Rev. Edward Johnson of Virginia’s South Hill United Methodist Church refused a gay man membership in his church because the choir member refused to ‘repent nor seek to live a different lifestyle.’
Equality Maryland prepares for November battle at ballot box
Brauchli to replace oft-criticized Downie in September
Gay couples close to ‘legal parity with marriage under law’
advertisement
advertisement
|
ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG
Friday, November 11, 2005
The Council of Bishops abruptly reaffirmed its welcome for gay men and lesbians after the United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the equivalent of its Supreme Court, reinstated a Virginia pastor who had barred a gay man from membership because of his sexual orientation.
“While pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a barrier,” the bishops wrote. “We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”
Last year, Rev. Edward Johnson of Virginia’s South Hill United Methodist Church refused church membership to a man active in the church choir because he is gay and refused to “repent nor seek to live a different lifestyle,” according to the Judicial Council’s decision. The church’s associate pastor reported the incident to the district superintendent.
After consulting with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, the district superintendent told Johnson he was required to admit the man into membership. When Johnson refused, the superintendent filed a complaint. In June 2005 Johnson was placed on involuntary leave.
Last month, the Judicial Council reinstated Johnson, ruling that pastors have the authority to decide who should be admitted as members.
Johnson and the church’s associate pastor were not available for comment.
In an opinion dissenting from the Judicial Council’s ruling, Susan T. Henry-Crowe wrote, “This decision compromises the historic understanding that the church is open to all. Nothing in the [Book of] Discipline gives pastors discretion to exclude persons presenting themselves for membership.”
Other Methodist leaders have echoed that sentiment.
“The Bishops were concerned that the Judicial Council ruling would make it appear that pastors have a broad mandate to bar gays and lesbians from church membership,” said Stephen Drachler, executive director of public information for United Methodist Communications.
Drachler said that his office and the Council of Bishops’ office have received hundreds of e-mails.
“It was going at least two-to-one being critical of the ruling,” he said. “The response has been overwhelmingly critical.”
Carole Vaughn, director of communications for the Virginia Conference, said that the Judicial Council does not necessarily have the final word on a pastor’s ability to ban gays from membership. Delegates to the next United Methodist general conference in 2008 are expected to submit petitions on the issue.
She said that many churches have posted the bishop’s letter or read it from the pulpit. Rev. Joan E. Carter-Rimbach of the First United Methodist Church in Hyattsville, Md., went one step further. The same day she heard the ruling, she changed the sign outside her church to read: “Regardless of Sexual Orientation All Are Welcome … Joan E. Carter-Rimbach … Pastor.”
“I decided to change our outside signboard because I want the community and the world to know that every pastor and every United Methodist congregation does not feel the way the pastor in Virginia does or agrees with the Judicial Council’s ruling,” Carter-Rimbach wrote to the Blade in an e-mail.
The Judicial Council also defrocked Elizabeth Stroud, an openly gay minister in Pennsylvania. That decision, while very disappointing, was not as suprrising to Stroud as the Viriginia ruling.
“This ruling was extreme even for the most conservative bishops,” she said. “This is just out of the mainstream for who we are.”
|
