Judicial Council doesn’t review rulings

United Methodist News Service
OVERLAND PARK, Kan.—The Judicial Council has rejected appeals to reconsider two decisions that have created much debate within the church.
The council, the denomination’s “supreme court,” announced May 2 that it would not revisit Decisions 1031 and 1032, issued last October.
Those rulings, related to the case of the Rev. Ed Johnson of South Hill (Va.) UMC, reversed two decisions of law by Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer of the Richmond (Va.) Episcopal Area.
Decision 1031 said the Virginia Conference had denied Johnson due process when the Board of Ordained Ministry transformed an administrative complaint against him into a judicial charge. He had been put on involuntary leave July 1, 2005, for not complying with the bishop’s order to admit a gay man into church membership.
Kammerer had ruled that a clergyperson must comply with the direction of a bishop or district superintendent to receive anyone into church membership.
Decision 1032 said that Paragraphs 214 and 225 in the Book of Discipline gave pastors authority to determine when a person is ready to be accepted into church membership.
Kammerer had ruled that permissive language in the two paragraphs didn’t give Johnson the authority to exercise pastoral judgment in determining who may join his congregation.
Johnson had decided not to accept the membership transfer of a gay man who was active in the South Hill congregation.
Following the October rulings, Kammerer returned Johnson to the South Hill pulpit.
The two rulings created much protest across the denomination from those who said the decisions stood in contrast to the spirit of the church’s theme of “Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.”
The decisions triggered official appeals from Kammerer and the Virginia Conference Board of Ordained Ministry as well as briefs from the principals in the case and numerous friends of the court.
During the council’s April 26-28 meeting, about 50 demonstrators staged a silent vigil in the public areas of the Embassy Suites hotel where the court met. The group, which included clergy, laity and students from around the country, wanted the council to reconsider and overturn Decisions 1031 and 1032.
The nine-member Judicial Council issued short memos (1040 and 1041) declaring it would not reconsider the two rulings. Three of five members opposing reconsideration signed a concurring opinion. Four others joined in a dissenting opinion.
Council members James W. Holsinger Jr., Mary A. Daffin and Keith D. Boyette signed a concurring opinion, saying they “join with our colleagues who have voted to deny the petition for reconsideration in this matter because the petitioners for reconsideration have not shown Decision 1032 clearly to be in error, nor have they shown that reconsideration of the decision is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice resulting from the interpretation of the decision.”
They added that “it is time for the issues addressed in Decision 1032 to now be debated by the United Methodist Church, as is occurring.”
“The presiding bishop fulfilled her disciplinary responsibilities when she responded to the questions of law,” they wrote. “The Judicial Council has fulfilled its disciplinary responsibilities in reviewing the decisions of law rendered.
“We disagree with those in the minority who cavalierly assert that the Judicial Council has somehow exceeded its role in precisely fulfilling that role. The role of the Judicial Council is to interpret the Discipline and to apply its provisions to the scenarios that are presented. In Decision 1032, the council has interpreted relevant provisions of the Discipline and applied them to the scenario posed to it.”
In their joint dissent, the Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe and the Rev. Paul Shamwange, joined by Beth Capen and Jon R. Gray, wrote that “theologically, and as well as disciplinarily, the pastor has no discretion to exclude anyone from membership or the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist because it is not his/her invitation. It is Christ’s. Therefore, all who present themselves for baptism, Eucharist and reception into the church are joyfully welcomed. …
“For the pastor to deny membership is to present obstacles to the work of the Holy Spirit. This denial is dangerous and does not serve the work of evangelism.”