Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Commentary: Council Stands Guilty of Legislating from Bench

Expand Messages
  • umcornet
    Commentary: Council Stands Guilty of Legislating from Bench A UMNS Commentary By Jim Lane* Nov. 29, 2005 A lot has been in the news lately about selecting
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 30, 2005
      Commentary: Council Stands Guilty of Legislating from Bench
      A UMNS Commentary
      By Jim Lane*
      Nov. 29, 2005

      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@....
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.