Untitled Document

During the first week of November, just after the Judicial Council posted decisions from its fall meeting, the United Methodist Church hyperventilated.

The Council of Bishops was meeting that week at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, and went into Executive Session several times to discuss and prepare a "Pastoral Letter," in response particularly to Judicial Council Decision 1032 (see news story on p. 33). That decision, as we all know by now, affirmed 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 (Par. 217)." For many of us, this seemed to be a given. Who else other than the senior pastor of a local church is prepared, qualified, and authorized to make such a determination?

In Good News' initial response to the Pastoral Letter (see statement on our website), I expressed our disappointment about the lack of clarity in the letter. It has left many United Methodists confused, troubled, and disappointed. While not saying explicitly that they disagreed with Decision 1032, the bishops said things that implied they did, in fact, disagree with it.

The letter seems to agree at one point with the Judicial Council, stating, "While pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership.," but then says just several sentences later, "We also affirm our Wesleyan practice that pastors are accountable to the bishop, superintendent, and the clergy on matters of.membership." Well, which is it? This sends a confusing message.

Again, the Bishops' Pastoral says, "While pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a barrier." This is problematic because it does not clarify whether it means homosexual orientation or homosexual practice. This is not an insignificant point. The Discipline states it is the "practice" which is "incompatible with Christian teaching," not orientation.

But if the Pastoral itself was not clear, individual bishops were crystal clear that they disagreed strongly with the Judicial Council's ruling.

. Bishop Minerva Carcano (Phoenix Area) told her conference in her message accompanying the Pastoral Letter, "That decision was wrong in its interpretation of our beliefs concerning membership in the church." No uncertainty there.

. Bishop John Schol (Washington Area) expressed to his conference "Methodism is in danger of becoming as pharisaic as the religious leaders during the time of Jesus."

. Bishop Janice Riggle Huie (Texas Conference), who led the writing team for the Council, told The United Methodist Reporter that the decision gave the appearance that a pastor can independently exclude homosexuals from membership. "We wanted to make clear that the United Methodist Church is still open to all people," she said.

The lack of clarity in the Pastoral letter is unfortunate, even embarrassing. An article in The New York Times described the Pastoral Letter as "a unanimous rebuttal." If the bishops meant for it to be a rebuttal, it is too bad they didn't come out and say so forthrightly. The Times article noted that even bishops from socially conservative parts of the country as well as African bishops joined in affirming the statement. (One has trouble believing our African bishops don't see homosexual "practice" as a barrier to membership.)

The truth is, the Pastoral Letter has not been well received across the church. One district superintendent sent it out to his pastors urging them to read it from the pulpit the next Sunday. Several days later, he wrote again cautioning that pastors may want to use their own discretion about whether they read it or not. Being interpreted, that means "the Pastoral Letter has upset a lot of folks so you might want to think twice about reading it publicly."

What, then, might be said about this whole controversy?

First, it is regrettable that the Council of Bishops rushed so frantically to respond. One wonders if all the bishops had even read the full text of the decision and had time to process what it said. It seems they hurriedly threw together an unclear and unthoughtful statement. Their Pastoral Letter was out within two days of the decision being posted. One recalls the Council's ten-month silence in 1994 following the heretical and offensive Re-Imagining Conference, as the church waited from January (when the story broke) until November for the Council finally to make an official (and disappointing) response.

Second, it is unfortunate that bishops and other leaders continue to interpret Decision 1032 as one that creates a barrier to all gays and lesbians from being members of the United Methodist Church. One district superintendent wrote to his pastors, "To refuse membership to a person solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is wrong." Again, orientation is not the issue.

Because of such responses, the Rev. Keith Boyette wrote a Concurring Opinion for the Judicial Council (added to Decision 1032 several days later), "As one can plainly see from the Decision and Digest.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."

However, Boyette did go on to write that "Par. 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." He cited Par. 138 of the Discipline, which 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." To speak of meeting the "requirements" indicates there are, indeed, substantive requirements to meet in being considered for membership. Without "requirements," membership and vows made publicly before the congregation would mean absolutely nothing.

Third, for many of us, continued unrepentant homosexual practice creates a problem in one's ability to take the vows of membership with integrity (see vows in Par. 217). One of our bishops has indicated she did not consider either homosexual orientation or practice to be a barrier to church membership. That seems for many of us to be a problem.

Boyette also addresses this issue in his Concurring Opinion, noting that the local church, through its pastor and agencies, are to hold members accountable (see Par. 221) to the vows of membership outlined in Par. 217. He notes that to receive into membership a person who continued in homosexual practice would result in this conflicted scenario: one would take the vows of membership as per Par. 217, but then immediately be subject to charges as per Par. 221.5 because of one's engaging in a practice that is "incompatible with Christian teaching," which simply means sinful or immoral. The charge cited in Par. 2702.3 would be, a) immorality. Such a scenario would be senseless. Any caring pastor would know that such a person is not yet ready for the vows of membership.

John Stott, in his commentary on the book of Romans, cites Bishop Handley M-oule who a century ago said we must "beware equally of an undevotional theology and of an untheological devotion." I fear United Methodism's loss of scriptural authority has left us with "an untheological devotion."

Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Editorial By James V. Heidinger II

The Judicial Council and the Bishops' Pastoral

Editorial
By James V. Heidinger II