wfn.org | [UMNS-ALL-NEWS] UMNS# 661-Commentary: Council stands guilty of

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>]

Commentary: Council stands guilty of legislating from bench

Nov. 29, 2005

NOTE: A photograph, related stories and an additional commentary are
available at http://umns.umc.org.

A UMNS Commentary
By Jim Lane*

A lot has been in the news lately about selecting candidates for
appointment to the United States Supreme Court. One of the most often
heard criteria is that the person be someone who will not "legislate
from the bench."

The role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to
adjudicate cases based on whether or not they meet the test of
constitutional application.

In a recent ruling, the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church
(our highest judicial body) issued a ruling that, in my opinion, was
blatantly "legislating from the bench."

A pastor of a United Methodist church denied membership to a person who
came into the church, joined the choir, and became a part of the
fellowship, because the pastor found out that the person was a
homosexual.

Paragraph 4, Article IV, of our church Constitution, contained in the
Book of Discipline says: "The United Methodist Church is a part of the
church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist
Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons
without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic
condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate
in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as
baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith,
become professing members in any local church in the connection. In The
United Methodist Church, no conference or other organizational unit of
the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any
constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin,
status or economic condition.

Key words in the second and third sentences are "all persons." I do not
think that the caveat "without regard ..." was ever meant to be
exclusive of any characteristic not stated.

In my humble opinion, Article IV of our Constitution sets the precedent
for anything that follows, in the Discipline, relating to church
membership. The pastor in question, the Rev. Ed Johnson of South Hill,
Va., should have applied this prior to his decision to deny membership.
I would think that this statement on inclusiveness would "trump" any
further disciplinary definition, such as the one Pastor Johnson and the
Judicial Council hung their hats on.

In the decision dealing with the authority of a pastor, the council's
ruling stated that Paragraphs 214 and 225 of the Book of Discipline are
"permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons
regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows." The
operative word in both paragraphs, the ruling says, is that persons
"may" become members. Decision 930 established the premise that "shall"
cannot be used to replace "may" in the Discipline. Thus the General
Conference has determined that any person "may" become a member of any
local church in the connection. This also applies to people who want to
transfer into the United Methodist Church from another denomination, as
was the case in Virginia, the council ruled.

Who are the judge and jury in our church when the paragraph says "may?"
What was the mind of the General Conference when the "may" was inserted
in these paragraphs pertaining to membership? Did it depend on a
decision on the part of the person coming for membership or a decision
by the clergy person?

The Judicial Council has now determined that the local pastor is the
judge and jury, no matter what his district superintendent and bishop
may advise or direct in the matter - or, for that matter, what the
members of the congregation might think.

This ruling by our Judicial Council could start a witch hunt in the
church. Suppose that this person had admitted to infidelity within a
heterosexual relationship or admitted to committing a crime of theft?

This debate makes you wonder just whose church this is. We seem so proud
of our open communion and open baptism. Our national media campaign
talks about open doors, open hearts, and open minds. Who are we kidding?
We only mean that if "whoever" is just like us (whatever that is).

I have been honored to be a part of the delegation to the General
Conference five times.	Each time, this topic has been debated and
debated, and what we now have in our Book of Discipline is our effort to
state what we, at this point in history, believe about it.

There is one thing that I have never heard or read in all of my
experience in dealing with these issues at the General Conference, and
that was that we would deny membership to anyone because we knew of a
particular thing about them that we perceived as "sin."

Our biblical and historical mandate as a people called Methodist has
always been to receive people just as they are, relate them to a loving
God, train them to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and then send them out
to lead others to the water that quenches all thirsts.

Our Judicial Council has failed us in this decision.  Immediate plans
should be made to appeal the decision and give the church an opportunity
to dialogue with this group of people who serve at our pleasure (we
elect them at the General Conference) and let them know that we do not
want them "legislating from the bench."

Judge Jon R. Gray, a Judicial Council member and a sitting judge in
Kansas City, said this about the decision in his dissenting opinion:
"Having fully mastered the difficult task of judicial interpretation, my
colleagues in the majority have now chosen to direct their talents to
the meticulous work of authoring legislation. I choose not to join them
in that endeavor."

When the council members said in their decision that the "operative word
... is that persons 'may' become members," they went far beyond the
intent of any preceding General Conference in addressing the issue of
eligibility for membership in the church.

In my opinion, the "may" is now and always has been answered by a loving
and caring Savior.

*Lane, of Sherwood, Ark., is staff associate for the Witness program at
the Foundation for Evangelism and is past president of the National
Association of Annual Conference Lay Leaders. A five-time General
Conference delegate, he delivered the Laity Address to the 1996
assembly. He can be reached at jim@jimlane.org.

News media contact: Tim Tanton, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or
newsdesk@umcom.org.

********************

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

----------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, go to UMCom.org, log in to your account,
click on the My Resources link and select the Leave option on the list(s)
from which you wish to unsubscribe. If you have problems or questions, please
write to websupport@umcom.org.

Powered by United Methodist Communications http://www.UMCom.org