My Blog on Rev. Ed Johnson
I know I’m late in my attention to this matter, but I can at least offer up the more recent action by the Council of Bishops. My attention is on two theological issues, both of which were raised by Rev. Thomas (the advocate for Rev. Johnson) and answered by Bsp. Timothy Whitaker (Florida Annual Conference):
the authority of bishops, and
the nature of repentance. But first, a quick summary (with appropriate links).
In a rare case, the Judicial Council heard oral arguments before making its decision.
Bishop Kammerer’s Statement, from 27 October, is here.
Rev. Jeff Mickle’s Statement (advocating for the Annual Conference’s position) is here.
The Virginia Conference and Bishop Kammerer basically argued that since the church – as representative of God’s grace - is inclusive, Rev. Johnson failed in his pastoral duties. Thus those duties were taken away from him.
Rev. Tom Thomas, Jr.’s Statement (advocating for Rev. Ed Johnson) is here.
He argued that the ordained elder in charge of a local church has the sole authority to discern who is granted membership, and therefore Bsp. Kammerer overstepped her bounds.
A district superintendent and bishop are not judicially authorized to take charge of or dictate absolutely an action relative to membership to the administrative officer who has been put in charge….
In addition, he accuses Bsp. Kammerer and Rev. Mickle of having faulty doctrines of justification:
Bishop Kammerer and Rev. Mickle’s arguments assume place repentance after justification by faith. This is neither Wesleyan nor United Methodist. John Wesley argues in the standard sermon ‘The Way to the Kingdom’…repentance precedes justifying faith.
Judicial Council Decisions
1031 and
1032 were handed down on 29 October 2005. The first fully reinstated Rev. Ed Johnson to his ministerial duties, stating that the Virginia Conference had not granted him due process. The second ruled that the ordained elder does indeed have the power to refuse membership. Neill Caldwell’s UMNS article is
here.
On 2 November, the Council of Bishops issued a
Pastoral Letter in response to the Judicial Council decision, which states:
While pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a barrier.
Furthermore, the bishops uphold the authority of episcopal oversight, in opposition to Rev. Thomas’ statement above.
We also affirm our Wesleyan practice that pastors are accountable to the bishop, superintendent, and the clergy on matters of ministry and membership.
Bishop Timothy Whitaker has written a
Commentary on the Council of Bishop’s Pastoral Letter, in which he states that
The Council of Bishops also reminds the Church that all ordained persons exercise their ministry in covenant with all who share their ordination and accept the supervision of their district superintendent and bishop.
The statement of the Council of Bishops emphasizes the covenant of mutual accountability that exists among all ordained persons….
Whereas the Pastoral Letter appears to simply argue in favor of high episcopal authority, Bsp. Whitaker places this authority back into the context of a “covenant of mutual accountability.” Thus interpreted, the Pastoral Letter appears to be not so much a matter of centralizing power as it is of returning church discipline to “where two or three are gathered.” I think Bsp. Whitaker adequately balances between high and low ecclesiologies here.
In addition, Bsp. Whitaker clarifies the nature of repentance:
Repentance is not a single event, but a continuous process as we grow in our knowledge of God and ourselves.
This corrects Rev. Thomas’ assertion (quoted above) that “repentance precedes justifying faith.” Thank you, Bsp. Whitaker, for your attention to this matter. In my opinion, the actual theological issues reflected in Rev. Johnson’s actions were, in many respects, ignored by the entire administrative/judicial process.
