Judicial Council ruling maintains
membership status quo

A Judicial Council decision Oct. 29 concerning church membership and pastoral authority didn’t change any provisions of United Methodist law.
Homosexuals no less than heterosexuals are still individuals of sacred worth who need the ministry and guidance of the church (Paragraph 161 in the Book of Discipline).
All people may still become members of United Methodist congregations (Paragraph 214).
Senior pastors can still determine when people are ready to take membership vows (Paragraph 340).
But we now have clearer idea of how various paragraphs of the current Book of Discipline interact.
Furthermore, we know that as church law is now written, a district superintendent or bishop can’t order a pastor to accept a person into church membership after the pastor has decided the person isn’t ready.
Actions in the Virginia Conference prompted the Judicial Council ruling (see related story on Page 3).
The Rev. Ed Johnson, pastor of South Hills (Va.) UMC, refused to accept a gay man into membership by transfer from another denomination.
After consulting with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, leader of the Virginia Conference, the Petersburg District superintendent told Johnson he was required to accept anyone who wanted to take membership vows. Johnson refused and was eventually put on involuntary leave of absence.
The nine-member council voted 6 to 2—with one member absent—to return Johnson to active status. The council ruled 5 to 3 that Discipline Paragraph 340 gives pastors sole responsibility for determining a person’s readiness to receive membership vows.
Discipline Paragraph 214, which describes membership eligibility, says, “All people may … become members of any church in the connection.” Paragraph 225 says members of other denominations “may” transfer to a United Methodist congregation.
Judicial Council precedent has established “that ‘shall’ cannot be used to replace ‘may’ in the Discipline,” the council noted. “Thus the General Conference has determined that any person ‘may’ become a member of any church in the connection.”
The ruling concluded:
“Since the pastor is not required by the Discipline to admit into membership all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm the vows of membership, and since the Discipline designates the pastor ‘to be the administrative officer of the local church’ (Paragraph 340.3a) and to ‘administer the provisions of the Discipline’ (Paragraph 340.3b(1)), a pastor-in-charge cannot be ordered by the district superintendent or bishop to admit into membership a person not deemed ready or able to meet the requirements of the vows of church membership of The United Methodist Church. The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church.”
That conclusion surprised some Southwest Texas Conference pastors I talked to. They said they wouldn’t deny membership to anyone as they tried to offer Christ to all. Under current church law, they have authority to make that decision.
Other pastors have the same authority to make different decisions.
At ordination we tell elders to take authority. At the same time we, as Americans, often object to people exercising authority in ways we consider discriminatory.
Discrimination wasn’t the legal issue in the Virginia case. Pastoral authority was. Church members who don’t like the current scope of pastoral authority can petition the 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth to limit it.