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 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) has issued a ruling that, in my opinion, is 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.

Our Discipline says in the Constitution:

¶ 4. Article IV. Inclusiveness of the Church
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.

The 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 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. Pastor Johnson 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.

Here is what the Judicial Council said:

“In the decision dealing with the authority of a pastor, the council’s ruling states 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?

Many from the right are coming down on the idea of repentance (does this person want to confess his sin, ask for forgiveness and go there no more). Don’t we all do that every Sunday, and do not all of us fall short of the mark each time, we confess?

One has said: "A man comes to the front of the church asking for membership.  He is wearing a T-shirt with these words printed across the front - “God hates fags”.  Do you take that person into membership or do you work to teach him the love and mercy of God?" My response is that the church is called on to do both.  Where else but in a fellowship of Christian believers can such hate mongering be turned around.  Having lived in the deep south all of my life, I have seen "hate" turned into "love" in some awesome ways.

We have no confessional booths in the United Methodist Church. We place our selves at the feet of Jesus, and always find grace. It is the Christ of our faith that meets us in the confessional - - and it is there, and there alone - - that we find love and forgiveness.

All of this kind of 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 hearts, open minds, and open doors.

Who are we kidding? We only mean that if “whoever” is just like us (whatever that is)!

We have poked fun at our Baptist brothers and sisters for taking a congregational vote when someone presents themselves for membership. Well, at least everyone got to vote - - not just the clergy person in charge!

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 debated and what you now have in our Book of Discipline is our effort to state what we, at this particular point in history, believe about it.

Bishop Bill Oden, said that on this issue that our church is schizophrenic, and indeed we are.

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 member of The Judicial Council, a sitting judge in Kansas City, said this about this 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 they said this in their decision “The operative word in both paragraphs, the ruling says, is that persons “may” become members.”, they were going far beyond the intent of any preceding General Conference when 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.



A Jim Lane Commentary
November 15, 2005