wfn.org | [UMNS-ALL-NEWS] UMNS# 052-Appeals ask Judicial Council to reconsider

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>]

Appeals ask Judicial Council to reconsider two decisions

Jan. 27, 2006

NOTE: A photograph and an illustration are available at
http://umns.umc.org.

A UMNS Report
By Neill Caldwell*

United Methodist leaders in Virginia have filed requests for
reconsideration of two Judicial Council decisions that have stirred
debate within the church on the issues of homosexuality and pastoral
authority.

Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, who leads the Richmond (Va.) Area, and the
Virginia Annual (regional) Conference Board of Ordained Ministry have
separately filed motions for reconsideration of Decisions 1031 and 1032.
Both rulings relate to the Rev. Ed Johnson, senior pastor at South Hill
(Va.) United Methodist Church, who was placed on involuntary leave last
summer by the clergy executive session of the Virginia Conference for
refusing to admit a practicing gay man into membership at the church.

At its Oct. 26-29 meeting in Houston, the Judicial Council ruled in
favor of Johnson, reinstating him with all salary and benefits. As a
result, Kammerer reappointed Johnson to South Hill Church.

Council President James Holsinger has placed the motions for
reconsideration on the non-docket agenda for the court's spring session,
set for April 26-28 in Kansas City, Mo. That means that at least five
members must agree to reconsider the decisions.

The Rev. Keith Boyette, secretary of the council, has instructed the
other parties in these two matters, including Johnson, to file any
written response to the motions within 30 days. The motions and briefs
will be delivered to the council's nine members for consideration once
the 30-day period has expired.

Under Judicial Council rules, only parties directly involved in rulings
may file appeals.

"After very careful and prayerful review of the Judicial Council
Decisions 1031 and 1032, I made the decision to ask for reconsideration,
which is within the rules and procedures of the Judicial Council,"
Kammerer said in a statement issued Jan 27.

"As a matter of integrity and keeping faith with my understanding of the
Virginia case, it is crucial for the Judicial Council to review its own
rulings, which have brought harm to the Body of Christ represented in
the United Methodist Church," she said.

Errors in the process

Johnson's case involved an openly gay man who was participating in the
South Hill church and wanted to transfer his membership from another
denomination. The man's sexual orientation was a significant part of
discussions between the lay person and the pastor, and Johnson
ultimately refused to receive the man into membership because he said
the man would neither repent nor seek to live a different lifestyle.
Johnson's district superintendent contacted the bishop, starting a
disciplinary process that resulted in Johnson being placed on
involuntary leave last June by a vote of his fellow clergy.

Decision 1031 dealt with how Johnson was disciplined. The council found
errors in the process, mainly that the Virginia Conference's board of
ordained ministry transformed an administrative complaint into a
chargeable offense - which is a judicial complaint - and therefore did
not have any authority to take action.

The original complaint against Johnson, "unwillingness to perform
ministerial duties," is an administrative complaint under Paragraph
362.2 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The council said
Kammerer correctly ruled that it was an administrative complaint. In its
presentation to the clergy session, however, the board of ordained
ministry changed the complaint to a charge of disobedience, which is
covered by Paragraph 2702.1(e). According to the Discipline, a board of
ordained ministry does not have the authority to consider a judicial
complaint.

The more controversial Decision 1032 said the Book of Discipline
"invests discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make determination of a
person's readiness to affirm the vows of membership." Paragraphs 214 and
225 of the Discipline are "permissive, and do not mandate receipt into
membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm
membership vows," the council said.

The ruling went on to say that the "pastor in charge cannot be ordered
by the district superintendent or bishop to admit into membership a
person deemed not ready or able to meet the requirements of the vows of
church membership. ... 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."

In a Nov. 2 pastoral letter approved unanimously by the Council of
Bishops, the church's top clergy leaders disagreed, saying that "pastors
are accountable to the bishop, superintendent and the clergy on matters
of ministry and membership." The letter also emphasized that "while
pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership,
homosexuality is not a barrier for membership."

The Rev. Tom Thomas, a Virginia pastor who spoke on Johnson's behalf
during oral arguments before the court in October, said that "bishops
and district superintendents are not authorized to take charge of the
issue of membership. There is no authority to tell pastors who to bring
in as members."

Kammerer's concerns

In a statement issued Jan. 27, Kammerer cited several concerns related
to the decisions. Regarding 1031, she said errors were made in the
council's statement of facts; a chargeable offense not listed in
Paragraph 2702 of the Book of Discipline was used by the council in its
decision; and a statement of background information "was used as if it
were a decision of law and the case was treated as a matter of appeal of
fair process instead of a decision of law."

With 1032, Kammerer said the Judicial Council did not refer to Article 4
in the church's Constitution regarding inclusiveness, which would have
taken precedence over the two paragraphs cited in the decision.

Kammerer also said the church's Constitution "makes a strong declaration
that the United Methodist Church is a part of the Church Universal,
which is One Body in Christ. The particular layman denied membership was
already a member in good standing of the Church Universal. All the
United Methodist Church membership ritual calls for is that such a
person promise loyalty to the United Methodist Church."

The Book of Discipline does not give discretion to the pastor "to make
the determination of a person's readiness to affirm the vows of
membership," Kammerer said. The Discipline grants discretion in two
specific instances - Paragraphs 216.3 and 224 - and "further application
would appear to require the action of the General Conference" - the
denomination's lawmaking body, she said.

Routine docket

Apart from these appeals, the Judicial Council has a short and routine
docket for its spring meeting. Council members will hear:

"	A request from the Dakotas Conference for a decision on
Amendment VII to the church's Constitution regarding voting rights of
members of the annual conferences. The amendment, adopted by the
denomination's top lawmaking assembly, was ratified by the annual
conferences in 2005 and verified this month by the Council of Bishops.

"	Appeals of two separate bishop's decisions of law in the Western
Michigan Conference, one related to the conference parsonage standards,
and the other concerning funds held in escrow by the conference's United
Methodist foundation. The council reviews all bishops' decisions of law.

"	A request from the California-Pacific Conference on Paragraph
324.14 of the Book of Discipline and withdrawal of a recommendation for
probationary membership by the conference board of ordained ministry in
response to the lack of an appointment for a candidate for ministry.

"	A request from the California-Pacific Conference concerning
Paragraph 327 of the Book of Discipline with respect to the
discontinuance of a probationary member who has continued on probation
beyond eight regular sessions of the annual conference.

"	A review of a bishop's decision of law in the Rocky Mountain
Conference related to whether elders and licensed local pastors may be
permitted to waive compensation under the conference's clergy minimum
compensation plan.

"	A review of a bishop's decision of law in the Mississippi
Conference regarding the removal of trees from the property of a local
church.

*Caldwell is a freelance writer based in High Point, N.C.

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