Bishop Charlene Kammerer (shown above) is finally satisfied with the situation at South Hill UMC.
In recent UMC news, a man who was previously turned away at South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church because of unrepented sin was received by transfer of membership from a local Baptist church.
The Rev. Edward H. Johnson had refused to receive the man into membership in 2005, saying the man would neither repent nor seek to live a lifestyle that does not include homosexuality.
When Johnson’s decision was made known, his colleagues in the Virginia Annual Conference placed him on involuntary leave of absence. Four months later, that decision was overturned by a vote of the Judicial Council, our denomination’s highest judicial body.
The article explained that the new pastor, Rev. Barry Burkholder, counseled the individual after Johnson was appointed elsewhere. Based on that counseling, Burkholder said, “…having spoken with this individual and him having professed Christ as his savior, his belief that Jesus Christ died for his sins tells me that he is ready to receive the vows of membership.” Some may take issue that this equates with repentance (which is a requirement for membership), and therefore question Burkholder’s decision.
In 2005, Rev. Johnson indicated as part of his reasoning that the man would neither repent nor seek to live a lifestyle that does not include homosexuality. In the article I read, there was no indication that he would.
That appears to be okay by Bishop Kammerer.
The bishop said there are members of South Hill who disapprove of the man’s lifestyle and sexual orientation, but “these same members would not exclude him from membership in The United Methodist Church based on that reality alone.”
She said it is her hope and prayer “that no United Methodist pastor would use discretion to bar anyone from membership in The United Methodist Church.”
That says to me that the man was welcomed in spite of his lack of repentance. Though some might see that as wonderfully hospitable, I can’t help thinking of the words of Jesus, “Go and sin no more.” So I’d have probably acted more as Johnson and less as Burkholder.
But that doesn’t matter. Why? Because I’m not the pastor there.
You see, in 2005, the Judicial Council ruled 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.” That means Burkholder and Johnson are both free to make their interpretation of the Scripture and Discipline (in that order) as they see fit where they are appointed.
So just as worship can take the form of the local culture (article 22 of the Articles of Religion), apparently, so too may theological interpretation of practice and belief conform to local interpretation.
Now, don’t get me wrong: Worship has some basic forms that must be followed. But there are some pretty wide latitudes that may be explored on that front. Theology and practice are just not as easily contextualized, regardless of the desires and wishes of the local congregation.
This means that our leaders must make a clearer statement on behalf of the denomination regarding this issue. Why? Because our sister Churches are clawing at their own throats, eagerly devouring themselves from the inside out. The divisions that are erupting in denominations like the Episcopal Church, are causing grief and heartache for clergy and laity alike. Moreover, many of our churches, on opposite ends of the issue, continue to believe that the denomination’s stance (or lack thereof) supports their own.
Without that clear leadership, laity in the local congregation will continue to have the option to request and press for pastors who “agree” with them on whatever pet issues they hold instead of accepting the leadership and discernment of the one who is appointed. District Superintendents and Bishops will have to take individual stances of individual pastors into consideration, or run the risk of an incompatible appointment. Unless…
…unless we make a clear statement, one way or the other.
The leaders who are “managing” this situation must come to grips with this issue at some point and speak the truth in love to one side or the other. The gospel message is not a law, but a choice. And its time to decide. We cannot have it both ways.
Recent Comments