UMC's Judiciary Upholds Anti-Gay Ruling

Last Fall, the United Methodist Church, in its highest court called the Judicial Council, issued a judgment that a pastor has the sole authority to keep a gay man from obtaining membership in the UMC. While those of you in congregational systems may ask why this is a problem, the UMC is a connectional system whereby pastors are accountable to other pastors and bishops and such. Hence, this ruling violates the systems of accountability in the name of homophobia.

Needless to say, there have been a huuuge response from pastors, laity, organizations , and unsolicited signatures of over 2500 Methodists regarding this decision.

It is then with great sorrow that I condemn the upholding of this decision by the Judicial Council...what a horrible horrible shame!!

LINK: Judicial Council Upholds Anti-Gay Ruling

More background on this Council session: link

Prior to the event, the Council was swarmed with petitions, letters, personal stories, fine points of law, and many other pieces of Methodist experience. In fact, 2500 people signed the HereWeStand declaration that this blogger has been mentioning several times.

As the Judicial Council of the UMC began its meeting at 2 pm on April 26th, they did so with the knowledge that thousands of United Methodists are deeply disturbed by the decisions they made last fall resulting in the removal of the clergy orders of the Rev. Beth Stroud and in supporting the actions of a pastor who denied membership to a man in his congregation based on his sexual identity.

For the last several months, UMs across the country have been reading and endorsing the document, Here We Stand (www.herewestandumc.org), originally signed by 17 United Methodist leaders and then endorsed by over 2,500 United Methodists. The document calls upon:

* the Judicial Council to reconsider and reverse Decision 1032 forthwith;
* the Council of Bishops to advocate forcefully and continuously for a fully inclusive church; and
* the General Conference to remove all discriminatory language from the Book of Discipline at its 2008 session.

Prior to the Judicial Council meeting, an email containing the statement and nearly 2,500 endorsing signatures was emailed to the Secretary of the Judicial Council for distribution to its members. Hard copies (each some 75 pages long with signatures and comments) was delivered by Amy Stapleton, National Organizer for the Methodist Federation for Social Action, to each member of the Council as they began their meeting.

Witness at the event was amazing. Amy Stapleton, part of the witness and response from MFSA, reflects:

Throughout the two-day meeting we stood in prayerful vigil as the Council met. As the vigil proceeded, we prayed for each of the Judicial Council members by name. At the close of the meeting, those of us participating in the vigil were invited into the meeting room to share in a joint communion led by Bishop Fritz Mutti. The Rev. Dr. Myron McCoy, President of St. Paul School of Theology, shared with the group a passage from the Gospel of John:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As God has sent me, even so I send you."

Rev. McCoy pointed out that Jesus gives peace even to those gathered behind closed doors. We must not stay behind locked doors, however, for such a church will surely die.

The full text of the ruling is here. But the nugget is here

In our considered opinion, it is time for the issues addressed in Decision 1032 to now be debated by The United Methodist Church as is occurring. The presiding bishop fulfilled her disciplinary responsibilities when she responded to the questions of law. The Judicial Council has fulfilled its disciplinary responsibilities in reviewing the decisions of law rendered. We disagree with those in the minority who cavalierly assert that the Judicial Council has somehow exceeded its role in precisely fulfilling that role. The role of the Judicial Council is to interpret the Discipline and to apply its provisions to the scenarios that are presented. In Decision 1032, the Council has interpreted relevant provisions of the Discipline and applied them to the scenario posed to it.

We disagree with those in the minority who assert that further debate before the Judicial Council will be healing for The United Methodist Church. Rather, we believe that reopening this matter, especially where no grounds have been demonstrated to do so, will further polarize the various parts of the church. We have arrived at this view with great respect and admiration for those who disagree with us in the minority.

Are you kidding? Further polarization will come from you because it's a 5-4 decision! Think about it!

Here's some smattering of comments from the Dissenting Opinions

As well as being a legally flawed decision, over-reaching and imprudent, Decision 1032 creates grave theological problems. It is most troubling in its departure from the most essential tenets of Methodist ecclesiology. This decision has the potential to threaten some of the fundamental principles of the tradition articulated in The Book of Discipline, in the Sermons of John Wesley, the Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, and the General Rules of the Methodist Church. In addition, as was noted in the Henry-Crowe dissent on Decision 1032, 4 of the Constitution is violated. This paragraph is a theological statement affirming openness and inclusivity.

One of the distinguishing marks of the Christian faith, as expressed in Methodism, is the primacy and sufficiency of God’s grace, offered to all, and most especially, in the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. Through the sacrament of baptism, Christ’s invitation to full participation in the life of the Church for any and all baptized Christians is the gift that is offered. (Note: 103 Section 3 -The Articles of Religion – Of Baptism, Article VI of the Confession of Faith - The Sacraments.)

Season after season, we hear the words of Invitation to Communion offered by the pastor/celebrant in the following words, “Christ invites to his Table…” The invitation and the gift of Christ are extended by the pastor. . It is Christ’s invitation, not ours. Theologically, and as well as disciplinarily, the pastor has no discretion to exclude anyone from membership or the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharistic because it is not his/her invitation. It is Christ’s. Therefore, all who present themselves for Baptism, Eucharistic and reception into the Church are joyfully welcomed. This invitation is to worship, to receive the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, to take the vows declaring the Christian faith, and to enter into the life and mission of the Church through membership.

The Discipline in 340 clearly states: “Elders have a four-fold ministry of Word, Sacrament, Order and Service within the connection and thus serve in the church and the world.” The sub-paragraphs following outline the areas of responsibility including: Word and ecclesial acts, Sacrament, Order and Service. The vocation of ministry is a gift given by Christ and entrusted by the Church. This vocation cannot be a vocation of denial but rather a vocation of extending God’s love and looking for evidences of the work of the Holy Spirit. Determining who is eligible for life in the Church is not the vocation of the pastor. It is the Holy Spirit who makes us members of the Church. Touched by the Holy Spirit one comes to believe in and worship Jesus Christ. It is Christ who makes us members of the body. We then want to share communion with other Christians giving us the desire to join. For the pastor to deny membership is to present obstacles to the work of the Holy Spirit. This denial is dangerous and does not serve the work of evangelism. If a pastor refuses to receive someone into membership he/she is substituting him/herself for Christ’s role. By deciding who becomes a member or who does not the pastor is making him/herself his own association or church. This is not the Church. It is a gift to bear witness to the work of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s redeeming love in the world through Christ’s church.

At times, in the Church there is a tendency to see the Discipline as superseding Scripture. The Constitution as contained in the Book of Discipline has to be the measure by which we apply the Bible. The Constitution should not be in conflict with the Bible. If the Discipline violates the Bible then the Church is no longer Christ’s church but rather a mere association of men and women.

While profoundly disagreeing with the majority, we are committed to be in relationship with them and those who share their opinion. No one should pastorally or prophetically abandon fellow Christians. The unspeakable pain that this decision causes calls for repentance and prayer which will lead to healing. The cause of Christ’s Church and Christ’s hospitality, openness, generosity, justice and righteousness are the principles at stake.

I favor reconsideration of Decision 1032 because it is clearly in error. The Book of Discipline is silent on the issue of “responsible pastoral judgment.” Our task would have been complete had we merely said so. It would have been better for the Judicial Council to provide no guidance on the question than to provide the poor guidance of Decision 1032. Reconsideration of Decision 1032 would permit the Judicial Council to prevent manifest injustice resulting from its interpretation. Upon reconsideration, the Judicial Council would have the opportunity to review the issues presented with a greater understanding of its unintended consequences and its deleterious impact on our institutional fabric. We should remain cognizant that our decision not only applies to the parties who brought this question but has now been elevated to the point of law across the entire connection. There are other compelling reasons why reconsideration is mandated by these circumstances. The majority has decreed that pastors have "discretion" and by doing so has assumed and usurped powers specifically reserved to the General Conference. The grant of discretion is a legislative and not a judicial prerogative. The majority’s concoction of pastoral “discretion” outside of the established legislative processes of our system has created a perverse structural anomaly that does violence to our system of governance.

The continued viability of our system of checks and balances is threatened whenever one branch acts in excess of its powers. Decision 1032 is a blatant and unprecedented usurpation of legislative authority. This issue needs to be resolved by the General Conference at its next session.

It's too early out of the gate for me to link to really well-thought-out responses, but my initial one is this: This is continued violence being done to LGBT persons, and this is what the end result of exclusion is...namely a destruction of the accountability systems that hold us together. But this is just a first step, and greater Methodism needs to see the scales fall from their eyelids and see the dangerous hilltop we are on in the UMC.

Violations like this, that will affect straight people as much as LGBT persons, will continue until General Conference strikes at the root of the problem: the anti-homosexuality clauses in the UMC book of Doctrine. Only when these clauses are gone can the UMC truly make steps towards becoming a fully inclusive church.

Make your continued witness known at HereWeStand or your other action websites. We will not forget.

~ Cross+Flame