-charge must be exercised consistent with ¶ 4 of the Discipline. Paragraph 4 which is Article IV of our Constitution, specifically provides:
Inclusiveness of the Church – The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith become professing members in any local church in the connection.
[Emphasis added]. As we have held in Decision 1027, regulation of the practice of homosexuality does not violate the “status” provisions of the Constitution. As we stated in Decision 1027, “[n]o provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from the ordained ministry of The United Methodist Church.” Likewise, no provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from membership in The United Methodist Church, and, in fact, I believe that ¶ 4 specifically prohibits the use of such orientation, as opposed to practice, as a basis for excluding a person from membership in The United Methodist Church.
Paragraph 138 of the Discipline does not support the conclusion that all persons who are willing to give voice to the vows of membership must be received into membership. In fact, a portion of ¶ 138 states:
In The United Methodist Church inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of The United Methodist Book of Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place.
[Emphasis added]. Thus, ¶ 138, even in its affirmation of inclusiveness, states that such inclusiveness has boundaries, which would include at a minimum making and keeping the vows of membership outlined in ¶ 217. In fact, ¶ 221 specifically requires the local church, acting through its pastor and its agencies, to hold members accountable to the vows of membership outlined in ¶ 217. To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and by those who dissent would result in the anomalous result that a person who could not affirm the vows of ¶ 217 being admitted to membership and then immediately being subject to discipline as required by ¶ 221. The Discipline does not require such a nonsensical result. The decision here applies the explicit words of the Discipline. To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and supported by those who dissent would require judicial legislation ignoring explicit language in the Discipline.
Where a pastor in the exercise of his or her discretion determines that a person, for whatever reason, is not ready to affirm the vows of membership, that discretion is not unfettered. Clearly the exercise of such discretion may be questioned by the lay leadership of the local church. Because of the corporate nature of the body of Christ, one would fully expect that ongoing consultation and reflection on the matter would be engaged in by the pastor, the laity of the church, the district superintendent and the bishop. If it was determined that the pastor had exercised his or her discretion in such a way as to violate ¶ 4 or other provisions of the Discipline, appropriate disciplinary procedures exist to challenge the pastor’s exercise of discretion.
The Judicial Council was not asked in this case to review the specific basis and propriety of the pastor in exercising discretion here. We were asked to review two specific rulings of law by a bishop. The Council is required by the Discipline to review such decisions. See ¶¶ 56.3 and 2609.6. The Council has done its duty.
I wish to comment on one final aspect of Decision 1032. The decisions of law under review in Decision 1032 were rendered by the presiding bishop of the Virginia Annual Conference, the annual conference of which I am a clergy member. The minutes of the Virginia Annual Conference reflect that as consideration of this matter was brought before the Annual Conference, I immediately was granted the privilege of the floor and informed the Conference that I was not participating in the matters under discussion by the Conference because of my membership on the Judicial Council. See Decision 1031. Because I did not participate in the matters before the Virginia Annual Conference, I was not a party to its actions under review in Decisions 1031 and 1032, and therefore I chose to participate in the deliberations and decisions of the Judicial Council in these two decisions. The issues raised by these Decisions are not unique to Virginia but have impact on every clergyperson in our connectional system. In my view, it would be inappropriate for me to recuse myself under such circumstances, and I exercised my right as a member of the Judicial Council to make that determination. I would follow the same course again on a matter of the application of the Discipline to the Virginia Annual Conference which was applicable to the church as a whole and in which I was not directly involved. I have chosen not to recuse myself in the past under similar circumstances. See Decision 985. However, where the issue only had applicability in the Virginia Annual Conference and/or I have had a personal involvement in the matter, I have chosen to recuse myself. See Decision 984.
Keith D. Boyette
November 15, 2005
Rodolfo C. Beltran joins in this concurring opinion.
Saturday, October 29, 2005.
Umc book of discipline
If defiance continues, United Methodism may come crashing down
July 15, 2011 by MethodistThinker
The following commentary is by Riley B. Case, associate executive director of the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church.
Dr. Riley B. Case
Dr. Case served for many years as a pastor and district superintendent in the UMC’s North Indiana Conference (now the Indiana Conference).
He is the author of Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History (Abingdon Press) and has served as a delegate to five UM General Conferences.
This opinion pieced was originally published in a slightly longer form in the Confessing Movement’s e-publication, “Happenings Around the Church.”
Links below have been added by MethodistThinker.com. — Ed.
-
United Methodists are in the news again — not because of what UMs are doing in flood-ravaged areas, or for the numbers of mission teams serving in various places, or for spectacular evangelistic efforts, but for internal conflicts over issues related to marriage and homosexuality.
Major articles have appeared in TIME magazine, the Boston Globe, and USA Today. This is because of the Amy DeLong church trial in the Wisconsin Annual Conference, and because hundreds of United Methodist clergy have pledged to defy church law and perform homosexual unions.
Not surprisingly, most articles in the secular press have given wrong impressions.
-
A vocal minority
The secular media makes it sound as though there is strong support for changing the church’s historic stand that supports celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. According to several reports, there is “growing pressure” for the United Methodist Church to join other mainline churches in ordaining sexually active homosexuals; clergy are willing to defy church law; a major battle is looming at the 2012 General Conference, etc.
The truth is quite different. Despite the publicity, despite the equivocating on the part of the bishops, despite manipulated trials, despite statements from retired bishops and seminary faculty and boards and agencies, The United Methodist Church is not about to change its biblical stance. Overwhelming numbers of church members would oppose it. We need to assure our troubled church members that this is so.
-
Nearly 40 years of fighting
In speaking of General Conference 2012, the secular media suggest that the General Conference (the only body in the UMC that can change the Book of Discipline) will “settle” the issue of homosexuality for United Methodists. This is the same mantra touted in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008.
Let’s face reality: whatever happens on this issue at next year’s General Conference, there will not be peace in the denomination. There will be talk about civility, but civility will not take place. There will be talk about a compromise that will make everyone happy, but no conceivable compromise will make everyone happy. There will be talk about unity around “core values,” but we seem not to agree what those core values might be.
UM bishops stand in support of homosexual protesters
at the 2000 General Conference (UMNS photo)
Does anyone see a hopeful future for United Methodism over this issue?
It needs to be pointed out — and written boldly — that it is not evangelicals who are creating controversy, disunity, and lack of civility in the church. It is not evangelicals who are talking about demonstrations, undermining the Discipline, pledging themselves to ecclesiastical disobedience, and going to extraordinary lengths to obstruct justice. It is not evangelicals who are breaking covenant and making a mockery of church law.
Nor is it evangelicals at the General Conference who break chalices and cover the altar with black and disrupt the conference with demonstrations and rants from bishops.
What are evangelicals seeking? Simply this: Since the United Methodist Church has officially approved and (supposedly) operates with written doctrines, social principles, and covenant relationships, we want those in the church to honor and submit to these doctrines and principles and relationships.
-
A challenge to the connection
Some secular news accounts have given a wrong impression when they speak of those pledging to perform same-sex unions as primarily defying “church authorities” — as if it is the “authorities” (whoever they are) who are the block to loosening standards in regard to sexuality.
From the UM
Book of Discipline
¶161F Human Sexuality — We affirm that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons. We call everyone to responsible stewardship of this sacred gift.
Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
We deplore all forms of the commercialization, abuse, and exploitation of sex. We call for strict global enforcement of laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children and for adequate protection, guidance, and counseling for abused children.
All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence. The Church should support the family in providing age-appropriate education regarding sexuality to children, youth, and adults.
We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self.
The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.
¶304.3 Regarding Clergy — While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world.
Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.
The defiance is more serious that simply “defying authorities.” What is being defied and undermined is the United Methodist connection itself, including covenant relationships, ordination vows, and our commitment to one another as United Methodists.
The progressive strategy, at least on the part of some, is to wage civil war. This war is not against some outside imposed authority being foisted upon them, but against the very church to which these persons vowed faithfulness.
In other words, some in our connection desire to overturn the understandings, the promises, the ordination vows, and the Discipline that have made us who we are as United Methodists and replace them with something different — all in the name of some higher good. The higher good is variously stated: conscience, justice, inclusivity — all of which are defined not by Scripture, tradition, and reason, or by our vows, doctrine, and heritage, but by progressive preferences.
At the trial of Jimmy Creech some years ago, the defendant didn’t offer a defense, or even a plea of innocent or guilty. Rather, he urged the jury to make a prophetic judgment — namely that it is not the practice of homosexuality that is incompatible with Christian teaching (as Methodist doctrine states), but the prohibition against the practice of homosexuality that is incompatible with Christian teaching. In other words, bring the whole system down by judicial decree.
Or by any means. Obfuscate. Overload the system to make it inoperative (if 900 UM clergy perform same-sex unions, the system will blow all circuits and simply cease to function). Challenge all language so that words such as “practicing,” “self-avowed,” “heresy,” “status,” “celibacy,” “faithfulness” must be defined in such a legalistic way that they are inoperative.
Our covenant relationships were never meant to be business contracts that need 10 pages of legal language to make them operative. Our covenant together is based on relationships and relationship language is based on trust. At the present time, trust is in short supply.
So there is a problem — a serious problem. Numbers of United Methodists, both clergy and lay, feel like aliens in their own denomination. How can we exist in a denomination when some seek to undermine the core values that make us United Methodists and when the covenant relationships we speak of seem to mean nothing?
-
Where are the bishops?
In our system of church government, we have an executive branch (the bishops). We need to hear from that executive branch — and it needs to be something more than “Let’s stay at the table” or “We feel your pain” or “Let’s wait until the next General Conference.”
Even bishops who do not support the teachings of the Book of Discipline in regard to human sexuality (which itself raises questions about how sincere they were when they took their vows*) must realize that if the present strategy of ecclesiastical disobedience and intentional obfuscation continues, the whole system could come crashing down. To continue down the present road without intervention cannot be good for United Methodism.
The bishops seem quite capable of strong action when they want to act. They were effective in blocking the election of judicial council members in 2008 who voted in favor of Judicial Council Decision 1032. There have been numbers of instances where bishops (and cabinets and conferences) have taken care of moral problems and loyalty problems without having to hold trials and without public fanfare.
In 1844 the Methodist Episcopal Church — one of our predecessor denominations — was being rent apart by attitudes toward slavery. The bishops at the time could not work through their own conflicting attitudes about slavery, or, perhaps more accurately, what the church should be doing about a stated position of the Discipline which was being undermined and defied by a part of the church.
In what must be considered as one of the greatest historical “cop-outs” in the history of the church, the bishops encouraged the General Conference to “table” any action for four more years.
But the church had been tabling the issue far too long. In 1845, the denomination divided.
Let’s pray that history will not repeat itself.
*Each newly elected United Methodist bishop is asked, “Will you guard the faith, order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline of the Church against all that is contrary to God’s Word?”
Related posts
• Outcome of DeLong trial likely to exacerbate disunity of UMC
• Bishop Mack Stokes: Holiness in human sexuality
• A word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in singleness
• Why the United Methodist Church cannot condone homosexuality
• Pro-homosexuality foundation pours millions into Catholic and mainline Protestant dissident groups
• Breaking the covenant: Why aren’t ‘Reconciling’ churches being held to account?
• Renewal & Reform Coalition responds to retired bishops’ call to alter UMC’s sexuality standards
• In embracing homosexual marriage, Foundry UMC rejects UM boundaries, breaks with 2 millennia of church teaching
• Board of Church and Society sex-ed writer: Sex outside of marriage can be ‘moral, ethical’
• In Mississippi Conference, testimony from lesbian couple stirs controversy
• Judicial Council says no to same-sex marriage
• Billy Abraham on United Methodism: ‘There is no common faith among us’
Related information
• UM clergy vow to wed homosexual couples | Sam Hodges, UM Reporter (July 15, 2011)
• Lesbian elder’s penalty takes different path | Heather Hahn, United Methodist News Service (June 24, 2011)
• Eros defended or eros defiled — What do Wesley and the Bible say? | Ben Witherington, The Bible and Culture (Patheos.com) (Feb. 14, 2011)
• Christianity elevates sexual morality (a historical overview of the Christian church’s teaching on sexual morality) — Chapter 3 of How Christianity Changed the World | Alvin Schmidt (Zondervan, 2004 — via Google Books)
• Book: Staying the Course: Supporting the Church’s Position on Homosexuality (ordering details) | Maxie Dunnam and H. Newton Malony, ed. (Abingdon Press, 2003)
• Anyone who works under the authority or auspices of the Church must be held to the highest standards of behavior, free of misconduct in any form | UMSexualEthics.org
• United Methodist churches perform same-sex weddings with one foot in the closet | Amanda Hess, TBD.com (Sept. 30, 2010)
• UM Judicial Council backs clergy dismissal over affair | Linda Bloom, UMNS (April 27, 2010)
• What the evidence really says about Scripture and homosexual practice: Five issues (PDF) | Robert A. J. Gagnon (March 2009)
• Slavery, homosexuality, and not being of one mind | Riley B. Case, via The Sundry Times (July 1, 2008)
• How churches can refine message on homosexuality | Robin Russell, United Methodist Reporter (May 19, 2008)
• United Methodists uphold homosexuality stance | Robin Russell, United Methodist News Service (April 30, 2008)
• Methodists strengthen stand against homosexual practice | Christianity Today (May 5, 2004)
• Homosexuality and the Great Commandment (an address to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh) | Peter C. Moore (November 2002)
• ‘Good News’ says push to accept homosexual practice threatens to split United Methodist Church | United Methodist News Service (May 6, 1997)
Share:
Twitter13
Facebook51
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Posted in Bishops, Book of Discipline, Christian/Methodist History, Church Renewal, Doctrine, Ethics, General Conference, Holiness, Judicial Council, Social Issues, United Methodist Church | Tagged UMC, United Methodist Church | 20 Comments
20 Responses
on July 15, 2011 at 8:21 pmMark
Dr. Case, once again, says it well and says it truthfully. But he (along with many of us) is getting frustrated and demoralized. A very small minority is trying to run the show, and they are doing it arrogantly, with little regard for truth.
Epicurus said “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” Hope can stay alive only so long…
on July 15, 2011 at 10:02 pmRoseyK
Well said! It is frightening that the Book of Discipline is so blatantly disregarded by those who have taken vows to uphold it. Would the same standards apply if a pastor or a bishop were caught stealing, or had an adulterous affair? Hypocrisy abounds!
Sadly, “United” will soon be a thing of the past and the Methodist Church of John Wesley will be doomed.
on July 16, 2011 at 10:22 ampreacherwife
Thank you, Dr. Case. You have clearly stated what I believe most UMC members know to be true — that the denomination itself will implode if the “tares” are not sifted from the “wheat.”
Either we do this now or God will do it later.
on July 16, 2011 at 12:15 pmTony Mitchell
In response to RoseyK, I would hope that if a pastor or a bishop were to be caught stealing or found to have had or be in an adulterous affair then the proper and appropriate actions were taken.
But I am troubled by one aspect of this whole discussion and it has nothing to do with the Bible per se. There are acts of homosexuality in the Bible but they always occur in specific situations that I don’t always feel are related to sexuality.
Slavery is a theme in the Bible, a theme which split this denomination into at least three different denominations for more than 100 years. And yet today, we recognize that slavery is wrong and that the ideas that many in this denomination supported in 1850 were wrong.
I would be willing that this denomination (or many in it) supported the notion some 50 years ago that it was illegal for people of different races to get married. We have since recognized that laws against such marriages were illegal.
Let us suppose that we uphold the Book of Disciple and cast out all those who violate the definition of sexuality as it is now defined. What we will do, if in the future, we find out that our sexuality is genetic? What shall we say to those whom we have cast out?
We have in the past made decisions that we know are wrong. Shall we continue to repeat the past?
on July 16, 2011 at 12:42 pmCC
Excellent comment, Tony. I’m printing it out and posting it on my church bulletin board first thing tomorrow.
I often wonder if the Wesley brothers came back to life and came to the UMC if they would be booted out for their “progressive” ideas today?
Editor’s note: For more on Wesleyan theology and practice, see “Randy Maddox on Methodist ‘Doctrine, Spirit, Discipline,’” a MethodistThinker.com podcast.
For Wesleyan views related to matters of human sexuality, see “A Word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in Singleness” (from John Wesley pamphlet “Thoughts on a Single Life”) and Dr. Ben Witherington’s essay, “Eros Defended or Eros Defiled — What Do Wesley and the Bible Say?”
on July 16, 2011 at 2:57 pmEldon
Dear Riley,
Keep up the good work in uncovering what is really going on in the church. I appreciate your thoughts and your commitment to this effort. God bless you and keep you healthy.
Eldon Reich
Aberdeen, SD
on July 16, 2011 at 6:33 pmMark
The comparison of the church’s position on slavery vs. homosexuality continues to be an old, tired, inaccurate analogy. These issues really are apples and oranges. This comparison continues to be put forward in order to lend credibility to a misinformed line of reasoning.
The entire book of Philemon can be viewed as an argument against slavery. There is absolutely no comparable Biblical analogy with respect to homosexual behavior.
Further, there is no movement to “cast out” anyone because of their sexual behavior. It’s when sin is reinterpreted — disingenuously — to NOT be sin that the problem occurs.
People don’t always choose their attractions, but they do have a choice in what to do about them. The fear of choice is rooted in a phobia of taking responsibility for one’s actions.
A recent book, David Mamet’s The Secret Knowledge, investigates the modern Left’s fear of personal responsibility — instead preferring to attribute their shortcomings to genetics, bad government, bad parenting, bad country, etc.
on July 16, 2011 at 8:21 pmJohn Wilks
Tony,
Not one passage of the Bible ever endorses or approves the type of slavery or servitude which was practiced in the American south. People had to twist the Scriptures to make it appear as if it did.
Likewise, nothing in the Bible ever endorses or approves sexual relations outside of the boundaries of heterosexual marriage. People have to twist the Scriptures to make it appear as if it does.
If anything, the slavery comparison proves favors the Evangelicals in this case, not the Progressives. We are bound by Biblical standards, and when ever the Church tries to apply a convenient, sin-serving hermeneutic we wind up in a schism.
Southern Methodists were committing heresy when they defended the barbaric plantation system. They warped the Bible and theology until they could justify their own sinful, indulgent desires. And that is exactly what is being done by RMN and other such forces today.
on July 17, 2011 at 5:33 pmPhilip Birdsong
It appears the UMC is suffering the same disastrous effects of apathy as our country. How many UMC members actually understand how the denomination is governed, let alone what these people are proposing or voting on?
Sadly, for what seems a majority of congregations, as long “their church” keeps the lights on, they get three hymns, the Lord’s Prayer and a short message (that no one leaving the sanctuary each Sunday can remember a word of), then all is well and we’ll do it all over again next Sunday.
Ask your everyday UMC member what the apportionments are used for or how they are calculated. If that same member knew what their offerings were being used for, do you think they would even care?
The most discouraging fact, however is that as believers we have lost sight of even the simplest of our Lord’s instructions. One my former pastors when asked, what is the purpose of the church, would immediately answer: “To make disciples of Jesus Christ!”
How is it that we have lost sight of this most basic purpose?
on July 17, 2011 at 9:30 pmCC
I posted the comment Tony made (see above) on the church bulletin board. Later, I saw the pastor look at it and take it down. During the sermon, she read it to the congregation as part of her sermon. After she finished reading it the congregation applauded.
The times they are a changing, and despite the narrow minded views of some in this church, as it was one said by a man far, far greater then me: “We shall overcome.”
on July 17, 2011 at 11:30 pmMark
If my congregation applauded the previous comments of Tony I would be forced to conclude that they: a) are unaware of what Scripture, tradition and reason says about homosexual behavior, b) don’t care what the aforementioned teach about homosexual behavior, c) are unclear as to what Tony is suggesting, d) don’t have the mental capacity to discern the difference between behavior and an unavoidable state of existence (i.e., race), e) have a much greater aptitude for feeling than thinking, or f) some combination of the above.
If the Wesley brothers came back today I think they likely would be shocked to see that some people who are leading the church they helped found are casting aside Scriptural admonitions and doing what they think is right “in their own eyes.”
Tony asserts “We have in the past made decisions that we know are wrong. Shall we continue to repeat the past?” The past now includes a verdict which did little more than slap a pastor on the wrist for disregarding a book she swore to uphold. Maybe Tony has a point.
on July 18, 2011 at 10:29 amCC
Gee Mark, a comment filled with nice words but for some reason is void of any real facts! Could it be that the position of the Religious Right cannot be supported by scripture, Methodist historical writings, or just plan common sense?
Well I guess the “evangelicals” can continue to pull the blanket over their heads and hope that the issue goes away. However, the social “vision” of the youth of this country and world sees it differently. Amazing what they think about Jesus compared to what they think about the church.
Mark I really do suggest that you go back and read the sermons delivered by John Wesley. I think you will find out how wrong you are. Of course, that does depend on if you actually read them in their entirety. Strange how many “evangelicals” of the Methodist church I speak with, who are clueless on his and Charles actual words and deeds. I’m amazed at how many are oblivious to the social principles that our church is founded on.
Editor’s note: The first statement of Methodist “Social Principles” dates from 1908 and was therefore not part of the founding documents of the Methodist Episcopal Church (a predecessor denomination of the UMC), which was founded 124 years earlier in 1784. (The Methodist movement itself dates from the 1730s.) The first statement of Social Principles for the United Methodist Church was formulated in 1976.
Several sermons of John Wesley have been featured this year on MethodistThinker.com. They are linked below. Many more can be found at http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/jwesley3.html:
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘Salvation by faith’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘The first doctrine’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘The way to the kingdom’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: The sure cornerstone of our faith
• A word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in singleness
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘You must be born again’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: Power over sin
on July 18, 2011 at 12:05 pmRev. Mike Bankston
CC wrote: “The times they are a changing, and despite the narrow minded views of some in this church, as it was one said by a man far, far greater then me: ‘We shall overcome.’”
I never would have thought Scripture would be considered narrow minded. God created Man and Woman to be companions and to “procreate”
Several things in Old Testament (the destruction of Sodom, the Leviticus laws) emphasize God’s displeasure with homosexual relations, but those who want to see the church embrace homosexuality as good always point toward the New Testament and Jesus.
So, what does the NT tell us about homosexuality? First, Jesus is the Son of God and through Him we see God’s redemption through grace. That redemption, by the forgiveness of our sins, restores our relationship with God that was created in Genesis. Forgiveness comes to those who turn to Christ in faith.
There is still God’s judgement, of course. Jesus will separate the sheep and the goats. Viewed the perspective of the New Testament Leviticus shows us how desperately we are incapable of salvation without Jesus — but that doesn’t discount the moral law. Jesus himself said that he did not come to to destroy the law but to fulfill it.
The twisting of Scripture that “progressives” like to use presents an all-encompassing idea of acceptance and that just isn’t so. There is a price to pay for sin, and there are many warnings about false teachers.
It is true that Jesus never addressed homosexuality directly, but he did not have to. In Matthew 19, when asked about divorce, Jesus invokes the continuity in God’s creation and defines marriage in the context of Genesis (“‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate”). Jesus re-emphasizes the pattern given from the beginning.
In writing to the church at Rome, Paul notes that people “exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised.” This verse certainly teaches that there is a “truth about God” that must be taught in the church. We should to be able to discern right from wrong according to the Word.
We are in danger of becoming like the church of Corinth by patting ourselves on the back and saying, “Look at what good Jesus followers we are. We are so accepting of all that we will perform a marriage that goes against what God intends to be a marriage.”
The church should be able to admonish incorrect teaching. If we do not stand up to this movement, then we are discounting the change Jesus makes in the heart and life of a sinner. We are saying, in effect, that Jesus doesn’t fix the brokenness that is sin and so we should celebrate that state of un-repaired sin.
It is time to stand up and recognize the leaven in the loaf before we end up in schism like our brothers and sisters in The Episcopal Church.
on July 18, 2011 at 10:50 pmMark
CC, I’ve read many of John Wesley’s works and I think I am conveying accurately his thinking, particularly about Scripture, which he placed at the pinnacle of authority with respect to Christian teaching.
An excerpt from Mr. Wesley’s pamphlet, “Thoughts on a Single Life,” first published in 1743:
“How shall you preserve this strength and firmness of spirit? Avoid with the utmost care all softness and effeminacy, remembering the express denunciation of an inspired writer that the soft or effeminate “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)…. But I say avoid all pleasure that in anyway hinders you from enjoying him — yea, all such pleasure as does not prepare you for taking pleasure in God…. Indeed, if any will follow Christ, the very first step is to deny himself — to substitute the will of God in the place of his own will as his overriding principle of action. Let him in all things deny his own will, however pleasing, and do the will of God, however painful.”
Here is a thoughtful discussion, published some years ago in Christianity Today, about how John Wesley would have likely approached the subject of homosexuality: “Revelation and Homosexual Experience: What Would John Wesley Have Said About This Debate in the Church?” The author is a member of the Wesleyan Theological Society and the Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies.
on July 19, 2011 at 12:17 amCC
So much wrong with your view, Reverend Bankston. While I could respond with a long “sermon” on the who said what in the Bible, I won’t. Instead, I think the story behind the cover of the May/June Upper Room says it better.
The picture by artist Liz Lemon Swindle: A young woman is appeared to be pushed down on the ground in front of Jesus who is doodling in the sand. What you can see of his face is distress possibly anger. Behind him are several men standing with their arms out with their hands pointing to the women. You cannot see their faces.
The description inside the cover, written by Mona Bagasao-Cave:
Liz Lemon Swindle’s painting reveals a new truth in a familiar story of the woman “caught in adultery.” The woman pushes herself into the ground, trying to distance herself from her accusers. She turns her head away in shame from Jesus, the one who has just refused to condemn her. Eyes stern, Jesus looks at the ground with his hand across his mouth, perhaps to keep from saying more.
I can feel the anger as Jesus waits for the men to respond to his challenge: “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7, nrsv). We see the accusers’ hands trying to deflect the thrust of Jesus’ comment, to turn attention again to the woman. But — in this detail — we can’t see if the accusers are flustered or angry, if they stare lustfully at the woman or look for an opening to get away. We don’t know who they are.
Isn’t this often the case? “Someone” thinks an accused should be exposed and punished. But that someone hides in anonymity, often in a group. They know they would also stand accused if everything about them were known. Are we like them? For me, the answer too often is, “Yes.” Wouldn’t I prefer to be like Jesus? Wouldn’t you?
Now I wonder Reverend, are you sinless in life, in which case I guess it would be OK for you to throw the stones at all of us sinners?
Editor’s note: Here is the biblical account, as recorded in John 8:2-11:
At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”…. [He] said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”….
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus…asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
on July 19, 2011 at 12:33 pmRev. Mike Bankston
CC,
No I am not sinless — and I am so thankful for a savior who has forgiven me for my sins.
This is a beautiful illustration you have put forward, and it accents my previous point. We see the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus by using the law. They bring a woman who was caught in the act of adultery and for Jesus to judge and condemn her. The idea was that because she was caught in an act of adultery, Jesus, under the law would say she needed to be stoned (which was the punishment for the offense).
Of course, they didn’t bring both parties (which was required), but the main idea was to put Jesus in a position to use the law to condemn the woman. Under the law, there is a system of breaking the law and consequences. But with Jesus, there is something else: forgiveness.
In the account Jesus tells the men, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Jesus is making it clear that we are all sinners under the law. We all deserve judgment. But rather than condemning, Jesus offers forgiveness and new life.
Do not miss the whole picture though. Jesus told the woman: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” He did not say “Go now and live your life of sin.”
This emphasizes the point I made earlier. Jesus forgives us and redeems us. We then are called to live in a manner worthy of that forgiveness, which means staying away from sin. After offering forgiveness, Jesus issues the call to obedience.
What is sin? Is it breaking a law? Yes, but it is more. Sin is living outside of the way God intends us to to live. That is, living outside of communion with Him and living in disobedience to His will. Are homosexual acts outside the way God intended people to live? Scripture is clear God created man and woman and he ordained the holy communion of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Jesus re-emphasized this holy design.
Jesus changes hearts and lives everyday. He has been doing that for more than 2,000 years. In Jesus, we are not bound to our sins. Forgiveness issues forth in lives transformed through God’s grace. I do not want to condemn or punish anyone. I simply advocate for the clear biblical teaching that Jesus forgives sinners and changes lives in profound ways.
Paul tells us this in Romans 6:
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,a that we should no longer be slaves to sin — because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
on July 19, 2011 at 3:41 pmpreacherwife
I think the Reverend Bankston’s remarks show a real understanding of the concept of grace. As he notes, let us always remember a crucial point in the account of the woman about to be stoned. Jesus did indeed say, “Neither do I condemn you,” but also said, “Now go and sin no more.”
Jesus recognized that the woman had indeed sinned. He told her to get up out of the dust, and stop wallowing in a life of sin. I am not a great Biblical scholar, but I think I am on safe ground in thinking that Jesus was telling the woman that continuing in sin would carry consequences — she would ultimately condemn herself if she persisted.
on July 20, 2011 at 2:18 amCC
Amazing that you “know” she sinned. I look at it entirely different. We know nothing about the woman, which to me, is the point. Jesus appears to know and understand how this person was brought to him all ready accused, convicted and prepared for punishment. His anger is not towards the woman, but the “judges” who stand behind. Hence, the whole reason for “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw the stone.”
My argument has never been as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin. That is not for me or any other human to judge. The scripture is far from clear on this matter. Anyone who says differently is selling snake oil to the masses.
I refuse, as a heterosexual male married for more 25 years to one woman, to continue to sit in silence as “reverends” like yourself misrepresent the teachings of Jesus to support your argument while ignoring the rest of the Bible. I refuse to allow my children to be subjected to the same vile hypocritical message I was raised under. Nor will I continue to sit as a passive member of a congregation and let hate be spoken from the pulpit.
I find it interesting that this blog and several others like it seem to be obsessed with only one so called “sin,” yet remain virtually silent on the “sins” that affect heterosexual couples. I wonder why that is? Strangely enough, the last two pastors of my church have three divorces between them. I guess we should be stoning them also? Do we stone the teenage daughter of one of them who had a child out of wedlock? After all, it was a sin. Do we stone the child also?
on July 20, 2011 at 3:07 pmJohn Wilks
I agree with preacherwife. Mike Bankston’s post pretty much encapsulates what the Christian attitude should be not only about homosexual relations, but also about all sins and all sinners — by which I mean all persons, myself included.
After all, “sinner” is the most inclusive term I know. It includes every single human being who has ever drawn breath — with a single exception: Jesus of Nazareth.
on July 22, 2011 at 12:58 pmRon
So is the UMC going to go down the same road as the ECLA, PCUSA,UCC, and ECUSA? What a mess.
Why such a problem with the gospel?
There’s nothing new under the sun. Nothing. Just people serving their own desires — spoken against as idolatry.
Comments are closed.
Follow on Twitter
Find on Facebook
Subscribe to podcasts
Get blog updates via e-mail
Prayer of the month
Save us from weak resignation,
To the evils we deplore....
Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
For the facing of this hour.
(From a hymn by Harry E. Fosdick)
Praying for your bishop (PDF)
(a prayer guide by Terry Teykl)
ThinkerTwitter
General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior | Riley B. Case, http://t.co/WupJamEv http://t.co/HMFke5Qu - 7 hours ago
MT @mporeilly: Miss. Conf. to offer MEF money to candidates attending Wesley Biblical Sem.—despite lack of UMC approval http://t.co/5StgqX9P - 2 days ago
Are you a practical atheist? | Dale Tedder's Journal http://t.co/3znoOh4q - 3 days ago
GLAAD attempts smear of Prof. Robert George, Al Mohler, Maggie Gallagher, Chuck Colson, others | The Reformed Pastor http://t.co/ryhVeC7X - 4 days ago
'The Church and Abortion: Rightly Handing the Word of Truth' — a sermon by James V. Heidinger | Lifewatch http://t.co/AFGwutMe (PDF) - 1 week ago
After 2 years of doubt, Evangelical Seminary in Pa. has been re-approved by Univ. Senate of the UMC | Lebanon Daily Nws http://t.co/aX2fz5Vj - 1 week ago
Support the Good News movement
Comments policy
As of Jan. 2012, this blog no longer has a comments section at the end of each post. For an explanation, see here.
To comment, use Facebook.
ThinkerSeek
Search for:
Today's most-viewed
General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior
Why the United Methodist Church cannot condone homosexuality
If defiance continues, United Methodism may come crashing down
Breaking the covenant: Why aren't 'Reconciling' churches being held to account?
Recent posts
General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior
The Communion of Saints: March in Christian history
UMC restructuring: Power shifts, turf battles and trust
The Communion of Saints: February in Christian history
Mission-minded conservative leaders in Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) launch new denomination
Bishop Timothy Whitaker: United Methodists must stand against ‘violence of abortion’
Should we turn control of UMC over to the Council of Bishops?
MLK’s address to the Methodist Student Movement
United Methodists are well-liked, but to what end?
Happy Birthday to The Mission Society
Categories
Bishops
Book of Discipline
Camp Meeting
Christian/Methodist History
Church Development
Church Growth
Church Renewal
Disaster Relief
Discipleship
Doctrine
Ethics
Evangelism
General Conference
Holiness
Judicial Council
Laity
Lay Speaking Ministries
Leadership Development
Media
Missions
MThinker General Annoucements
North Georgia Conference
Ordination
Podcasts
Politics
Prayer
Preaching
Revival
Sermons
Social Issues
Southeastern Jurisdiction
Stewardship
UM Higher Education
United Methodist Church
United Methodist Men
United Methodist Women
Archives
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
Archives - general conference
1996 – Denver
2000 – Cleveland
2004 – Pittsburgh
2008 – Fort Worth
Blogroll
Andrew C. Thompson
Armini.us
‘Five Practices’ Blog
Deeply Committed
Emerging UMC
Every Sphere
Gloria Deo
Incarnatio: The Word Became Flesh
John Meunier
New UMC Church Starts
Save the UMC
The Mission Society Blog
The Sundry Times
Header image of "Le Penseur" ("The Thinker") is via flickr — used with permission of innoxiuss. Image adapted for this site by Gideon.
Blog at WordPress.com.Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.
July 15, 2011 by MethodistThinker
The following commentary is by Riley B. Case, associate executive director of the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church.
Dr. Riley B. Case
Dr. Case served for many years as a pastor and district superintendent in the UMC’s North Indiana Conference (now the Indiana Conference).
He is the author of Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History (Abingdon Press) and has served as a delegate to five UM General Conferences.
This opinion pieced was originally published in a slightly longer form in the Confessing Movement’s e-publication, “Happenings Around the Church.”
Links below have been added by MethodistThinker.com. — Ed.
-
United Methodists are in the news again — not because of what UMs are doing in flood-ravaged areas, or for the numbers of mission teams serving in various places, or for spectacular evangelistic efforts, but for internal conflicts over issues related to marriage and homosexuality.
Major articles have appeared in TIME magazine, the Boston Globe, and USA Today. This is because of the Amy DeLong church trial in the Wisconsin Annual Conference, and because hundreds of United Methodist clergy have pledged to defy church law and perform homosexual unions.
Not surprisingly, most articles in the secular press have given wrong impressions.
-
A vocal minority
The secular media makes it sound as though there is strong support for changing the church’s historic stand that supports celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. According to several reports, there is “growing pressure” for the United Methodist Church to join other mainline churches in ordaining sexually active homosexuals; clergy are willing to defy church law; a major battle is looming at the 2012 General Conference, etc.
The truth is quite different. Despite the publicity, despite the equivocating on the part of the bishops, despite manipulated trials, despite statements from retired bishops and seminary faculty and boards and agencies, The United Methodist Church is not about to change its biblical stance. Overwhelming numbers of church members would oppose it. We need to assure our troubled church members that this is so.
-
Nearly 40 years of fighting
In speaking of General Conference 2012, the secular media suggest that the General Conference (the only body in the UMC that can change the Book of Discipline) will “settle” the issue of homosexuality for United Methodists. This is the same mantra touted in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008.
Let’s face reality: whatever happens on this issue at next year’s General Conference, there will not be peace in the denomination. There will be talk about civility, but civility will not take place. There will be talk about a compromise that will make everyone happy, but no conceivable compromise will make everyone happy. There will be talk about unity around “core values,” but we seem not to agree what those core values might be.
UM bishops stand in support of homosexual protesters
at the 2000 General Conference (UMNS photo)
Does anyone see a hopeful future for United Methodism over this issue?
It needs to be pointed out — and written boldly — that it is not evangelicals who are creating controversy, disunity, and lack of civility in the church. It is not evangelicals who are talking about demonstrations, undermining the Discipline, pledging themselves to ecclesiastical disobedience, and going to extraordinary lengths to obstruct justice. It is not evangelicals who are breaking covenant and making a mockery of church law.
Nor is it evangelicals at the General Conference who break chalices and cover the altar with black and disrupt the conference with demonstrations and rants from bishops.
What are evangelicals seeking? Simply this: Since the United Methodist Church has officially approved and (supposedly) operates with written doctrines, social principles, and covenant relationships, we want those in the church to honor and submit to these doctrines and principles and relationships.
-
A challenge to the connection
Some secular news accounts have given a wrong impression when they speak of those pledging to perform same-sex unions as primarily defying “church authorities” — as if it is the “authorities” (whoever they are) who are the block to loosening standards in regard to sexuality.
From the UM
Book of Discipline
¶161F Human Sexuality — We affirm that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons. We call everyone to responsible stewardship of this sacred gift.
Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
We deplore all forms of the commercialization, abuse, and exploitation of sex. We call for strict global enforcement of laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children and for adequate protection, guidance, and counseling for abused children.
All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence. The Church should support the family in providing age-appropriate education regarding sexuality to children, youth, and adults.
We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self.
The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.
¶304.3 Regarding Clergy — While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world.
Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.
The defiance is more serious that simply “defying authorities.” What is being defied and undermined is the United Methodist connection itself, including covenant relationships, ordination vows, and our commitment to one another as United Methodists.
The progressive strategy, at least on the part of some, is to wage civil war. This war is not against some outside imposed authority being foisted upon them, but against the very church to which these persons vowed faithfulness.
In other words, some in our connection desire to overturn the understandings, the promises, the ordination vows, and the Discipline that have made us who we are as United Methodists and replace them with something different — all in the name of some higher good. The higher good is variously stated: conscience, justice, inclusivity — all of which are defined not by Scripture, tradition, and reason, or by our vows, doctrine, and heritage, but by progressive preferences.
At the trial of Jimmy Creech some years ago, the defendant didn’t offer a defense, or even a plea of innocent or guilty. Rather, he urged the jury to make a prophetic judgment — namely that it is not the practice of homosexuality that is incompatible with Christian teaching (as Methodist doctrine states), but the prohibition against the practice of homosexuality that is incompatible with Christian teaching. In other words, bring the whole system down by judicial decree.
Or by any means. Obfuscate. Overload the system to make it inoperative (if 900 UM clergy perform same-sex unions, the system will blow all circuits and simply cease to function). Challenge all language so that words such as “practicing,” “self-avowed,” “heresy,” “status,” “celibacy,” “faithfulness” must be defined in such a legalistic way that they are inoperative.
Our covenant relationships were never meant to be business contracts that need 10 pages of legal language to make them operative. Our covenant together is based on relationships and relationship language is based on trust. At the present time, trust is in short supply.
So there is a problem — a serious problem. Numbers of United Methodists, both clergy and lay, feel like aliens in their own denomination. How can we exist in a denomination when some seek to undermine the core values that make us United Methodists and when the covenant relationships we speak of seem to mean nothing?
-
Where are the bishops?
In our system of church government, we have an executive branch (the bishops). We need to hear from that executive branch — and it needs to be something more than “Let’s stay at the table” or “We feel your pain” or “Let’s wait until the next General Conference.”
Even bishops who do not support the teachings of the Book of Discipline in regard to human sexuality (which itself raises questions about how sincere they were when they took their vows*) must realize that if the present strategy of ecclesiastical disobedience and intentional obfuscation continues, the whole system could come crashing down. To continue down the present road without intervention cannot be good for United Methodism.
The bishops seem quite capable of strong action when they want to act. They were effective in blocking the election of judicial council members in 2008 who voted in favor of Judicial Council Decision 1032. There have been numbers of instances where bishops (and cabinets and conferences) have taken care of moral problems and loyalty problems without having to hold trials and without public fanfare.
In 1844 the Methodist Episcopal Church — one of our predecessor denominations — was being rent apart by attitudes toward slavery. The bishops at the time could not work through their own conflicting attitudes about slavery, or, perhaps more accurately, what the church should be doing about a stated position of the Discipline which was being undermined and defied by a part of the church.
In what must be considered as one of the greatest historical “cop-outs” in the history of the church, the bishops encouraged the General Conference to “table” any action for four more years.
But the church had been tabling the issue far too long. In 1845, the denomination divided.
Let’s pray that history will not repeat itself.
*Each newly elected United Methodist bishop is asked, “Will you guard the faith, order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline of the Church against all that is contrary to God’s Word?”
Related posts
• Outcome of DeLong trial likely to exacerbate disunity of UMC
• Bishop Mack Stokes: Holiness in human sexuality
• A word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in singleness
• Why the United Methodist Church cannot condone homosexuality
• Pro-homosexuality foundation pours millions into Catholic and mainline Protestant dissident groups
• Breaking the covenant: Why aren’t ‘Reconciling’ churches being held to account?
• Renewal & Reform Coalition responds to retired bishops’ call to alter UMC’s sexuality standards
• In embracing homosexual marriage, Foundry UMC rejects UM boundaries, breaks with 2 millennia of church teaching
• Board of Church and Society sex-ed writer: Sex outside of marriage can be ‘moral, ethical’
• In Mississippi Conference, testimony from lesbian couple stirs controversy
• Judicial Council says no to same-sex marriage
• Billy Abraham on United Methodism: ‘There is no common faith among us’
Related information
• UM clergy vow to wed homosexual couples | Sam Hodges, UM Reporter (July 15, 2011)
• Lesbian elder’s penalty takes different path | Heather Hahn, United Methodist News Service (June 24, 2011)
• Eros defended or eros defiled — What do Wesley and the Bible say? | Ben Witherington, The Bible and Culture (Patheos.com) (Feb. 14, 2011)
• Christianity elevates sexual morality (a historical overview of the Christian church’s teaching on sexual morality) — Chapter 3 of How Christianity Changed the World | Alvin Schmidt (Zondervan, 2004 — via Google Books)
• Book: Staying the Course: Supporting the Church’s Position on Homosexuality (ordering details) | Maxie Dunnam and H. Newton Malony, ed. (Abingdon Press, 2003)
• Anyone who works under the authority or auspices of the Church must be held to the highest standards of behavior, free of misconduct in any form | UMSexualEthics.org
• United Methodist churches perform same-sex weddings with one foot in the closet | Amanda Hess, TBD.com (Sept. 30, 2010)
• UM Judicial Council backs clergy dismissal over affair | Linda Bloom, UMNS (April 27, 2010)
• What the evidence really says about Scripture and homosexual practice: Five issues (PDF) | Robert A. J. Gagnon (March 2009)
• Slavery, homosexuality, and not being of one mind | Riley B. Case, via The Sundry Times (July 1, 2008)
• How churches can refine message on homosexuality | Robin Russell, United Methodist Reporter (May 19, 2008)
• United Methodists uphold homosexuality stance | Robin Russell, United Methodist News Service (April 30, 2008)
• Methodists strengthen stand against homosexual practice | Christianity Today (May 5, 2004)
• Homosexuality and the Great Commandment (an address to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh) | Peter C. Moore (November 2002)
• ‘Good News’ says push to accept homosexual practice threatens to split United Methodist Church | United Methodist News Service (May 6, 1997)
Share:
Twitter13
Facebook51
StumbleUpon
Digg
Posted in Bishops, Book of Discipline, Christian/Methodist History, Church Renewal, Doctrine, Ethics, General Conference, Holiness, Judicial Council, Social Issues, United Methodist Church | Tagged UMC, United Methodist Church | 20 Comments
20 Responses
on July 15, 2011 at 8:21 pmMark
Dr. Case, once again, says it well and says it truthfully. But he (along with many of us) is getting frustrated and demoralized. A very small minority is trying to run the show, and they are doing it arrogantly, with little regard for truth.
Epicurus said “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” Hope can stay alive only so long…
on July 15, 2011 at 10:02 pmRoseyK
Well said! It is frightening that the Book of Discipline is so blatantly disregarded by those who have taken vows to uphold it. Would the same standards apply if a pastor or a bishop were caught stealing, or had an adulterous affair? Hypocrisy abounds!
Sadly, “United” will soon be a thing of the past and the Methodist Church of John Wesley will be doomed.
on July 16, 2011 at 10:22 ampreacherwife
Thank you, Dr. Case. You have clearly stated what I believe most UMC members know to be true — that the denomination itself will implode if the “tares” are not sifted from the “wheat.”
Either we do this now or God will do it later.
on July 16, 2011 at 12:15 pmTony Mitchell
In response to RoseyK, I would hope that if a pastor or a bishop were to be caught stealing or found to have had or be in an adulterous affair then the proper and appropriate actions were taken.
But I am troubled by one aspect of this whole discussion and it has nothing to do with the Bible per se. There are acts of homosexuality in the Bible but they always occur in specific situations that I don’t always feel are related to sexuality.
Slavery is a theme in the Bible, a theme which split this denomination into at least three different denominations for more than 100 years. And yet today, we recognize that slavery is wrong and that the ideas that many in this denomination supported in 1850 were wrong.
I would be willing that this denomination (or many in it) supported the notion some 50 years ago that it was illegal for people of different races to get married. We have since recognized that laws against such marriages were illegal.
Let us suppose that we uphold the Book of Disciple and cast out all those who violate the definition of sexuality as it is now defined. What we will do, if in the future, we find out that our sexuality is genetic? What shall we say to those whom we have cast out?
We have in the past made decisions that we know are wrong. Shall we continue to repeat the past?
on July 16, 2011 at 12:42 pmCC
Excellent comment, Tony. I’m printing it out and posting it on my church bulletin board first thing tomorrow.
I often wonder if the Wesley brothers came back to life and came to the UMC if they would be booted out for their “progressive” ideas today?
Editor’s note: For more on Wesleyan theology and practice, see “Randy Maddox on Methodist ‘Doctrine, Spirit, Discipline,’” a MethodistThinker.com podcast.
For Wesleyan views related to matters of human sexuality, see “A Word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in Singleness” (from John Wesley pamphlet “Thoughts on a Single Life”) and Dr. Ben Witherington’s essay, “Eros Defended or Eros Defiled — What Do Wesley and the Bible Say?”
on July 16, 2011 at 2:57 pmEldon
Dear Riley,
Keep up the good work in uncovering what is really going on in the church. I appreciate your thoughts and your commitment to this effort. God bless you and keep you healthy.
Eldon Reich
Aberdeen, SD
on July 16, 2011 at 6:33 pmMark
The comparison of the church’s position on slavery vs. homosexuality continues to be an old, tired, inaccurate analogy. These issues really are apples and oranges. This comparison continues to be put forward in order to lend credibility to a misinformed line of reasoning.
The entire book of Philemon can be viewed as an argument against slavery. There is absolutely no comparable Biblical analogy with respect to homosexual behavior.
Further, there is no movement to “cast out” anyone because of their sexual behavior. It’s when sin is reinterpreted — disingenuously — to NOT be sin that the problem occurs.
People don’t always choose their attractions, but they do have a choice in what to do about them. The fear of choice is rooted in a phobia of taking responsibility for one’s actions.
A recent book, David Mamet’s The Secret Knowledge, investigates the modern Left’s fear of personal responsibility — instead preferring to attribute their shortcomings to genetics, bad government, bad parenting, bad country, etc.
on July 16, 2011 at 8:21 pmJohn Wilks
Tony,
Not one passage of the Bible ever endorses or approves the type of slavery or servitude which was practiced in the American south. People had to twist the Scriptures to make it appear as if it did.
Likewise, nothing in the Bible ever endorses or approves sexual relations outside of the boundaries of heterosexual marriage. People have to twist the Scriptures to make it appear as if it does.
If anything, the slavery comparison proves favors the Evangelicals in this case, not the Progressives. We are bound by Biblical standards, and when ever the Church tries to apply a convenient, sin-serving hermeneutic we wind up in a schism.
Southern Methodists were committing heresy when they defended the barbaric plantation system. They warped the Bible and theology until they could justify their own sinful, indulgent desires. And that is exactly what is being done by RMN and other such forces today.
on July 17, 2011 at 5:33 pmPhilip Birdsong
It appears the UMC is suffering the same disastrous effects of apathy as our country. How many UMC members actually understand how the denomination is governed, let alone what these people are proposing or voting on?
Sadly, for what seems a majority of congregations, as long “their church” keeps the lights on, they get three hymns, the Lord’s Prayer and a short message (that no one leaving the sanctuary each Sunday can remember a word of), then all is well and we’ll do it all over again next Sunday.
Ask your everyday UMC member what the apportionments are used for or how they are calculated. If that same member knew what their offerings were being used for, do you think they would even care?
The most discouraging fact, however is that as believers we have lost sight of even the simplest of our Lord’s instructions. One my former pastors when asked, what is the purpose of the church, would immediately answer: “To make disciples of Jesus Christ!”
How is it that we have lost sight of this most basic purpose?
on July 17, 2011 at 9:30 pmCC
I posted the comment Tony made (see above) on the church bulletin board. Later, I saw the pastor look at it and take it down. During the sermon, she read it to the congregation as part of her sermon. After she finished reading it the congregation applauded.
The times they are a changing, and despite the narrow minded views of some in this church, as it was one said by a man far, far greater then me: “We shall overcome.”
on July 17, 2011 at 11:30 pmMark
If my congregation applauded the previous comments of Tony I would be forced to conclude that they: a) are unaware of what Scripture, tradition and reason says about homosexual behavior, b) don’t care what the aforementioned teach about homosexual behavior, c) are unclear as to what Tony is suggesting, d) don’t have the mental capacity to discern the difference between behavior and an unavoidable state of existence (i.e., race), e) have a much greater aptitude for feeling than thinking, or f) some combination of the above.
If the Wesley brothers came back today I think they likely would be shocked to see that some people who are leading the church they helped found are casting aside Scriptural admonitions and doing what they think is right “in their own eyes.”
Tony asserts “We have in the past made decisions that we know are wrong. Shall we continue to repeat the past?” The past now includes a verdict which did little more than slap a pastor on the wrist for disregarding a book she swore to uphold. Maybe Tony has a point.
on July 18, 2011 at 10:29 amCC
Gee Mark, a comment filled with nice words but for some reason is void of any real facts! Could it be that the position of the Religious Right cannot be supported by scripture, Methodist historical writings, or just plan common sense?
Well I guess the “evangelicals” can continue to pull the blanket over their heads and hope that the issue goes away. However, the social “vision” of the youth of this country and world sees it differently. Amazing what they think about Jesus compared to what they think about the church.
Mark I really do suggest that you go back and read the sermons delivered by John Wesley. I think you will find out how wrong you are. Of course, that does depend on if you actually read them in their entirety. Strange how many “evangelicals” of the Methodist church I speak with, who are clueless on his and Charles actual words and deeds. I’m amazed at how many are oblivious to the social principles that our church is founded on.
Editor’s note: The first statement of Methodist “Social Principles” dates from 1908 and was therefore not part of the founding documents of the Methodist Episcopal Church (a predecessor denomination of the UMC), which was founded 124 years earlier in 1784. (The Methodist movement itself dates from the 1730s.) The first statement of Social Principles for the United Methodist Church was formulated in 1976.
Several sermons of John Wesley have been featured this year on MethodistThinker.com. They are linked below. Many more can be found at http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/jwesley3.html:
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘Salvation by faith’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘The first doctrine’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘The way to the kingdom’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: The sure cornerstone of our faith
• A word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in singleness
• A word from Mr. Wesley: ‘You must be born again’
• A word from Mr. Wesley: Power over sin
on July 18, 2011 at 12:05 pmRev. Mike Bankston
CC wrote: “The times they are a changing, and despite the narrow minded views of some in this church, as it was one said by a man far, far greater then me: ‘We shall overcome.’”
I never would have thought Scripture would be considered narrow minded. God created Man and Woman to be companions and to “procreate”
Several things in Old Testament (the destruction of Sodom, the Leviticus laws) emphasize God’s displeasure with homosexual relations, but those who want to see the church embrace homosexuality as good always point toward the New Testament and Jesus.
So, what does the NT tell us about homosexuality? First, Jesus is the Son of God and through Him we see God’s redemption through grace. That redemption, by the forgiveness of our sins, restores our relationship with God that was created in Genesis. Forgiveness comes to those who turn to Christ in faith.
There is still God’s judgement, of course. Jesus will separate the sheep and the goats. Viewed the perspective of the New Testament Leviticus shows us how desperately we are incapable of salvation without Jesus — but that doesn’t discount the moral law. Jesus himself said that he did not come to to destroy the law but to fulfill it.
The twisting of Scripture that “progressives” like to use presents an all-encompassing idea of acceptance and that just isn’t so. There is a price to pay for sin, and there are many warnings about false teachers.
It is true that Jesus never addressed homosexuality directly, but he did not have to. In Matthew 19, when asked about divorce, Jesus invokes the continuity in God’s creation and defines marriage in the context of Genesis (“‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate”). Jesus re-emphasizes the pattern given from the beginning.
In writing to the church at Rome, Paul notes that people “exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised.” This verse certainly teaches that there is a “truth about God” that must be taught in the church. We should to be able to discern right from wrong according to the Word.
We are in danger of becoming like the church of Corinth by patting ourselves on the back and saying, “Look at what good Jesus followers we are. We are so accepting of all that we will perform a marriage that goes against what God intends to be a marriage.”
The church should be able to admonish incorrect teaching. If we do not stand up to this movement, then we are discounting the change Jesus makes in the heart and life of a sinner. We are saying, in effect, that Jesus doesn’t fix the brokenness that is sin and so we should celebrate that state of un-repaired sin.
It is time to stand up and recognize the leaven in the loaf before we end up in schism like our brothers and sisters in The Episcopal Church.
on July 18, 2011 at 10:50 pmMark
CC, I’ve read many of John Wesley’s works and I think I am conveying accurately his thinking, particularly about Scripture, which he placed at the pinnacle of authority with respect to Christian teaching.
An excerpt from Mr. Wesley’s pamphlet, “Thoughts on a Single Life,” first published in 1743:
“How shall you preserve this strength and firmness of spirit? Avoid with the utmost care all softness and effeminacy, remembering the express denunciation of an inspired writer that the soft or effeminate “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)…. But I say avoid all pleasure that in anyway hinders you from enjoying him — yea, all such pleasure as does not prepare you for taking pleasure in God…. Indeed, if any will follow Christ, the very first step is to deny himself — to substitute the will of God in the place of his own will as his overriding principle of action. Let him in all things deny his own will, however pleasing, and do the will of God, however painful.”
Here is a thoughtful discussion, published some years ago in Christianity Today, about how John Wesley would have likely approached the subject of homosexuality: “Revelation and Homosexual Experience: What Would John Wesley Have Said About This Debate in the Church?” The author is a member of the Wesleyan Theological Society and the Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies.
on July 19, 2011 at 12:17 amCC
So much wrong with your view, Reverend Bankston. While I could respond with a long “sermon” on the who said what in the Bible, I won’t. Instead, I think the story behind the cover of the May/June Upper Room says it better.
The picture by artist Liz Lemon Swindle: A young woman is appeared to be pushed down on the ground in front of Jesus who is doodling in the sand. What you can see of his face is distress possibly anger. Behind him are several men standing with their arms out with their hands pointing to the women. You cannot see their faces.
The description inside the cover, written by Mona Bagasao-Cave:
Liz Lemon Swindle’s painting reveals a new truth in a familiar story of the woman “caught in adultery.” The woman pushes herself into the ground, trying to distance herself from her accusers. She turns her head away in shame from Jesus, the one who has just refused to condemn her. Eyes stern, Jesus looks at the ground with his hand across his mouth, perhaps to keep from saying more.
I can feel the anger as Jesus waits for the men to respond to his challenge: “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7, nrsv). We see the accusers’ hands trying to deflect the thrust of Jesus’ comment, to turn attention again to the woman. But — in this detail — we can’t see if the accusers are flustered or angry, if they stare lustfully at the woman or look for an opening to get away. We don’t know who they are.
Isn’t this often the case? “Someone” thinks an accused should be exposed and punished. But that someone hides in anonymity, often in a group. They know they would also stand accused if everything about them were known. Are we like them? For me, the answer too often is, “Yes.” Wouldn’t I prefer to be like Jesus? Wouldn’t you?
Now I wonder Reverend, are you sinless in life, in which case I guess it would be OK for you to throw the stones at all of us sinners?
Editor’s note: Here is the biblical account, as recorded in John 8:2-11:
At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”…. [He] said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”….
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus…asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
on July 19, 2011 at 12:33 pmRev. Mike Bankston
CC,
No I am not sinless — and I am so thankful for a savior who has forgiven me for my sins.
This is a beautiful illustration you have put forward, and it accents my previous point. We see the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus by using the law. They bring a woman who was caught in the act of adultery and for Jesus to judge and condemn her. The idea was that because she was caught in an act of adultery, Jesus, under the law would say she needed to be stoned (which was the punishment for the offense).
Of course, they didn’t bring both parties (which was required), but the main idea was to put Jesus in a position to use the law to condemn the woman. Under the law, there is a system of breaking the law and consequences. But with Jesus, there is something else: forgiveness.
In the account Jesus tells the men, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Jesus is making it clear that we are all sinners under the law. We all deserve judgment. But rather than condemning, Jesus offers forgiveness and new life.
Do not miss the whole picture though. Jesus told the woman: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” He did not say “Go now and live your life of sin.”
This emphasizes the point I made earlier. Jesus forgives us and redeems us. We then are called to live in a manner worthy of that forgiveness, which means staying away from sin. After offering forgiveness, Jesus issues the call to obedience.
What is sin? Is it breaking a law? Yes, but it is more. Sin is living outside of the way God intends us to to live. That is, living outside of communion with Him and living in disobedience to His will. Are homosexual acts outside the way God intended people to live? Scripture is clear God created man and woman and he ordained the holy communion of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Jesus re-emphasized this holy design.
Jesus changes hearts and lives everyday. He has been doing that for more than 2,000 years. In Jesus, we are not bound to our sins. Forgiveness issues forth in lives transformed through God’s grace. I do not want to condemn or punish anyone. I simply advocate for the clear biblical teaching that Jesus forgives sinners and changes lives in profound ways.
Paul tells us this in Romans 6:
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,a that we should no longer be slaves to sin — because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
on July 19, 2011 at 3:41 pmpreacherwife
I think the Reverend Bankston’s remarks show a real understanding of the concept of grace. As he notes, let us always remember a crucial point in the account of the woman about to be stoned. Jesus did indeed say, “Neither do I condemn you,” but also said, “Now go and sin no more.”
Jesus recognized that the woman had indeed sinned. He told her to get up out of the dust, and stop wallowing in a life of sin. I am not a great Biblical scholar, but I think I am on safe ground in thinking that Jesus was telling the woman that continuing in sin would carry consequences — she would ultimately condemn herself if she persisted.
on July 20, 2011 at 2:18 amCC
Amazing that you “know” she sinned. I look at it entirely different. We know nothing about the woman, which to me, is the point. Jesus appears to know and understand how this person was brought to him all ready accused, convicted and prepared for punishment. His anger is not towards the woman, but the “judges” who stand behind. Hence, the whole reason for “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw the stone.”
My argument has never been as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin. That is not for me or any other human to judge. The scripture is far from clear on this matter. Anyone who says differently is selling snake oil to the masses.
I refuse, as a heterosexual male married for more 25 years to one woman, to continue to sit in silence as “reverends” like yourself misrepresent the teachings of Jesus to support your argument while ignoring the rest of the Bible. I refuse to allow my children to be subjected to the same vile hypocritical message I was raised under. Nor will I continue to sit as a passive member of a congregation and let hate be spoken from the pulpit.
I find it interesting that this blog and several others like it seem to be obsessed with only one so called “sin,” yet remain virtually silent on the “sins” that affect heterosexual couples. I wonder why that is? Strangely enough, the last two pastors of my church have three divorces between them. I guess we should be stoning them also? Do we stone the teenage daughter of one of them who had a child out of wedlock? After all, it was a sin. Do we stone the child also?
on July 20, 2011 at 3:07 pmJohn Wilks
I agree with preacherwife. Mike Bankston’s post pretty much encapsulates what the Christian attitude should be not only about homosexual relations, but also about all sins and all sinners — by which I mean all persons, myself included.
After all, “sinner” is the most inclusive term I know. It includes every single human being who has ever drawn breath — with a single exception: Jesus of Nazareth.
on July 22, 2011 at 12:58 pmRon
So is the UMC going to go down the same road as the ECLA, PCUSA,UCC, and ECUSA? What a mess.
Why such a problem with the gospel?
There’s nothing new under the sun. Nothing. Just people serving their own desires — spoken against as idolatry.
Comments are closed.
Follow on Twitter
Find on Facebook
Subscribe to podcasts
Get blog updates via e-mail
Prayer of the month
Save us from weak resignation,
To the evils we deplore....
Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
For the facing of this hour.
(From a hymn by Harry E. Fosdick)
Praying for your bishop (PDF)
(a prayer guide by Terry Teykl)
ThinkerTwitter
General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior | Riley B. Case, http://t.co/WupJamEv http://t.co/HMFke5Qu - 7 hours ago
MT @mporeilly: Miss. Conf. to offer MEF money to candidates attending Wesley Biblical Sem.—despite lack of UMC approval http://t.co/5StgqX9P - 2 days ago
Are you a practical atheist? | Dale Tedder's Journal http://t.co/3znoOh4q - 3 days ago
GLAAD attempts smear of Prof. Robert George, Al Mohler, Maggie Gallagher, Chuck Colson, others | The Reformed Pastor http://t.co/ryhVeC7X - 4 days ago
'The Church and Abortion: Rightly Handing the Word of Truth' — a sermon by James V. Heidinger | Lifewatch http://t.co/AFGwutMe (PDF) - 1 week ago
After 2 years of doubt, Evangelical Seminary in Pa. has been re-approved by Univ. Senate of the UMC | Lebanon Daily Nws http://t.co/aX2fz5Vj - 1 week ago
Support the Good News movement
Comments policy
As of Jan. 2012, this blog no longer has a comments section at the end of each post. For an explanation, see here.
To comment, use Facebook.
ThinkerSeek
Search for:
Today's most-viewed
General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior
Why the United Methodist Church cannot condone homosexuality
If defiance continues, United Methodism may come crashing down
Breaking the covenant: Why aren't 'Reconciling' churches being held to account?
Recent posts
General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior
The Communion of Saints: March in Christian history
UMC restructuring: Power shifts, turf battles and trust
The Communion of Saints: February in Christian history
Mission-minded conservative leaders in Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) launch new denomination
Bishop Timothy Whitaker: United Methodists must stand against ‘violence of abortion’
Should we turn control of UMC over to the Council of Bishops?
MLK’s address to the Methodist Student Movement
United Methodists are well-liked, but to what end?
Happy Birthday to The Mission Society
Categories
Bishops
Book of Discipline
Camp Meeting
Christian/Methodist History
Church Development
Church Growth
Church Renewal
Disaster Relief
Discipleship
Doctrine
Ethics
Evangelism
General Conference
Holiness
Judicial Council
Laity
Lay Speaking Ministries
Leadership Development
Media
Missions
MThinker General Annoucements
North Georgia Conference
Ordination
Podcasts
Politics
Prayer
Preaching
Revival
Sermons
Social Issues
Southeastern Jurisdiction
Stewardship
UM Higher Education
United Methodist Church
United Methodist Men
United Methodist Women
Archives
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
Archives - general conference
1996 – Denver
2000 – Cleveland
2004 – Pittsburgh
2008 – Fort Worth
Blogroll
Andrew C. Thompson
Armini.us
‘Five Practices’ Blog
Deeply Committed
Emerging UMC
Every Sphere
Gloria Deo
Incarnatio: The Word Became Flesh
John Meunier
New UMC Church Starts
Save the UMC
The Mission Society Blog
The Sundry Times
Header image of "Le Penseur" ("The Thinker") is via flickr — used with permission of innoxiuss. Image adapted for this site by Gideon.
Blog at WordPress.com.Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)