Judicial Council Decision 1032 And Exploiting Ambiguity

The United Methodist Church seems obsessed with the issue of homosexuality. Actually, it is a minority in the church that seems obsessed with homosexuality. Unfortunately, that minority includes persons and groups with some visibility and authority in the church: liberal caucus groups, some agency staff, conference leadership in some conferences, some bishops, and some seminary personnel.

The battle (and unfortunately, it often seems like a “battle”) over homosexuality is taking place on a number of fronts. One of these has to do with Judicial Council ruling 1032. The case involved a pastor, Ed Johnson, of Virginia, who delayed membership to a man who was an open and self-avowed practicing homosexual. The bishop ordered the pastor to receive the man and when the pastor would not defer to the bishop’s orders, the pastor was removed from his pulpit (fired) and discontinued as a minister (it is a bit more complicated than that but those are the basic facts). The bishop argued that the foundational bedrock of United Methodism was inclusivity, referring to Article IV of the Constitution, and that the pastor was required to accept all who were interested in membership.

When the case was referred to the Judicial Council, the council in decision 1032 ruled that the pastor does have authority to determine readiness for membership. Liberals in the church were apoplectic. The fact that, since 1784, the church had always invested the responsibility for membership with the pastor did not seem to matter to people who have made “inclusivity” a new article of faith and believe that history, tradition, and the Discipline itself should be deconstructed to conform to this new interpretation of United Methodism.

The Council of Bishops then joined the battle. In action unprecedented in the history of the church in America, the council made a statement defending the bishop of Virginia, implying that the Judicial Council decision was wrong. The bishops followed this with another unprecedented action: they would not renominate for re-election any of the Judicial Council members who voted with the majority in the decision. In 2008 the General Conference elected a new slate of Judicial Council members whose views were more in line with the “progressive” element of the church.

The progressives in this case were wanting to apply Article IV to a situation that was never anticipated when the article was added to the Discipline. When Article IV was approved in the 1960s it was addressed to a very specific matter facing the church, namely, a prevailing racism that would deny membership in some congregations to persons of color, or more specifically, that would deny membership to blacks in some white churches. This amendment stated that persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition were eligible to be received as members. The article did not refer to matters of belief, standards, or moral practices. Even then the pastor was given responsibility to determine readiness for membership. In a number of cases, this pastoral authority was exercised when African-Americans were granted membership in churches where congregations would have denied membership.

No matter, whatever the history. That was in the days before the obsession with homosexuality. Suddenly, within the past several years, Article IV has been called into service in a way never imagined or intended when the amendment was added to the constitution. In a newly discovered “meaning,” progressives argued that reference to “persons without regard to race, color, or national origin” also included practicing homosexuals. And, it was not just that practicing homosexuals were eligible to be received as members, the paragraph was further interpreted to mean that “practicing homosexuals” must be received and could not be denied membership. Thus, what progressives in the church were not able to accomplish by legislative means could be accomplished by episcopal fiat backed up by a fanciful interpretation on the part of the Judicial Council.

In decision 1032 the Judicial Council refused to be taken in by these developments. Thus the controversy. Decision 1032 did not change the stance of the church in regard to homosexuality or membership at all. All it did was to affirm the pastor’s right to determine readiness for membership. Progressives, however, acted as if the evil forces of reactionism had set in. Because of the ruling of 1032, according to progressives, vindictive pastors would deny membership to persons for whatever reason they chose. Progressives predicted witch hunts and personal biases would be the order of the day. All kinds of worthy people would now be turned away from membership.

It needs to be pointed out that the progressive observation about pastors misusing their authority has been 100% wrong. As far as we know there have been no cases where pastors exercised authority in any way other than the way they have always exercised such authority. Whether they exercise it wisely or not, pastors have the responsibility to determine if persons understand the meaning of membership, understand the beliefs of the church, and have truly accepted Jesus Christ as savior. Otherwise, the church would have no standards at all.

But progressives were determined not to let the matter rest (thus the comment about obsession). To advance their cause an amendment to Article IV was submitted to the 2008 General Conference and approved (with very little debate) by that body with the necessary two-thirds vote. The amendment sought to remove references to race so that “all persons” meant all persons, regardless of what persons believed or practiced, or even whether they had accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Thus, supposedly, in the name of diversity a blow would be struck for the condoning of homosexual practice.

John Wesley would have turned over in his grave. He who emphasized that preachers had “nothing to do but save souls” was now being jettisoned along with everything he taught so that “diversity” would now be inscribed in the constitution as the basis for membership, taking the place of confession in Jesus Christ.

The amendment to article IV, which needed to be ratified by 2/3 of the voting members of annual conferences, failed spectacularly. Needing 2/3 vote in the annual conferences, it failed even to muster a majority. It was, and is, a sharp reminder that the leadership of The United Methodist Church is disconnected with the local church, with the annual conferences, and with the overseas church.

Never mind. Now a new strategy. Several annual conferences now want to put their hopes for de-constructing the traditions of the church on the new Judicial Council. Four different annual conferences passed petitions requesting the Judicial Council to revisit decision 1032.

One of these is worth looking at. The North Illinois Annual Conference petitioned the Judicial Council to consider whether Judicial Council decision 1032 is superseded by Para. 225 in the Discipline. Para. 225 states that a member in good standing in any Christian denomination who has been baptized and who desires to be united with The United Methodist Church shall be received as members. The 2008 General Conference added the word shall, again, in an effort to institutionally force “inclusivity.”

The question is mute, of course, because decision 1032 was made before the word shall in para. 225 was placed in the Discipline. It would only be a relevant question if a similar Ed Johnson case were now presented to the Judicial Council.

But para. 225 illustrates the problem of ambiguity that characterizes so many parts of the Discipline. The same paragraph that uses the word shall also uses the word may (persons may be received). The intent of the paragraph is to recognize the validity of church membership and baptism in other denominations. Is it now to be re-interpreted to mean much more than it was ever intended to mean, that a church or a pastor may inquire into the faith of a person being received by profession of faith, but may not inquire into the faith and beliefs of a possible transfer? And what is a Christian denomination? Do we include Mormons, Unitarians, Seventh-Day Adventists, United Pentecostals (who do not baptize in the name of the triune God)? And what about persons baptized in a name other than the triune God (“Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” would be an example)?

And who is a member in good standing? In the actual Ed Johnson case that was an important part of the issue. The person seeking membership was hardly in good standing in the previous church (actually two churches) which basically asked him to leave because he was being disruptive.

The point to be made is that the church is not served well by exploiting the ambiguity of the Discipline. The church has been very intentional and specific about its stand on sexual practice. It has a long-standing tradition of allowing the plain meanings of the Discipline to bind United Methodists together as a church. It can only be understood as obfuscation and divisive when progressives want to argue that these meanings should be negated because words and phrases like “self-avowed” and “practicing” and “status” cannot legally be defined, or when portions of the Discipline are used in ways other than how they were intended. It is no wonder we are presently dealing with a lack of trust in our leadership and in the church as an institution. Integrity seems in short supply.

The Judicial Council will be dealing with the requests of the progressives at its October meeting.

Stay tuned.