It is hard to believe that one pastor's decision in Virginia about the meaning of membership would suddenly plunge the UMC into a possible constitutional crisis.  A man attending Rev. Ed Johnson's church desired to become a member.  This person voluntarily admitted that he was a practicing homosexual.  Our church has stated clearly and repeatedly that this behavior is incompatible with Scripture and with Christian teaching.  Rev. Johnson insisted that this person's membership request be delayed so that he could receive further counsel.  At that point, Bishop Charlene Kammerer declared the pastor to be in violation of church law.  Rev. Johnson was brought to trial, declared guilty, and removed from his pulpit.  Subsequently, the Judicial Council (in Ruling 1032) overturned the decision, declaring that Johnson had the right and responsibility to make the decision concerning a person's readiness for church membership.

Now a number of petitions before General Conference (GC) are in response to Ruling 1032.  Several invite the GC to overturn 1032 through constitutional means (See petition # 80021, 80962, 81104 & 81157, on DCA pages 952-5).  Still other petitions propose changing language so that any person willing to recite the membership vows would be automatically received (See petition # 81268, on DCA page 1332).

Decision 1032 did not create church law or set new standards.  The Council found that both the Book of Discipline and our church's history and tradition have extended to clergy the authority and responsibility to determine a prospective member's readiness for membership.  For example, in the 1910 Book of Discipline, this matter is addressed in a question and answer format:

QUESTION: How shall members be received into the Church?

ANSWER: When persons offer themselves for Church membership, let the preacher in charge inquire into their spiritual condition, and receive them into the Church when they have given satisfactory assurances of their desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins; also, of the genuineness of their faith, and of their willingness to keep the rules of the Church; and only after they have been instructed in the rules of the Church and the baptismal and Church vows, and have agreed to accept and observe them."

If the UMC, for the first time in its history, were to take away the pastor's responsibility for assessing one's readiness for membership, who would take over that responsibility?  Surely not the bishop.  Surely not the district superintendent.  Would it be wise to appoint a committee in each local church for this purpose?  I doubt it.  Or, should we just drop all membership standards and admit anyone who applies?  Heaven forbid!

The plain truth is that this time-honored duty of pastors has been handled faithfully and well, with very few exceptions.  Indeed, if the issue of homosexuality had not been part of the scenario, there would have been no controversy.

The church will be blessed if General Conference leaves the discretion concerning readiness for membership where it has always been, in the hands of faithful pastors.

Please feel free to pass this along to other members of your delegation if you care to. 

    A report, “Operational Assessment of the Connectional Church,” conducted by an...

   More Christians were martyred in the 20th Century than in the previous nineteen...

    I was speaking with a fellow pastor several years ago and inquired whether he...