logo

PASTORAL LEADERSHIP AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
By Gregory D. Stover

John Wesley had only one condition previously required for those who wished to be admitted to the United Societies (small groups) of Methodism: "A desire to flee from the wrath to come, a desire to be saved from their sins." Yet, Wesley quickly added that "wherever this is really fixed in the soul it will be shown by its fruits." Repentance is one variety of those fruits. Further, Wesley required that those seeking membership respond to a series of probing questions including: "Have you the forgiveness of your sins?

Has no sin, inward or outward, dominion over you?" This is language of justifying grace. If clear lack of repentance and faith was apparent, admission was denied. If members failed to progress in sanctifying grace they were disciplined, and even expelled, from the societies.

In similar fashion, our United Methodist vows of membership place repentance in the first position. Persons to be received into membership in a local United Methodist congregation covenant together with God and the members of the local church to keep the vows, including the first: To renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of the world, and repent of their sin.

In the circumstance that generated Judicial Council Decision 1032, the man who presented himself for membership was a practicing homosexual. The United Methodist Book of Discipline is clear in stating that while "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth" and "all persons need the ministry and guidance 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," yet "the United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching."

Consistent with Wesley's offering of the means of grace to all, the elder in charge welcomed the man to the worship, sacraments, fellowship, and programs of the church. However, in light of our Methodist heritage and the clear statement of the Discipline, the pastor recognized that examination of readiness for assuming the vows of membership was needed if the church was to be both a redeemed and redeeming fellowship. To offer grace without repentance is to reduce grace to mere acceptance without the power of the Holy Spirit to produce holiness of heart and life.

Pastoral leadership

Paul, the apostle, exhorted the Ephesian elders in his farewell address: "Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28). Pastoral ministry is far more than a matter of overseeing programs or supervising an organization. Pastors serve as shepherds overseeing the spiritual progress of persons of sacred worth. If membership in the church is vitally related to the operation of God's grace and our human response of repentance, then pastoral leaders within the United Methodist ministry serve as co­workers with God. They are partners of the Holy Spirit in offering a listening and sensitive heart, counseling, guiding, encouraging, and offering spiritual direction to those in whom God's grace is working for salvation. The work of a shepherd involves both compassionate support and correction offered with love and winsomeness.

These duties and responsibilities (and others) are delineated under a fourfold ministry of Word, Sacrament, Order, and Service, in somewhat more functional language in Par. 340 of the Discipline. This paragraph, in concert with the biblical understanding of the pastor as overseer of the church, defines the pastor as the administrative officer of the local church given responsibility to administer the provisions of the Discipline. In reviewing this paragraph, the Judicial Council noted that "the appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into membership of a local church." The ruling of the Judicial Council is consistent with the biblical image of pastor as overseer. It rightly discerns the duties of the pastor regarding reception of members into the church.

Some argue that the language of the Discipline related to these duties as administrative officer is poorly written and ambiguous. There is truth in this assertion. The Discipline could be improved by more precisely spelling out that administrative oversight includes discernment of readiness for ministry. However, the ruling of the Judicial Council is in harmony with understanding and practice of Methodism across more than two hundred years of history.

The authority of the pastor to exercise responsible judgment in determining readiness for membership in the local church plays a critical role in the pastoral work of providing spiritual guidance and counsel. Without opportunity for that discernment, the ability of the pastor to interact dynamically and redemptively with persons seeking membership would be hindered. Imagine that the Conference were to change the language of the Discipline to mandate that all persons who express willingness to assume the vows (regardless of questions of lifestyle, behavior, or attitude concerning the faith and teachings of the church) "shall" be received as members of the church. Of course, pastors could still have conversations with persons seeking membership. In the end, however, any behavior, attitude, or belief would have to be accepted into the church so long as the aspiring member was willing to publicly assume the vows. 

Consider a few brief examples:

. A neighborhood resident who has been attending a particular local church for several years without seeking membership learns that the congregation is contemplating selling a portion of their land to a real estate developer. The resident, who opposes the transaction, contacts the pastor and insists on immediately being received into membership in order to have voting rights in the upcoming church conference.

. A member of the community seeks to hold a wedding in a local church. Upon learning that the local church offers lower rates to members than non-members, membership is sought to gain access to the lower rates despite the fact that the person has no intention of keeping the vows.

. A woman is a member of a local church and has just been through a messy and painful divorce which her husband pursued with rancor and vindictiveness. No sooner is the divorce finalized than the husband comes seeking membership in his ex-wife's local church for apparently no other reason than the desire to heap one more discomfort on her.

These three examples may seem far-fetched, yet are all real and occurred in recent years. Undoubtedly, numerous other examples could be cited. If the pastor cannot exercise responsible judgment, or if the power of decision regarding readiness for membership resides solely in the hands of the person seeking membership, there is nothing to prevent any of the persons mentioned above from using membership in the church to accomplish their own ends. The integrity of membership and the covenant of the church would be compromised.

The exercise of pastoral judgment in matters of membership need not imply frequent exclusion of persons from membership. In the case that led to Judicial Council Decision 1032, the person seeking membership was committed to a homosexual lifestyle in contradiction to our United Methodist understanding of homosexual practice as incompatible with Christian teaching. 

Had there been evidence of even a partial repentance, other creative pastoral responses would readily become visible. For example, had the person seeking membership even tentatively acknowledged a need for change a pastor might have responsibly continued the work of preparation for membership, provided additional counsel and resources, or perhaps even received the person into membership in anticipation of the work of God's grace coming to fruition. Pastoral discretion makes possible a pastoral response and application of the spirit of the Discipline rather than a merely juridical one which either requires or forbids reception into membership.

Episcopal oversight

Judicial Council Decision 1032 brought a swift and passionate response from the Council of Bishops. The concerns expressed in the bishops' pastoral letter were twofold: an urgent desire to affirm that homosexuality is not a bar to membership, and anxiousness to affirm "the Wesleyan practice that pastors are accountable to the bishop, district superintendent, and the clergy on matters of ministry and membership."

Since the decision of the Judicial Council others have raised concerns that "the kind of pastoral autonomy that is established.by Decision 1032, has at least the potential to degenerate into pastoral tyranny.Decision 1032 creates a de facto (if not de jure) congregationalism within the United Methodist Church that is entirely inconsistent with the historic connectionalism of the United Methodist polity.It creates a situation in which there are absolutely no controls on the decisions that individual pastors may make about who is and who is not 'ready' (or 'fit' or 'worthy') to become a member of the United Methodist Church" (Rex D. Matthews's open letter to the United Methodist Council of Bishops).

Were this the case, the result would constitute a damaging blow to our clergy covenant, our connectional polity, and the ability of bishops to provide oversight of pastoral ministry. However, it is not the case.

Jesus Christ is the one and only head of the church. Since the earliest church certain persons have been set apart for ministries of supervision and oversight in the church. Bishops (and district superintendents by extension) are set apart as representatives of Christ to provide this apostolic leadership in the church.

However, episcopacy within the United Methodist Church varies significantly from expressions of episcope in other parts of the Christian church. As William Everett and Thomas Frank point out in Connectionalism: Ecclesiology, Mission, and Identity, United Methodist episcopacy reflects the synthesis of varying polities that characterize United Methodism. On one hand bishops are empowered by the Constitution to appoint ministers to charges and are granted life tenure. These are characteristic of a monarchical episcopacy. On the other hand, the authority of bishops to ordain is provided not in the Constitution but in the legislative paragraphs on the presidential duties of bishops. United Methodist bishops are not granted unique authority to confirm new members as in the Anglican tradition. The Discipline makes clear that bishops do not form a distinct order, but remain a part of the body of elders. These latter features are marks of the corporate episcope which is one of the defining characteristics of episcopal leadership within the United Methodist Church. Episcopal authority is invested not solely in individual bishops, but in the Council of Bishops, which is to act in covenant with one another and the church. In turn, the Council is accountable to exercise general superintendency and oversight consistent with the connectional covenant as defined by the General Conference on behalf of all United Methodists and as set forth in the Book of Discipline.

One of the most troubling aspects of the events leading up to Decision 1032 was that the supervisory response of the Bishop and District Superintendent, if followed, would have had the effect of forcing an elder to receive a person into membership who was openly unrepentant about living in a manner declared by the Discipline and the covenant community to be incompatible with Christian teaching. Even episcopal leaders do not have authority to require pastors to act in contravention of the Discipline.

Likewise, in exercising responsible pastoral judgment, a pastor is not free to act on personal prejudice or whim, or to exercise that discernment in ways contrary to the Discipline. The same paragraph of the Discipline Par. 161 G that identifies homosexual practice as incompatible with Christian teaching, also calls for offering God's grace and the ministry of the church to homosexual persons. Were the elder to withhold membership from a person based only on their sexual orientation or preference the bishop's supervisory response would be consistent with the disciplines of the church. In the same way, if membership were to be denied on the basis of race, ethnicity, economic status, or any other category identified in Par. 4, Article IV of the Constitution, episcopal intervention would be warranted.

Judicial Council Decision 1032 neither undermines episcopal authority nor removes from bishops the responsibility to appropriately supervise pastors in matters of membership. Rather it sets pastoral authority and episcopal oversight in the context of their larger accountability to our connection and covenant as clergy and laity together in the ministry of Christ.

Concluding observations

The Judicial Council, in providing a ruling, carefully focused on issues of pastoral discretion as the administrative officer and the permissive language of Par. 214, has given the United Methodist Church wise and balanced guidance. Working within the teaching of the United Methodist Church regarding the practice of homosexuality, the Judicial Council has nonetheless affirmed a significant latitude in pastoral response. General Conference 2008 could (and undoubtedly will be asked to) make changes that tip the balance and could lead to serious unintended consequences.

For example, changing "may" language to "shall" language in Par. 214 may ensure that practicing homosexuals are received into membership. The unintended consequence may be that neither pastors and bishops nor local church leaders would be able to exercise any real examination of readiness for membership. Rather, anyone willing to say the vows will be able to become a member even if their motivations are totally suspect or self-serving.

Likewise, some may wish to push for explicit prohibitions to receiving a practicing homosexual into membership. The unfortunate consequence would be a loss of pastoral discretion and with it the ability of pastors to respond dynamically and creatively to each circumstance as it presents itself.

Decision 1032 allows the church to invite persons to repentance and offer the grace of God in all its pardoning mercy and empowering love. It positions the United Methodist Church to maintain the biblical standards of a redeemed fellowship while engaging those in the world-parish with the grace-filled love of the Redeeming One.

Gregory D. Stover is senior pastor of Armstrong Chapel United Methodist Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is a former district superintendent and has served as a delegate to both General and Jurisdictional conferences. This article is a condensation of a lengthier essay that was presented to a consultation sponsored by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry to consider the implications of Judicial Council Decision 1032 (the Ed Johnson case). The major presentations can be read in their entirety by going to the following website: www. gbhem.org/asp/resourceLibrary.asp.



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

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine