Judical Council decisions are outrageous

I am grateful for the faithful witness of the Rev. Beth Stroud and other LGBT United Methodists during these difficult days. Our denomination is resisiting the movement of God toward full inclusion and reconciliation. Decisions (1027 and 1032) issued recently by the United Methodist Judicial Council are outrageous. They demonstrate that this Judical Council is determined -- no matter what --  to discriminate against LGBT United Methodists.   

Decision 1032 is the worst. Other rulings about sexual orientation issues will be embarrashing to almost everyone when they read them 2o years from now. Decision 1032 --which permits pastors to deny church membership based on sexual orientation, and perhaps for pretty much any reason -- is embarrashing now to anyone who has a basic grasp of the English language.

The ruling hinges on our understanding of the word "may." Read what the Judicial Council has said:

Paragraph 214 [of the Book of Discipline] states: "Eligibility – The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may [emphasis added] attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . . ” The operative word in connection with the phrase "become members in any local church in the connection" is "may." 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 is a most amazing and twisted way to interpret the word "may" in this circumstance. The council's argument makes no sense.

Yes, the word "may" is permissive, but in this case the subject of the verb "may" is clearly "all people," not the pastor or local church. It is "all  people"  who  may "become members in any local church in the connection."

The Judicial Council's argument that the Discipline does not say "shall" is nonsensical. What sense would it make to substitute "shall" for "may".  Then the sentence would read: "All people shall attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . ” 

Obviously the two alternatives here are not "may" or  "shall," but "may" or "may not."  If the Book of Discipline does not mean to allow "all people" to choose to join our churches, it should say, "All people may or may not ... become members in any local church in the connection . .  . ”

I do strongly agree with one statement in Decision 1032: "may means may." Yes, it does. And "all people may ... become members of any local church in the connection ..."  May means may.

In Decision 1027, the Judicial Council argues that Beth Stroud's orginal trial was fair because she was not discriminated against due to her status. This is what the Judicial Council says about this:

The lack of a definition for “status” does not deny Rev. Stroud due or fair process. She can and has asserted that her ministerial office has been jeopardized because of the fact that she is a practicing homosexual and has argued that such action violates constitutional provisions to ensure the inclusiveness of the church. We hold that ¶ 304.3 is not directed at the status of being a homosexual or having a particular sexual orientation. No provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from the ordained ministry of The United Methodist Church. Rather ¶ 304.3 is directed towards those persons who practice that same-sex orientation by engaging in prohibited sexual activity. Likewise, persons who have a heterosexual orientation who practice that orientation in prohibited ways – by not practicing fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness as required by ¶ 304.2 – are subject to chargeable offenses. Regulation of practice does not violate the “status” provisions of the Constitution.

To say that some clergy are denied the joys and comforts of human love, marriage and family while others are permitted such is discriminatory. Straight clergy are required to be faithful. Gay and lesbian clergy are required to be celebate. What about this isn't a double standard?

So today some of us are appropriately outraged. May our outrage fuel the struggle for justice, inclusion, and reconciliation.

Comments

[BigBrad]

Beth Stroud should have expected this verdict. It is made clear in the Book of Discipline that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Why, then, would a homosexual make the decision to seek ordination in the United Methodist Church?

I agree with the ruling, as unfortunate as it must be on her part. I do, however, disagree with not allowing homosexual persons as members of the church. I think the church should allow all people, sinners and saints, in the membership of the church. I simply cannot imagine Jesus denying someone the basic rights of joining a church.

I pray for unity within our church through a return to basic scriptural teachings.

[Jonathon Norman]

i agree with you dean. "may" used in this context within the english language has everything to do with permission giving and not with denying.

and if the wording were "shall" in the context they are speaking of it would imply that "all people" would be members of the umc, which makes no sense.

jonathon

[Jay]

1027 wasn't a surprise. 1032 was.

Are we connectional or congregational? A connectional system understands that the broader church sets the policies for membership, participation, etc. It's in congregational polities that the pastor and a select few set the policies for each individual congregation. What this does is leave membership requirements up to the sole discretion of the pastor. Thus, a pastor could refuse membership for any number of reasons (which, if we remember Savannah, does put us squarely in the tradition of Wesley, doesn't it?). This creates more problems than it solves folks.

What bothers me more is that we have created a system which bacically does not allow much oversight of clergy unless there are glaring failings. Let's face it, we have a tenure system by which it is almost impossible to deal with issues that fall on the fringes of chargeable offenses. 1031 and 1032 only serve to make it more difficult to deal with ministerial ineptitude and theological disagreement.

[Jan Rivero]

With Decision 1032, the judicial council has not only pushed us closer to the demise of the connection, but has also said that we no longer want to be ecumenical, honoring the baptism and membership of members of other denominations, because paragraph 225 accepts transfers of members from other denominations; but now a local church pastor can opt not to do that. We have taken more than one small step backward as a church.
Furthermore, it seems to me that this ruling is not about homosexuality. It is about authority, who has it and who doesn't. What this ruling has said is that each pastor now can exercise her/his own authority. No longer do we hold scripture as primary authority, or even our Book of Discipline; neither do we hold that our connectional system, as exemplified in the Episcopacy, has authority. Now the authority solely rests in our local church pastors. There is nothing connectional about this.
May God help us.

[Jim]

Dean,

Thank you for your continued attention and ability to describe these important matters so well. It is challenging to discuss such emotional issues without disparaging those who disagree.

Your eloquence is a very good example when I feel like cursing, insulting and upsetting the tables of the temples of those who would deny God's grace to our brothers and sisters. God speed to you.

May it be on Earth as it is in Heaven.

[gavin]

my sentiments are shared & much in line with jay. i don't know if wesley or charles would be too happy with this hierarchical system that is formed/forming

[ColeWake]

Most people know how I feel about the Stroud decision, but I wasn't suprised by it.

I agree that is was the other ruling that is outrageous. But I guess were a church of 'Pastor Knows Best' now. Maybe a merger with SBC is on the horizon.

[Jonathan Marlowe]

Dean,

It is one thing to say that one disagrees with the Judicial Council's decision. It is another to call those decisions outrageous. Such inflamatory rhetoric does not lead to civil discourse or healthy dialogue.

ColeWake, your sarcastic suggestion that a UMC merger with the SBC could be on the horizon is not helpful either. If the judicial council had issued a liberal decision, would it be helpful for those who disagree to suggest that a merger with the Unitarians is on the horizon? Of course not.

I ask that we all continue these important discussions with respect towards those who may disagree. I think we would all be better served.

[the_methotaku]

As usual, you said something I wanted to say but was hurting too much to say.

[Stephen]

I guess what bothers me most is that the Methodist Church ascribes to be a Episcopal formed church and not a congregationally formed and led church such as the SBC. The decisions were mixed...
1027 upholds the Episcopal system and the first restrictive rule
1032 dismisses the Episcopal system and the first restrictive rule

Strange days indeed
Stephen

[the_methotaku]

The answer, of course, is that the Judicial Council has been packed with conservative activitsts whose guiding 'principle' is homophobia.

[John in Jackson]

Dean,
For all your guffawing and grumbling and outrage, the United Methodist Judicial Council made their decision on what the entire laity of the UMC, including the congregation that you serve, has decided to be the "laws" of this denomination, not what you, me, Jonathan, Cole, Billy Graham, Billy Ray Cyrus, or any other single living human being thinks. To blast the JC as "determined -- no matter what --  to discriminate against LGBT United Methodists" is not really a statement against them, it is a statement against the majority of the UMC laity. I take offense to that statement as a member of that laity!

The FACT is that Romans 1:26-28 says: Ryrie Study Bible, Red Letter KJV
{Life Application Bible NKJV}

Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly {shameful}, and receiving in themselves that recompence {penalty} of their error which was meet {due}.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,"God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient {fitting};

My INTERPRETATION of this scripture is that a person lusting after another person of the same sex is not natural in the sight of God and is condemned by God. That also seems to be the interpretation of a majority of the UMC laity. If you do not interpret this scripture as I do, that is between you and God. But I remember and I hope that you do too, it is a narrow gate that leads to Heaven.

As for the Virginia ruling, when the laity of that particular church feels their pastor is acting inappropriately, they will act accordingly.

"The ruling hinges on our understanding of the word "may."
This sounds vaguely like:" That all depends on what the definition of "is" is." from the trial of Impeached President William Jefferson Clinton.

[Jim]

" it is a narrow gate that leads to Heaven."

One that thankfully is bridged by the GRACE of Jesus for ALL who have sinned and fallen short, not through our works and not through judgement of our brothers and sisters.

[Luke Wetzel]

A wonderful analysis.

The "may" discussion is bizarre. I hope the seven members of the Judicial Council thought long and hard about the implications that Jan Rivero discussed a few comments back. I have a feeling that they didn't. Or I should reverse and say that I hope they didn't. It would sadden me to no end to know that some of our elected leaders would knowingly strike at what makes us strong.

This ruling tears at what holds us together administratively as the battle that is being waged tears at what holds us together spiritually.
May God help us, indeed.

-Luke

[Joel Thomas]

I don't think it can any longer be said that gays and lesbians are welcome in the United Methodist Church. It can only be said that there are people who are faithfully working to make them someday be welcome.

I found the membership decision particularly appalling and a horribly dangerous precedent.

Interestingly, as I read the decision, I can now deny membership to supporters of the Confessing Movement, Good News or IRD because it is only my good faith judgment as to whether or not a person is spiritually mature enough for membership. God's grace is irrelevant; only my peronal beliefs matter.

I believe this decision almost insures that the 2008 General Conference will be the most acrimonious ever held. A line has been drawn in the sand.

[Rick in central PA]

Today, in light of yesterday's JC decisions, I am ashamed, simply ashamed, to be a member of the United Methodist Church.

I don't even have words to describe the pain I feel on behalf of our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. The UMC is clearly closing the door of the church to them. No, that's not how it will be spun, at least officially. But in practice, it is precisely how it will be interpreted.

Monday 31-October-2005 will be remembered as a sad day in UMC church history.

[Rick in central PA]

Today, in light of yesterday's JC decisions, I am ashamed, simply ashamed, to be a member of the United Methodist Church.

I don't even have words to describe the pain I feel on behalf of our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. The UMC is clearly closing the door of the church to them. No, that's not how it will be spun, at least officially. But in practice, it is precisely how it will be interpreted.

Monday 31-October-2005 will be remembered as a sad day in UMC church history.

[Andy B.]

Dean,
There is real pain in your post today. Pain that I share. I find myself seeking a tangible form for my lament. Perhaps on Sunday I will lay my stole on the altar as a way to say, "Until all can wear it, I will not." I don't know, what do you think?
- Andy B.

[Henry Curry]

Dean,

I, too, am distressed by the decisions of the Judicial Council, and agree that the decision in the Virginia Conference case is, potentially, the most outrageous. I would strongly urge that the Methodist Church now drop its promotional campaign of proclaiming the Church to be one of "Open hearts, Open minds, Open doors." We apparently are no loger such a Church and to continue to advertise ourselves as such is nothing but hypocricy.

[John Wilks]

Well, Rick, I'm sorry for your shame. But I am hopeful for the first time in a long time about our future.

Dean,

The problem with your "double standard" arguement is that the Scripture affrims that double standard.

To all- call it homophobia if you like, but this is all about one thing, and it ain't sex. It is about the Bible. It is all about how we understand the authority of the Bible. Period. That is the real entirty of this debate.

You cannot have a denomination stay unfied and vibrant with as broad a divergence in the view on Scriptural authroity. A house divided cannot stand.

Do you think most conservatives enjoy these rulings even if we agree with them?

I for one do not. And there are many standards which the Bible imposses that I wish it didn't. But I live with them by faith.

Those who cannot live by faith with those passages of Holy Writ which they dislike should reconsider their their desire to remain United Methodist.

Because what I see in those two dicisions is a return to a very old guiding assumption of Christian churches- when we disagree with the Bible, the Bible wins.

[Douglas Asbury]

Friends,

Regarding Judicial Council Decision 1032:

We need to be careful here before we too quickly join Susan T. Henry-Crowe in her dissent from the majority ruling.

Some weeks ago I made my position clear on this blog regarding my disagreement with the Rev. Ed Johnson in his refusal to accept a partnered gay man into membership in his congregation, and I will not repeat my argument here.

However, the Judicial Council’s Decision 1032 deals with not only pastoral authority to receive persons into membership or to refuse membership to persons for cause, but also pastoral responsibility to make judgments regarding people’s readiness to join the church, subject to the provisions of the Book of Discipline. The Council affirms both that pastors have such authority and that they must exercise such responsibility under the terms of their ordination.

For the sake of argument, I invite you to consider what you would do as a pastor in a similar circumstance, but the person presenting himself (for the sake of argument, this will be a man) for membership is an outspoken racist who is not shy about telling you as a pastor nor anyone else that he is an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. This man who presents himself for membership also makes strongly racist remarks not only about persons of races other than his own Caucasian race but, in fact, about people in the very congregation he intends to join.

The Social Principles 162.III.A. proclaims that “we recognize racism as sin.” As pastor preparing this man to take the membership vows, you confront him with regard to his racism with all the biblical, theological, and doctrinal resources you can muster. However, this man’s attitudes seem intractable, yet, for various reasons, he still intends to take membership vows to join your church.

Do you allow him to take the vows and to become a member of your United Methodist Church? Or do you say that, because he is a “self-avowed, practicing racist,” he cannot be accepted as a member until he repents of this sin and demonstrates to you and the congregation that he will be faithful to the vow in which he states he “renounce[s] the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject[s] the evil powers of the world, and repent[s] of [his] sin”?

To be consistent, you must rule in this case as you would in the Ed Johnson case. If you do not accept the practicing racist, then you admit that Ed Johnson had the right – under the current Discipline - not to accept the practicing gay man. This is especially true since the provisions of the Social Principles are not “church law,” and therefore binding, whereas “immorality” on the part of a lay member is within a section that makes it more than just “advisory,” as the Social Principles are; and since “homosexual practice” is a chargeable offense for clergy, it can also rightly be considered to be included under the “immorality” category in the chargeable offenses for laypersons that can ultimately result in the person being removed from the membership rolls. Why should a pastor receive a member who is already openly committing a chargeable offense and who further indicates that he or she will not refrain from doing so?

Now that I have made my point in that regard, let me make a very different point.

If, in fact, pastors have authority and responsibility to make such judgments regarding a person’s readiness to assume membership vows, and if pastors also are charged with monitoring current members for chargeable offenses that offend not only their fellow Christians but God as well, then perhaps all pastors need to take these responsibilities more seriously, and even life-long members need to begin to clean up their acts if they want to remain members in good standing of their local United Methodist Churches.

When it becomes clear that pastors are going to hold people accountable for their membership vows or else make life very difficult for those members who violate the provisions of the Discipline by bringing charges against them for such unrepentance, I believe it’s very likely we would see General Conference move so quickly to legislate policies that would accord well with the “open hearts, open minds, open doors” promotion that it would make our heads swim.

So perhaps we need to thank the members of the Judicial Council instead of maligning them, and begin to apply their ruling with gusto to awaken the Church to its broader implications and the need to make some adjustments in our polity. While some would rejoice in a renewal of the practice of “calling sin ‘sin’,” they will do so, I believe, only until it’s their ox that is being gored. After that, we’ll all have to find our way back to Christ together.

Doug Asbury

[Wes Stanton]

Doug Asbury's comments reflect my one point of agreement with JCD 1032: the possibility that a person we all agree is an unrepentant and dangerous sinner would seek for abusive reasons to join the church. As a pastor, I believe I ought to have some sort of discretion to withhold membership from someone who sought it with malicious intent. However, wishing that the Discipline gave such discretion doesn't change the Discipline.

The Judicial Council was clearly (even outrageously) "reaching" to interpret the "may" as permissive language about the pastor's discretion, rather than about the prospective member's freedom to choose membership. In contrast, the dissent cites Par. 4, the fourth Article of the UM Constitution, the very article of the Constitution after the terms of merger and the Articles of Religion & Confession of Faith.

Par. 4 declares that "All persons ... shall be eligible to ... upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any church in the connection." All persons -- upon taking the vows -- eligible -- in any local church in the connection. Here there is not one single "may" to be misconstrued.

Always, always, the Judicial Council has held that the Constitution trumps the GC-legislated provisions of the Discipline. Always. Where there's contradiction between Constitution and later provisions, the Constitution prevails. Where the Constitution sets a definition (say, for example, listing those lay persons who are to be members of the Annual Conference), the later provisions of the Discipline may not expand upon the constitutional provisions. In this decision, that's exactly what the Judicial Council did.

Further, JCD 1032 opens the door for lone-ranger pastors across the denomination to bar just about anybody from membership on the flimsiest of grounds ("I just didn't feel like they were genuine").

JCD 1032 should be reversed as a poorly conceived decision, conflicting with the principles clearly set forth in the UM Constitution. In time, it will be reversed. In the meantime, it should not make us "ashamed to be United Methodist," but it could stand to make us angry.

[Chris Lihou]

A good exposition by Doug Asbury. However, by the same token, there was a Baptist minister recently who expelled all the Democrats from his congregation. Only when the Associated Press ran the story and the Baptist Church was held up to ridicule was his decision reversed by the Church and the minister relieved of his post. Now the Methodist Church has established that it will stand solidly behind a minister who denies membership in his/her Church to a Republican or a Democrat or someone who gets a speeding ticket. I personally await with glee the inevitable inappropriate application of this outrageous decision by some misguided minister somewhere. I shall personally call the story in to the Associated Press.

Regarding those up above here in this blog who are wont to select quotes and passages from the Bible, claiming them as the inviolable Word Of God, I have a quotation for you from Leviticus:

25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have,
shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."

25:45 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

25:46 "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever."

There is no way to construe this passage from the Holy Bible except as an endorsement and encouragement of the institution of slavery, and a guarantee that the children of slaves shall be slaves "for ever," as "an inheritance" for the children of the slave owners.

This therefore means that the United Methodist Church, which affirms the equality of the black American children of slaves with the white American children of slave owners, and refuses to condone the practice of slavery, is flying in the face of God's Word. The whole UM church is in grave error by NOT observing the tenets advocating slavery clearly stated in God's Holy Bible.

Naturally this is nonsense, and so are the quotations from Leviticus and Romans, about same-sex relations, so dear to the hearts of bigots, and closeted homosexuals afraid of their own suppressed impulses. (Methinks these ladies doth protest too much.) Nothing is more comforting to the brain-dead and stony-hearted than some dogma which requires no exercise of conscience or thought.

Perhaps what we are observing all around us is the triumph of the Christian Taliban and their joyless mullahs-in-Christ. What will they advocate next - crushing homosexuals under brick walls? And veiling women? And a ban on all music?

I think I'll become a Buddhist.

[Chris Lihou]

PS: To John in Jackson: You are so carried away by your prim and smug efforts to be covertly insulting to Dean Snyder:

"Dean, For all your guffawing and grumbling and outrage, the United Methodist Judicial Council made their decision on what the entire laity of the UMC, including the congregation that you serve, has decided to be the "laws" of this denomination,....."

that you reveal your lack of knowledge of basic English vocabulary, which you nevertheless sling hither and thither with wanton abandon. "Guffaw" means "Hearty laughter." I hardly think Dean is "laughing heartily" in his posting.

Before you pretend to intellectualism, you should try to develop a vocabulary sufficient to express whatever it is you are trying to say.

To all the other bloggers who have kept the tone here civilized and objective: Please forgive my descent into personal attributes by reprimanding John in defense of Dean. He needed it.

[John Stopple]

Now that local pastors can withhold membership for whatever sin a person might be unrepentant of, I think it's time that we put the SUV owners on notice that they are no longer welcome in our congregations. Any vehicle that doesn't get at least 30 mpg should not be in our church parking lots or owned by anybody who is a member. God made us stewards of this earth and using these vehicles is not taking care of God's earth.

So sell your SUV's or don't come to church.

(My cheek is really sticking out if you can't tell.)