wfn.org | Commentary: Judicial Council holds church accountable to polity

["NewsDesk" <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>]

Jan. 9, 2004  News media contact: Tim Tanton7(615)742-54707Nashville, Tenn.
7E-mail: newsdesk@umcom.org7	ALL-BGLT {005}

NOTE: A photograph of the Rev. Leicester Longden is available. For further
commentary on this issue, see UMNS #006.
			
A UMNS Commentary
By the Rev. Leicester Longden*

I wholeheartedly welcome a recent decision by the United Methodist Judicial
Council that should provide much-needed clarity in the ongoing debate over
parts of the denomination's Book of Discipline. 

A strongly worded decision reversed and set aside the actions of a conference
committee on investigation and a jurisdictional committee, which had refused
to uphold the Book of Discipline in the case of the Rev. Karen Dammann, a
lesbian pastor in Washington state. 

The Judicial Council sharply warned the lower courts that "nullification of
the Discipline ... is an egregious error of church law." It further cautioned
that members of a committee on investigation who are "unwilling to uphold the
Discipline for reasons of conscience ... must step aside" and other members
should be appointed in order to "enable (the committee) to complete its
responsibility."

Predictably, this has raised cries of anger and protest. The Pacific
Northwest Reconciling Ministries Network published an Internet response in
which it claims to be "saddened, deeply disappointed, and outraged" by the
Judicial Council decision. (The decision, No. 980, was issued at the court's
last meeting in October. See http://umc.org/judicial/900/980.htm.)

The network, and many others who protest the decision, characterized the
church law itself as legalistic and discriminatory. Another principle -
inclusivism - has been elevated as the final judge and arbiter of the
church's agreements. The very concept of a "trial" has been attacked. 

For example, the Rev. Kathryn Johnson, director of Methodist Federation for
Social Action, claims there is "a growing tendency within the United
Methodist Church to resort to trials and litigation as a means of settling
our differences." 

This is an odd way of looking at church discipline. When challenges are made
to the church's doctrine and discipline, how else is discipline performed
than by testing, examining and trying? A "trial" is the procedure a community
uses to determine whether departures from its common discipline are justified
exceptions or unlawful departures.  

There is another contradiction here. When Pastor Dammann wrote her bishop to
declare that she was "living in a partnered, covenanted, homosexual
relationship," it seemed clear she was attempting to test the church's law.
Her bishop, in accordance with church law, filed a formal complaint. 

Yet, the conference and jurisdictional committees that reviewed her case
dismissed the complaint. The Judicial Council set aside the decisions of
these committees because the groups subverted the process of testing. These
lower courts apparently thought that by refusing to act on the complaint they
could set aside the law that had been established by General Conference. 

Such actions are in harmony with an "antinomian" ("anti," against; "nomos,"
the law) element in the church. This attitude has appeared numerous times in
church history. Frequently, it represents an emphasis upon the Spirit, new
revelation and Christian freedom in a way that minimizes or dismisses the
normative character of moral law, particularly that of the Old Testament.

It is the result of a culture that elevates private experience to a point
where it is identified as the "voice of the Spirit." Communal authority is
then regarded as restrictive, rigid, exclusive and oppressive. 

When critics characterize doctrine as "rigid" and "authoritarian," and make
the same claims about church law, they engage in the antinomianism.
Unwittingly, by refusing doctrine and then discipline, they reveal the
intimate relationship between doctrine and discipline. 

Under our traditional understanding of ecclesiology, discipline is doctrine.
Church law is the discipline a community develops in order to remain faithful
to its doctrinal vision of its life together under God.

Of course, not all those who argue for a change in the church's moral
teaching about homosexuality are necessarily opposed to discipline and
doctrine. Clearly, there is room in our church for serious ethical and
theological deliberation about such matters. But when the General Conference
of our church makes a solemn covenant on our common doctrine and discipline,
it is inappropriate for dissenters to claim they are exempt from the
discipline.

When certain groups claim that dissent and "private conscience" are the only
authentic voices, we are observing the historic pattern of antinomianism. And
the Judicial Council's decision has, in fact, helped us to identify that
tendency.

In its decision, the Judicial Council plainly declared that the United
Methodist community of faith has publicly pledged itself to follow in
covenant with a particular vision of biblical discipleship. And then, in
accordance with our own publicly declared "discipline," the court called to
account those who tried to subvert the church's agreed-upon procedures for
holding one another accountable.

This was a wise and courageous decision. It points us to the heart of United
Methodist polity, reminding us that we are to watch over each other in love.

# # #

*Longden is the associate professor of evangelism and discipleship at the
University of Dubuque (Iowa) Theological Seminary. He also is a board member
of the Confessing Movement and a member of the Confessing Theologians
Commission.

 
 

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org