Office of the Bishop, The Virginia Conference of The United Methodist Church

Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer

10330 Staples Mill Road • P.O. Box 1719, Glen Allen, VA 23060

804-521-1100

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 27, 2006

 

Contact: Carole Vaughn, Director of Communications

804-521-1111 office 804-337-1771 cell

E-mail: CaroleVaughn@vaumc.org

 

GLEN ALLEN, VA - Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer and the Virginia Conference Board of Ordained Ministry have sent separate petitions to the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church requesting reconsideration of Decisions 1031 and 1032 rendered at the fall Judicial Council meeting held in Houston, Texas, on Oct. 29, 2005. As the highest judicial body of The United Methodist Church, the Judicial Council determines, either on appeal or through declaratory decisions, whether the actions of official bodies of the church conform to church law. The nine-member council is elected by the General Conference, the denomination’s legislative body.

 

The requests for reconsideration are part of an on-going case related to a South Hill, Va. pastor who was placed on involuntary leave of absence by his peers at the Virginia Conference Clergy Session on June 13, 2005 following his refusal to accept a gay man into church membership. The involuntary leave of absence was challenged and sent to the Judicial Council in two petitions, which overturned the conference action and subsequently called for the Rev. Johnson’s immediate reinstatement. Those two Judicial Council rulings are now being challenged, citing errors in the decisions handed down.

 

Bishop Kammerer said, "After very careful and prayerful review of the Judicial Council Decisions 1031 and 1032, I made the decision to ask for Reconsideration which is within the Rules and Procedures of the Judicial Council. As a matter of integrity and keeping faith with my understanding of the Virginia case, it is crucial for the Judicial Council to review its own rulings which have brought harm to the Body of Christ represented in The United Methodist Church". 

 

In regard to Decision 1031, Bishop Kammerer states three reasons for the request for reconsideration:

 

1.      There are errors made in the Statement of Facts issued by the Judicial Council.

2.      A chargeable offense not listed in Paragraph 2702 of The 2004 Book of Discipline, The United Methodist Church’s book of law, was used by the Judicial Council in its decision.

3.      A statement of “background information” was used as if it were a decision of law and the case was treated as a matter of appeal of fair process instead of a decision of law.

 

In regard to Decision 1032, the Judicial Council Rules of Procedure cites that one requirement to receive a new hearing is “An indication…of Disciplinary provisions which were not previously considered and should have been.”

 

1. While the Judicial Council referenced paragraphs 214 and 225, they did not reference Article 4 of the Constitution on Inclusiveness which takes precedence over the two paragraphs cited on Administration and Order.

 

2. Paragraph 4 of the Constitution makes a strong declaration that The United Methodist Church is a part of the Church Universal which is One Body in Christ. The particular layman denied membership was already a member in good standing of the Church Universal. All The United Methodist Church membership ritual calls for is that such a person promise loyalty to The United Methodist Church. To deny the layman membership disavows The United Methodist Church’s historic relationship with the Church Universal.

 

3. The 2004 Book of Discipline does not “invest discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make the determination of a person’s readiness to affirm the vows of membership.” The Discipline specifically grants “discretion” in two specific instances, paragraphs 216.3 and 224. Since the Discipline is specific on the use of this term, and its use prior to Decision 1032 was at the discretion of the General Conference, further application would appear to require the action of the General Conference.

 

The Virginia Conference Board of Ordained Ministry offered additional factual information in its request for reevaluating Decision 1031 and the events at the center of the Rev. Edward H. Johnson case. The board asserts errors of fact in Decision 1031, as well as manifest injustice in the way 1031 was decided. The board further raises questions of overlooked Disciplinary provisions that should have been considered in Decision 1032.

 

These two requests for reconsideration have been placed on the non docket agenda of the Judicial Council. In order for these items to be reconsidered, five members of the Judicial Council must agree to revisit Decisions 1031 and 1032. Petitions of reconsideration accepted by the Judicial Council will be addressed at their April meeting.