Lately, quite a number of women clergy have been asking for my help. They are women who have struggled and excelled so that they could achieve educational goals and meet Disciplinary requirements and they still are leaving the ministry within a few years.
The pattern seems to be that they are appointed at the entry level where the churches they are serving are in decline and where they are not always welcomed by some key people because they are women. Because the situation is already going down hill, they have additional stresses because of the tendency in many conferences for the superintendents to be quite distant doing program or being unable to stay in contact with pastors lowest in the peck order. When a lay person makes a complaint, the DS in those conferences looks at the statistics and sees little success with the woman clergy so the DS tends to presume the pastor is the problem. The laity is the source of revenue for the conference so “the customer is always right.”
What is most unsettling is that I have not seen a difference when the conference is led by men or women. The pattern is the same.
Here is a portion of a note between two women clergy, one of whom is frustrated over how she has been treated as the conference put her on leave of absence:
“It is wearing and I am overwhelmed by the intensity of the questioning and searching for justice. I am seven years away from my most recent experience of injustice with the system. I think I went in expecting injustice and was not so surprised by it when it happened.
“Having said that, I still want to emphasize something. Your sisters in ministry have grave concerns about the futility of aggressive response to anything in the system. I guess that's why most of us take it until we don't want to anymore and we leave.
It's not because we don't have the courage to address it. We just choose to spend what energies we have in ministry, picking our battles very carefully. I didn't see anything in the system that was worth fighting against and risking my opportunity to be in ministry. This side of my experience of seven years ago, I still don't see anything I want to spend my energies on. Maybe I will at some point. I'm not adverse to the idea. But life is too short! And I have to trust the process enough to believe that eventually the system will correct itself or die.”
Since I entered ministry in the 1960s, I have seen the entry level churches change from being training grounds for new pastors to being cemeteries for the least experienced pastors. Men clergy face similar treatment but they are not up against I Corinthians 14:35 et al.
When the denomination represents condemnation of pastors in trouble and not redemption for them, we have to correct ourselves or . . . .
WELCOME!
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Re: Spring 2009 Judicial Council Decisions
The following observations are intended to encourage you to read the decisions of the Judicial Council for yourself. The observations are in no way church law in any form but will hopefully help you understand some aspects of the decisions I think are important.
I've included the URL for each of the rulings. That should allow you to paste it so you can go directly to the decision.
Each is posted separately so it doesn't seem so tediously long!
I've included the URL for each of the rulings. That should allow you to paste it so you can go directly to the decision.
Each is posted separately so it doesn't seem so tediously long!
Re: JCM 1111
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1196&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118
If there was any concern about the United Methodist’s two positions on homosexuality and related issues among Judicial Council members, that was not reflected in the decision. The Council took a strict interpretation as did its predecessor Council that what is said in Paragraphs (PP) 2702 and 341.6 make any reference to supporting marriage or union services for same gender couples illegal under the Discipline.
This case was held over from the 2008 Fall session in order for all the documents to be sent in by the Conference from which the matter came.
A resolution was passed by the California-Nevada Conference to commend retired Elders who would be willing to conduct same gender ceremonies. A question of law was raised about it and the bishop ruled that while commendable, the resolution encouraged violating church law and was null and void.
Her ruling ended the resolution’s life in that conference until the Council reviewed the decision.
Judicial Council Decision 1111 supports the bishop.
The only dissent indicated an interpretation of the resolution which did not “prescribe or recommend violation” of the Discipline but it had only one signer.
If there was any concern about the United Methodist’s two positions on homosexuality and related issues among Judicial Council members, that was not reflected in the decision. The Council took a strict interpretation as did its predecessor Council that what is said in Paragraphs (PP) 2702 and 341.6 make any reference to supporting marriage or union services for same gender couples illegal under the Discipline.
This case was held over from the 2008 Fall session in order for all the documents to be sent in by the Conference from which the matter came.
A resolution was passed by the California-Nevada Conference to commend retired Elders who would be willing to conduct same gender ceremonies. A question of law was raised about it and the bishop ruled that while commendable, the resolution encouraged violating church law and was null and void.
Her ruling ended the resolution’s life in that conference until the Council reviewed the decision.
Judicial Council Decision 1111 supports the bishop.
The only dissent indicated an interpretation of the resolution which did not “prescribe or recommend violation” of the Discipline but it had only one signer.
Re: JCM 1112
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1197&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118
This matter was held over from the 2008 Fall session of the Council and was given a very brief review in the Memorandum: the bishop ruled the presenter of the question was not a member of the conference and thus could not raise the question, which the Council upheld and therefore felt it could not take jurisdiction..
The story behind the questioning comes out in the concurring opinions.
The superintendent and pastor changed the locks on the church so the congregation could no longer meet.
The local church was summarily discontinued (P 2548.2) by the superintendent and then was called an abandonment (P 2548.3) when the Annual Conference met to vote on it. The process for each is different in the Discipline.
Besides the obvious lack of proper procedure for discontinuing the church reported in the concurring opinions, I wonder if the Council checked to see if the questioner was still a proper delegate since the abandonment was not final until after the conclusion of the conference. I also wonder if they could have taken jurisdiction despite the bishop’s ruling because the conference did have before it the matter of the closing of that church, thus making the question(s) germane to the actions of the conference.
I confess it is odd that a conference would consider closing a church with an average attendance of 40 worshippers. If the issue was theological, as I suspect, I wonder how those with a different theological stance would accept superintendents’ actions like this one.
This could be one of those things the Council missed in its learning curve.
As the ruling stands, superintendents can pull this same stunt with impunity in the future because of the precedent of this ruling.
This matter was held over from the 2008 Fall session of the Council and was given a very brief review in the Memorandum: the bishop ruled the presenter of the question was not a member of the conference and thus could not raise the question, which the Council upheld and therefore felt it could not take jurisdiction..
The story behind the questioning comes out in the concurring opinions.
The superintendent and pastor changed the locks on the church so the congregation could no longer meet.
The local church was summarily discontinued (P 2548.2) by the superintendent and then was called an abandonment (P 2548.3) when the Annual Conference met to vote on it. The process for each is different in the Discipline.
Besides the obvious lack of proper procedure for discontinuing the church reported in the concurring opinions, I wonder if the Council checked to see if the questioner was still a proper delegate since the abandonment was not final until after the conclusion of the conference. I also wonder if they could have taken jurisdiction despite the bishop’s ruling because the conference did have before it the matter of the closing of that church, thus making the question(s) germane to the actions of the conference.
I confess it is odd that a conference would consider closing a church with an average attendance of 40 worshippers. If the issue was theological, as I suspect, I wonder how those with a different theological stance would accept superintendents’ actions like this one.
This could be one of those things the Council missed in its learning curve.
As the ruling stands, superintendents can pull this same stunt with impunity in the future because of the precedent of this ruling.
Re: JCD 1113
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1200&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118
For approximately $10 a year for 99 years, with the possibility of renewing for another 150 years, the Bush Foundation signed a lease with SMU.*
That’s the information the Judicial Council apparently did not have. They indicate in the ruling that they could not determine the fair market value for the lease of four or more acres for a facility worth 200 to 500 million dollars. It is likely they would have concluded that the lease is worth far less than market value for property on the SMU campus.
I wish I had been at the hearing (my own fault that I who live in Florida did not attend the Denver hearing) to learn if anyone on the Judicial Council asked that question of the six representatives at the hearing. Someone in the group had that information. It was the burden of the questioner to have presented it in light of the questions she asked at the conference.
A reading of the Decision shows that the Judicial Council sensed pressure of time. That's why they didn't send it back to the bishop who ruled on the questions of law.
They chose instead to study the rules of procedure of the jurisdictional conference and the SMU articles of incorporation as well as the Book of Discipline. After showing where the Bishop had erred in his rulings, they sought to answer the questions themselves.
They decided that the Mission Council of the jurisdiction acted appropriately in permitting the signing of the lease and that the vote supporting that action by the South Central Jurisdictional Conference, the true owners of SMU, affirmed the action.
They did not note the action of the College of Bishops of the jurisdiction who made a judicial ruling when asked by the Bush Foundation but who then failed to forward that ruling to the Judicial Council for review as all other questions of law require.
The Judicial Council needs to be more careful about what judicial authority bishops are allowed under the Book of Discipline.
Nor did the Judicial Council review precedents in their own record. As far back as 1946, the Judicial Council ruled that no body can abandon its own powers and grant them to a subsidiary group. JCD 38 says, "No authority is given in the Constitution of the Church for it to delegate its powers in such a manner as to deprive itself of that basic or ultimate power." I was startled at how many decisions since have maintained that precedent. I do not think that the Council should have affirmed the role of the Mission Council.
Because the lease was already signed under permission of the Mission Council, those who supported it could argue it was too late to change. That would inhibit some delegates who might have voted the other way.
I commend the Judicial Council on its careful study and earnest desire to resolve this matter. I also appreciate the care shown by two members of the Judicial Council to explain their relationship to the ruling and why they did or did not participate in this decision.
But in their desire to be helpful, the Council may have provided an inadvertent appearance of favoritism.
*I have this information from a Feb. 28, 2008, copy of THE DAILY CAMPUS, an independent SMU campus newspaper.
For approximately $10 a year for 99 years, with the possibility of renewing for another 150 years, the Bush Foundation signed a lease with SMU.*
That’s the information the Judicial Council apparently did not have. They indicate in the ruling that they could not determine the fair market value for the lease of four or more acres for a facility worth 200 to 500 million dollars. It is likely they would have concluded that the lease is worth far less than market value for property on the SMU campus.
I wish I had been at the hearing (my own fault that I who live in Florida did not attend the Denver hearing) to learn if anyone on the Judicial Council asked that question of the six representatives at the hearing. Someone in the group had that information. It was the burden of the questioner to have presented it in light of the questions she asked at the conference.
A reading of the Decision shows that the Judicial Council sensed pressure of time. That's why they didn't send it back to the bishop who ruled on the questions of law.
They chose instead to study the rules of procedure of the jurisdictional conference and the SMU articles of incorporation as well as the Book of Discipline. After showing where the Bishop had erred in his rulings, they sought to answer the questions themselves.
They decided that the Mission Council of the jurisdiction acted appropriately in permitting the signing of the lease and that the vote supporting that action by the South Central Jurisdictional Conference, the true owners of SMU, affirmed the action.
They did not note the action of the College of Bishops of the jurisdiction who made a judicial ruling when asked by the Bush Foundation but who then failed to forward that ruling to the Judicial Council for review as all other questions of law require.
The Judicial Council needs to be more careful about what judicial authority bishops are allowed under the Book of Discipline.
Nor did the Judicial Council review precedents in their own record. As far back as 1946, the Judicial Council ruled that no body can abandon its own powers and grant them to a subsidiary group. JCD 38 says, "No authority is given in the Constitution of the Church for it to delegate its powers in such a manner as to deprive itself of that basic or ultimate power." I was startled at how many decisions since have maintained that precedent. I do not think that the Council should have affirmed the role of the Mission Council.
Because the lease was already signed under permission of the Mission Council, those who supported it could argue it was too late to change. That would inhibit some delegates who might have voted the other way.
I commend the Judicial Council on its careful study and earnest desire to resolve this matter. I also appreciate the care shown by two members of the Judicial Council to explain their relationship to the ruling and why they did or did not participate in this decision.
But in their desire to be helpful, the Council may have provided an inadvertent appearance of favoritism.
*I have this information from a Feb. 28, 2008, copy of THE DAILY CAMPUS, an independent SMU campus newspaper.
Re: JCM 1114
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1203&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118
A West Ohio leader requested a ruling on whether or not the General Conference had taken action on establishing the number of bishops to which the North Central Jurisdiction was entitled, based on a vote to change the Discipline about how that number was determined.
The Council took no jurisdiction but took time to explain as clearly as they could just why.
The hang up they say is that there is a principle of church law that has not yet been changed which says that only matters dealing with the actual business of an annual conference can be ruled on by the Council.
I have not completed the necessary research yet to argue this understanding of their role. But I think the Council has made rulings on questions outside that limitation in the past. I do expect that research will be done during the coming year to challenge what is taken as a standing precedent which unfortunately avoids the task of determining the “constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the Discipline….”
A West Ohio leader requested a ruling on whether or not the General Conference had taken action on establishing the number of bishops to which the North Central Jurisdiction was entitled, based on a vote to change the Discipline about how that number was determined.
The Council took no jurisdiction but took time to explain as clearly as they could just why.
The hang up they say is that there is a principle of church law that has not yet been changed which says that only matters dealing with the actual business of an annual conference can be ruled on by the Council.
I have not completed the necessary research yet to argue this understanding of their role. But I think the Council has made rulings on questions outside that limitation in the past. I do expect that research will be done during the coming year to challenge what is taken as a standing precedent which unfortunately avoids the task of determining the “constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the Discipline….”
Re: JCM 1115
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1204&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118
California Pacific Annual Conference tried a resolution that would recognize the pastoral need to handle same gender ceremonies. The Council accepted the bishop’s recognition of the right of those who violate the Discipline to fair process or just resolution, but the Council reversed her ruling that the resolution was permissible.
They felt it supported those pastors who celebrated same gender ceremonies.
I find that the phrase in the resolution that went over the line is “and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations….” That clearly authorizes the behavior proscribed in the Discipline even if it is supported in places like the preface of the Social Principles: “They are a call to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit.”
This Council’s frame of mind is reflected in Judge Gray’s view that such subtle resolutions on the annual conference level must be replaced by legislation at General Conference.
California Pacific Annual Conference tried a resolution that would recognize the pastoral need to handle same gender ceremonies. The Council accepted the bishop’s recognition of the right of those who violate the Discipline to fair process or just resolution, but the Council reversed her ruling that the resolution was permissible.
They felt it supported those pastors who celebrated same gender ceremonies.
I find that the phrase in the resolution that went over the line is “and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations….” That clearly authorizes the behavior proscribed in the Discipline even if it is supported in places like the preface of the Social Principles: “They are a call to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit.”
This Council’s frame of mind is reflected in Judge Gray’s view that such subtle resolutions on the annual conference level must be replaced by legislation at General Conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)