How can we call Vine and Kelly “ordained ministers in good standing”? Isn’t this whole thing putting their good standing into question?

Conrad Vine and Ron Kelly both hold ministerial credentials that have not been revoked. Neither man is under a vote of censure or disfellowship from his local church. That is what Village’s Resolution means by calling them ministers in good standing, using the term similarly to how it is used in Robert’s Rules of Order: “Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws” (83). If, as conference officials have maintained, the actions they took were not disciplinary, then both men remain in “good standing” to this day. In any case, they were in good and regular standing at the time the actions against them were taken.

There is another angle to this question if we take “good standing” as a broader statement about one’s orthodoxy or fitness to teach. There have been accusations levied against both men that would call into question their “good standing” in this sense. But one of the fundamental principles of due process is presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Accused individuals should be given a hearing in which they can hear the evidence against them and present their defense. Unless and until this happens, they should not be treated as though the accusations against them were the final verdict.