A disclaimer to ‘Open hearts, Open minds and Open doors’

There is nothing more hurtful than to watch beloved institutions calcify into stalagmites of stagnation. On Oct. 29, 2005, The UMC—The United Methodist Church—slammed its doors on a professing member’s inclusion to a local church congregation because the Minister adjudged that he was not ready to make his vows by virtue of his sexual orientation.

Not since Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed the eleventh hour on Sunday morning as the most segregated hour in America has a pronouncement such as this one made such a tremor in the naves and pulpits of Christendom, at least, in the Protestant sector. The United Methodist Church has proclaimed itself open to all, in celebrated and award-winning TV ads proudly identifying itself as a Church of “open hearts, open minds and open doors.” Some of us called for “truth in advertising.” It now appears that there was a disclaimer all along, in fine print next to the pulpit. The local pastor of a church has the sole discretion to decide who can join a United Methodist congregation.

The Judicial Council, the Supreme Court of The United Methodist Church, decided on Oct. 29, 2005, that the ordained clergy in the denomination is vested the right to accept or refuse membership to a professing member seeking fellowship with a local congregation. It ruled that it is acceptable for pastors to refuse membership into The United Methodist Church on the grounds of sexual orientation and practice.

There is no appeal to this decision. Procedurally, the Church will have to wait for the next meeting of its General Conference in 2008 to try to reverse this decision. If the last General Conference is any indication, where the more conservative and Evangelical wing got the upper hand in electing members to the Judicial Council, there is reason to believe that this judgment will stay.

The affected case leading to this judgment involved the membership of an openly homosexual person. The local pastor said, “No,” to acceptance into the rolls; the presiding Bishop said, “Yes.” In the UMC, a Pastor is appointed and sent to a charge by the Bishop in consultation with a superintending Cabinet. Clergy is not called by the local church, as in the case of congregational types of churches. The non-complying Pastor was taken out of the appointive system, so he sought review and judgment from the denomination’s Judicial Council. The Bishop’s judgment was decreed non-operative and the local Pastor was adjudged to be in line with pastoral provisions, thereby, to be reinstated.

Because of the context in which this decision was made, the liberal sector of the United Methodist Church is up in arms. This is tantamount to reversing the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the US Supreme Court, made through the back door. After all, Al Capone was incarcerated on tax evasion, not mobsterism. This group sees this decision not as a radical shift in polity but as a judgment on morals. It will not be long before other side of the pews, a majority of UMC constituency, will let its views known.

In the last General Conference, the UMC barely averted schism within the body politic. The deep cleavage that separated members of the denomination has historic roots to the colonial period when slavery was still a prevalent practice. The Civil War rent the denomination, which is a truly American institution, along political and geographical lines. It was not until 1939 that the denomination managed to reunite.

However, within the denomination co-exists two primary strains: the Episcopal ethos is often characterized as High Church, Anglican and Romish, and dependent on formal centralized governance; the Protestant practices is generally more congregational, democratic, free-wheeling, peoples church.

The Episcopal wing guards the symbols and is protective of orthodoxy; the Protestant wing adheres to debates (a must in every Methodist library is the Bible, the Book of Discipline, and the Roberts Rule of Order!) and is activist in social affairs. The former has acted in measured and deliberate steps, favoring issues of justice and mercy, catholic in spirit and ecumenical in intent; the latter moves where the Spirit leads, vigilant in certitude of faith and well-defined morals. Prominent clergy and powerful laity have always agitated for more local power not only on matters of faith and morals, but significantly on property and resource allocation. The aforementioned adjudication favors the protestant strain.

But what are really the consequences of this Judicial Council decision?

This is a wake-up call for the denomination to reexamine its procedures and criteria of church membership and its polity structure. In the connectional nature of the denomination, the basic unit of polity is beyond the local church in the Annual Conference (comparable to a Diocesan level in the Roman Catholic tradition). The local Church’s Conference is presided over by a Bishop’s representative called a District Superintendent who is a member of the Bishop’s Cabinet.

Reports indicate that more than half of local churches within the denomination are carried by the other half. Further, policies and actions by Commissions and Boards beyond the local church level are often alien to the members they represent. The onus of responsibility for the existence of local congregations has been by default on the Annual Conference rather than the local church. This judgment puts the responsibility on a local church’s identity and survival in the hands of the local, particularly the local pastor.

This judgment empowers local congregations; threatens bureaucrats. It will also allow for autocratic local pastors, a condition already prevailing within sufficiently endowed or vibrantly self-sustaining local churches. Already, the Council of Bishops is being asked to renounce this decision in clear and emphatic words, a most unlikely prospect.

Further, UMC congregations are urged to declare a day of mourning and repentance on Thanksgiving Sunday, Nov. 20, 2005. Prayers and sermons “against this hurtful and non-Biblical ruling of the Judicial Council” are to be made. I’ll be happy if 30 percent of the denomination complies.

For now, the United Methodist Church will just have to change it’s corporate slogan to “Closed Hearts, Closed Minds, Closed Doors,” until further notice. That, or continue with the current one with a disclaimer to read the fine prints!

(Jaime R. Vergara is a pastor of the United Methodist Church.)