Jeff Mickle, Judicial Council Oral Hearing

October 27, 2005

Sisters and brothers on the Judicial Council, we come today on the rulings of law from Virginia Conference Bishop Charlene Kammerer. I am Jeff Mickle, Chair of the Virginia Conference Board of Ordained Ministry.

Last December, the associate pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church informed the district superintendent about a problem of church discipline in the South Hill congregation. A homosexual man had been attending their worship, singing in the choir, and now was expressing his desire to become a member of the church. The senior pastor, Rev. Ed Johnson, was not willing to receive the man into membership because of his self-avowed, practicing homosexuality.

The district superintendent consulted with Rev. Johnson and encouraged him to reconsider that position. When Rev. Johnson determined that he could not, in good conscience, receive the man as a member until the man repented of his practice, the district superintendent filed a complaint for unwillingness to perform ministerial duties.

After the supervisory response with the bishop failed to bring a just resolution, the bishop referred the matter to the board of ordained ministry as an administrative complaint.

Following a series of hearings, with deliberate attention to fair process throughout, a recommendation was brought to the Virginia Conference clergy session that Rev. Johnson be placed on an involuntary leave of absence, with other remedial actions, due to his unwillingness to perform ministerial duties, both in terms of local church membership and in terms of recognizing the authority of the bishop and district superintendent.

At the clergy session, the vote to approve the involuntary leave was, 448 to 114, or an 80% majority, well above the required 2/3 majority. The administrative review committee reported that fair process had been honored throughout the case.

From the floor of the clergy session, three points of law were raised by Rev. Tom Thomas, which focused on some particular points of the case, but certainly do not cover all the important issues involved. One could conceivably disagree with one or more of the questions of law, and yet still affirm the remedial action of involuntary leave of absence, because there are multiple layers of rationale behind it.

For example, one key element that the board of ordained ministry considered crucial, which is not addressed in the questions of law, is the meaning of local church membership, specifically as it relates to persons who are self-avowed practicing homosexuals.

There is a paragraph in the Book of Discipline that deals with why persons may not be excluded from membership in the church. From many years, the paragraph said, in part, "all persons, without regard to race, color, national origin, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, to participate in its programs, and when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into its membership in any local church in the connection." It seems clear that one consequence of this paragraph is to remove from pastors the prerogative of excluding persons from a local congregation’s membership on the basis of race, color, national origin, or economic condition. The paragraph is meant to preclude a pastor’s discretion around these issues.

Today, that paragraph has been amended, so that it now says, "All people may attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection." [¶214, 2004 BOD]

By eliminating the language that enumerates only race, color, national origin, and economic condition, the General Conference opened local church membership to include all potential categories—handicapping conditions, language, age, sexual orientation. The General Conference chose to not enumerate every possible category, but rather to make the sweeping inclusion that all persons, regardless of any imaginable category, all persons may attend, participate, receive the sacraments, and be received as members in any local church in our connection, upon reciting the appropriate vows. The intent as to pastoral discretion remains the same. The paragraph is meant to preclude pastors from keeping people out, because of any category that might be used to exclude them.

It may be said that the Discipline nowhere specifically allows self-avowed practicing homosexuals to be local church members. However, the General Conference has addressed this issue, at least once. In 1988, the General Conference was petitioned to add the following language to the Book of Discipline: "Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, no homosexual person shall hold office within The United Methodist Church." The Local Church Committee at General Conference voted to recommend non-concurrence, 64-0, and the General Conference agreed via its consent calendar. The General Conference could have amended the petition to specify "self-avowed practicing homosexuals," but decided instead to simply reject the whole concept of restricting homosexual persons of any type from holding office; which surely must mean that if they can hold office, then they can become members.

Some denominations say that there is to be no toleration of homosexuality at all. A homosexual person is not welcome in the life of some denominations at any level, as clergy, lay or even as visitors. There are other denominations that embrace the homosexual lifestyle, and one can hardly be a leader in that kind of denomination unless one is a homosexual.

The United Methodist Church has found a position that balances these two extremes. We refuse to bless the practice of homosexuality, in terms of recognizing homosexual unions, and in terms of credentialing persons for clergy leadership. We refuse to embrace homosexuality as a good thing or to give it our blessings.

On the other hand, we will not say to homosexual persons that your practice is so unacceptable that it excludes you from being a member of this branch of the Body of Christ. The United Methodist Church has welcomed homosexuals members, along with many others who are not exemplary in personal discipline and lifestyle.

We have this balance: not approving, but neither excluding. This Council has been asked to keep that balance in place in terms of not approving persons for ordination. Now, this Council is also being asked to keep the balance in place by not excluding homosexual persons who confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior as members of our church.

Pastors are given the privilege of preaching, instructing, teaching, and counseling, but not of closing the door on church membership. If ever there was a time when the pastor was given discretion as to who could and who could not be received as members, that provision has now been removed from the Discipline, nor could we find any Judicial Council precedent that would provide for such pastoral discretion.

Finally, I come to the authority of the clergy session of an annual conference to deal with matters of clergy discipline. Before the Judicial Council issues it ruling on this matter, I would like to see some reaffirmation that the clergy members, in full connection, have enough wisdom and discernment, as well as authority, to resolve these matters, as long as the fair process has been followed. When members of our covenant step outside of that covenant, it is the responsibility of the clergy session of an annual conference to hold one another accountable and to watch over one another in love. That is what we are trying our best to do in Virginia. We trust that this Council will uphold that authority, as it deliberates on these rulings of specific points of law.