Site
Contents
 |
General Information about the Area Office
North Indiana Conference Office
South Indiana Conference Office
Prayer Guides
(Courtesy of the NIC Prayer Team)
Area United Methodist
Foundation
For resources to assist your congregation in welcoming guests,
click here
Seashore District Volunteer Center VIM project -- Completed
Hoosier United Methodist News Archives
| Hoosier United Methodists together |
February 2006 |
Stuck between hypocrisy and cynicism
By Darren Cushman Wood
The United Methodist Judicial Council decision 1032 reveals that the church continues to have a problem with homosexuality, but deeper yet is the problem of enacting the church's Discipline and interpreting its Social Principles.
If you will recall, the case involved a Virginia pastor who refused membership to a person who was a "practicing homosexual." The pastor was charged and found guilty of "unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties," for which the clergy of his annual conference voted to place him on involuntary leave of absence.
The Judicial Council overturned the ruling stating that the pastor had every right to deny the person membership, pointing out that various paragraphs regarding membership use 'may' instead of 'shall' which means that there is no requirement to receive someone as a member simply because he or she request it.
Their conclusion is that "the pastor in charge of a United Methodist church or charge is solely responsible for making the determination of a person's readiness to receive the vows of membership."
Their rationale is sound. Entrusting the local pastor with this responsibility does not infringe on the supervision of a bishop because there are other examples in the Discipline which allow for the delegation of authority. On a practical level, decision 1032 simply validates what we pastors always do. For example, if we have someone who on their first Sunday visiting the church says that they want to join we will require them to go through a membership class and watch to see whether they attend regularly over the next several months. In this way we pastors are exercising "sole responsibility for making the determination."
Also, it is important to note what decision 1032 does NOT say. Nowhere in the decision does it say that homosexuality, either as an orientation or an act, is a barrier to membership. It simply says that the pastor makes the final determination, which is an act of interpreting both the intentions of the person and the meaning of the Discipline.
The ruling does not hurt the inclusiveness of the church. The church has always had limits on who it will receive as members. Even the most liberal United Methodist would agree that there are some behaviors and beliefs that are incompatible with our membership vows. There has to be standards; the controversy is only over the interpretation and enforcement of those standards.
I do see a flaw in the decision that reveals a deeper unresolved problem in the denomination. The Judicial Council failed to explore whether the Social Principles were ever intended to be used as a mandatory criteria for membership. The preface to the Social Principles suggests otherwise when it states that they "are intended to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit; however, they are not church law."
At best, ¶220, when speaking about membership, says that the "Social Principles shall be considered as an essential resource for guiding each member of the Church in being a servant of Christ on mission." "Essential resource" and "guiding" are hardly the language of mandatory compliance.
Before we are tempted to say that we should start using the Social Principles in this mandatory compliance way, we should practice what we preach.
Are we really willing to implement all of the Social Principles? We have members who are business leaders and church related institutions that routinely violate our social teachings on labor relations. Even President Bush, who is a United Methodist, led us into war even though his rationale violated not only the Social Principles but even more importantly, one of our doctrinal standards, the Confession of Faith, which declares that "We believe war and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ (Article XVI)." Yet only a few might seriously consider a heresy trial against the President.
Or why look overseas for an example. When will we bar from membership every Hoosier who plays the state lottery (or at least the United Methodists in the General Assembly who sanction it)?
Decision 1032 reflects our denomination's inability to consistently implement its social teachings. The passion of some to make sure we "keep the covenant" of the Discipline simply reveals inconsistencies in the midst of a war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
The alternative seems no better. We can put the accent mark on the preface of the Social Principles and say that we will not bar "violators" from membership, but that simply means we are a church that is unwilling to live by our convictions. This would be cynicism - affirming things which we have no intention to act on. This has been our mode of operation for too long.
So we are stuck between hypocrisy with our inability to implement the Social Principles and cynicism.
Darren Cushman Wood serves as senior pastor of Speedway United Methodist Church.
Last updated on 25 Apr 2008