October 31, 2007
--From the blog "Kairos and Ambiguities" at http://zilhaver.typepad.com/ by permission--
Yesterday the Judicial Council posted its decisions on line. There are many that are interesting and will have impact on the church (I may comment on them at another time), of course I am most interested in reflecting on the questions of law I submitted during the clergy session at our last annual conference.
Judicial Council Decision 1077 is the Judicial Council’s direct response to my questions, but these answers must also be understood in light of the Judicial Council’s response to a similar Clergy Study Team in the Memphis Annual Conference Judicial Decision 1082. Both of these actions dealt with Clergy Study Teams appointed by their respective bishops to come up with a plan to define and deal with ineffective clergy in a streamlined process.
This is not surprising, as both Bishop Bickerton of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Bishop Wills of the Memphis Conference have collaborated together on many good projects even before they became bishops. Most recently they shared together at the "Clergy Get Away" for the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference. So, it is not surprising to see two parallel clergy study teams in their respective conferences.
The Judicial Council chose to address all the issues raised about the WPA Clergy Team and the ad hoc process (aimed at exiting pastors) in the Memphis decision. It did so for two main reasons, first it is easier and provides more freedom for the Judicial Council to speak clearly on a subject from a Declaratory Decision rather than from a Question of Law. Second, the Memphis Clergy Study Team had completed a full report, whereas in Western PA these things were still in a more formative stage.
The Judicial Council has set excellent standards to which any Clergy Study Team seeking to streamline exiting procedures must meet, whether that team function in Western PA, Memphis, or any other annual conference in the connection. Here is a summary of the problems found in this clergy team/ad hoc process.
The deficiencies in the policy include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The policy circumvents fair process as defined in the 2004 Discipline and prior Judicial Council decisions. The policy provides no means for the clergyperson to challenge the determination of ineffectiveness or to have access to all records that were relied upon in making that determination.
2. The policy does not provide for the clergyperson to be informed in writing of the problems or issues which caused the cabinet to determine ineffectiveness.
3. The policy does not allow the board of ordained ministry and its executive committee to carry out their disciplinary responsibilities for dealing with clergy ineffectiveness as provided in ¶ 362 of the 2004 Discipline.
4. The policy does not provide adequate pastoral care and support to the clergyperson who has been declared ineffective, nor is there any mention of pastoral care and support for his or her spouse and family.
5. The twelve month whirlwind process for dealing with a clergyperson’s ineffectiveness and the number of times the clergyperson is offered the opportunity to exit suggests that the primary purpose of the policy is to weed out ineffective clergy rather than developing the skills and abilities which would enable them to become effective.
6. The policy supplants the disciplinary provisions for dealing with clergy incompetence, ineffectiveness and unwillingness or the inability to perform ministerial duties as provided for in ¶ 362.2, .3, and .4 of the 2004 Discipline by establishing its own process for dealing with these issues. According to the policy, the initiation of an administrative complaint will be done only if the ineffective clergyperson fails to exit voluntarily.
7. The policy limits the range of remedies available in response to an administrative complaint as provided for in the 2004 Discipline.
8. Specific disciplinary paragraphs are not cited in the policy.
Having dealt with the Judicial Council on several other occasions, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday afternoon with a call from a member of the Judicial Council. They may not talk to anyone prior to the announcement of the decision and normally they make no contact (this was this persons first time, as well as mine). I was humbled that this person felt that the brief was the best the person had seen during the person’s tenure on the Judicial Council. There was an expression of thanks for the good work and encouragement to keep up the good fight.
Knowing that God’s providence works all things for good, I rejoice that I may play a small part in the Kingdom of Heaven. May you know that joy in your heart as well.
Until next time…Grace & Peace
Rev. Robert Zilhaver
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Another power of the episcopacy
The bishop was so angry with me for raising a question of law that he sent the dean of the Cabinet to excoriate me for disrespecting his authority. The superintendent was an old friend. But he was very serious. It was obvious that he felt I had stepped over the line.
Ordinarily, that would have frightened me.
This was the umpteenth time a superintendent had made his (I didn’t have a woman superintendent up to that time) anger with me known for my various challenges. This time, God’s grace stuck. Previously, the fear had taken over and I couldn’t respond. But this time I actually laughed. The superintendent did not take that well either. So I explained.
“Jim, all I did was ask a straight-forward question of law. The bishop got to answer it and establish his answer as law for our conference until October when the Judicial Council meets. Who knows, they may support his decision. Everything is cool. We both got what we wanted,” I said.
Jim was not very happy because I had gotten what the bishop did not want. And, despite being an "extension of the episcopal office," he had not successfully persuaded me to withdraw my question of law.
How did it come to this?
Pre-conference materials showed no line items in the proposed budget. There was just a single figure for all the mission agencies of the conference, a kind of block grant. I wrote the bishop that I didn’t think that satisfied the Disciplinary requirements for a budget. The day conference met, he called me in to meet with him about my concern. He made it clear that he was interpreting a line item as the total to be authorized for the category of missions in the budget. Even the 2004 Book of Discipline carries the same language as the 1988 Discipline did. Nearly every paragraph describing the budget and how it is built implies that the budget must have line items to be voted by the Conference which represented the expenditure each group, program, or agency could expect to have for the year. See Paragraph (P) 613.3a) as one such description.
For several years, this bishop and several church officers, mainly the treasurer and program director, had spoken of how difficult it was in the middle of the conference year to be sure incomes to cover all those line items would be met. A number of times, agencies and groups were asked to pare down their budgets and expect to not be able to spend the amounts identified by the budget. There often ended up being a surplus left because of unspent funds about which those leaders did not complain.
Then the bishop asked that we budget for a two year period in order to save time at annual conference for something besides arguing about the budget.
What struck me was that all the concern about fulfilling the budget was coming from just the three people. Midyear budgetary slumps were common and the end of the year contributions usually brought us to within a percentage point or two of the anticipated incomes.
Then the bishop argued how expensive it was to borrow money in midyear to cover until the churches paid up their apportionments in November and December. Previous budgets had built up a fund to cover that exigency but the bishop still complained.
When I met with the bishop before that “fateful” 1991 annual conference, it was clear the bishop wanted no line items. That surprised me because he knew church law very well. I went over all that the Discipline said about the necessity for them. When he insisted he was not changing his definition, I said I would have to ask a question of law to challenge that. He turned red in the face and said the conversation was over.
When the budget was presented with seven general categories (that was quite a concession, I thought, but not true to the Discipline) under the benevolence budget, I took the floor with the following question:
"In light of Judicial Council Decisions 5, 8, 400, 521, 539 and others, is the Annual Conference giving up a right reserved to it by describing the seven items on the 1992 budget request of the Board of Global Ministries as 'line items'" rather than the items listed under 'line items presented for information only?'"
The bishop ruled:
”It is the judgment of the Chair that this budget is properly before the Annual Conference through the recommendation of the Council on Finance and Administration, that the attached 'For Information Only' document was clearly introduced and discussed as an informational document and was not properly before the Conference as a budget recommendation, that the seven line items of the proposed budget are in fact operational line items for this agency, that the Conference members demonstrated their understanding of the nature of the budget by their discussion of it and the nature of several attempted amendments, that the budget as presented was approved by vote of a large majority of the Conference members, and thus, that the budget and its seven line items is in order and the Annual Conference has not given up any right reserved to itself.“
These are quoted from JCD 663.
The Judicial Council affirmed the bishop’s decision. He finally got what he wanted.
That decision changed the United Methodist Church.
From that time on, annual conferences all over the country found ways to fill time with Bible studies, preaching, banquets, award programs, and special events celebrating something or other because they no longer had to argue the budget.
Several things happened because of that.
One, bishops got considerable control over how much of the budget was spent. They could be sure programs they championed were funded fully and thus were more likely to be successful no matter what the priorities of the conference might be.
Two, lay members of conference who understood spreadsheets and budgets, often because they managed much larger ones in their own businesses, were frustrated because they never saw enough information to be able to understand the budget or the accounting.
Three, lay and clergy who were on the various program and mission projects were no longer called upon to discuss their efforts. That meant there was no chance to do more than put up booths outside the plenary area. Since conference members no longer made any decisions about those agencies or programs, they didn’t need to know about them. Because they no longer knew much about them, they had little reason to talk to their local churches about all the good things the conference was doing. Younger people never realized that their denomination was doing things that used to excite earlier generations.
That set of breakdowns in the life of annual conferences was a real loss because the conference was further away from the local church. The motivation to support apportionments declined. Many mission projects disappeared as a result because conferences had less money with which to work. Younger people had no reason to be loyal and supportive of their denomination because it had receded into the mists.
One more aspect of that 1991 event struck me. It expanded the power of the bishops.
I’ve been fussing for months about this kind of accumulation of power in their hands.
Look at the letters of bishops about the Virginia case where a pastor allegedly refused church membership to a gay man. You will find a sentence which says something like, “That pastor disobeyed his bishop.” So now the bishops want to be the gatekeepers of who joins the church rather than allow the pastor who is right there working with those folks?
Some of those who are and who want to be bishop are tempted to keep episcopal salaries and perks as high as possible despite other financial priorities will be the most potent “party” at the coming General Conference.
Bishops have led the fight in church law and in their actual behavior to take over the hiring and firing of pastors, ignoring and intentionally avoiding the directions of the Book of Discipline related to Fair Process.
Now we add this incursion into the expenditure of the conference finances which occurred in 1991.
I believe the fruit of it are manifest in a declining denomination.
I have submitted a petition to General Conference. The two sentences I pray will be added to Paragraph 613 are these:
“The council shall prepare, as noted below, a budget for the annual conference which includes line items, that is, specific amounts for administrative and program costs for every board, agency, cause, program, institution, mission and conference benevolence. Line items shall be before the annual conference prior to its vote on the whole conference budget.”
This is the rationale (had to be under 50 words!) that I gave:
“The current pattern of offering a general budget and trusting conference officers to take care of the details provides no protection from their neglecting, jeopardizing, and excluding ministries desired by the annual conference, contrary to Paragraph 613.3a) which demands ‘that none may be neglected.’”
Will this petition be passed at General Conference? We’ll see. Will it lead to positive changes if passed? It will help.
Ordinarily, that would have frightened me.
This was the umpteenth time a superintendent had made his (I didn’t have a woman superintendent up to that time) anger with me known for my various challenges. This time, God’s grace stuck. Previously, the fear had taken over and I couldn’t respond. But this time I actually laughed. The superintendent did not take that well either. So I explained.
“Jim, all I did was ask a straight-forward question of law. The bishop got to answer it and establish his answer as law for our conference until October when the Judicial Council meets. Who knows, they may support his decision. Everything is cool. We both got what we wanted,” I said.
Jim was not very happy because I had gotten what the bishop did not want. And, despite being an "extension of the episcopal office," he had not successfully persuaded me to withdraw my question of law.
How did it come to this?
Pre-conference materials showed no line items in the proposed budget. There was just a single figure for all the mission agencies of the conference, a kind of block grant. I wrote the bishop that I didn’t think that satisfied the Disciplinary requirements for a budget. The day conference met, he called me in to meet with him about my concern. He made it clear that he was interpreting a line item as the total to be authorized for the category of missions in the budget. Even the 2004 Book of Discipline carries the same language as the 1988 Discipline did. Nearly every paragraph describing the budget and how it is built implies that the budget must have line items to be voted by the Conference which represented the expenditure each group, program, or agency could expect to have for the year. See Paragraph (P) 613.3a) as one such description.
For several years, this bishop and several church officers, mainly the treasurer and program director, had spoken of how difficult it was in the middle of the conference year to be sure incomes to cover all those line items would be met. A number of times, agencies and groups were asked to pare down their budgets and expect to not be able to spend the amounts identified by the budget. There often ended up being a surplus left because of unspent funds about which those leaders did not complain.
Then the bishop asked that we budget for a two year period in order to save time at annual conference for something besides arguing about the budget.
What struck me was that all the concern about fulfilling the budget was coming from just the three people. Midyear budgetary slumps were common and the end of the year contributions usually brought us to within a percentage point or two of the anticipated incomes.
Then the bishop argued how expensive it was to borrow money in midyear to cover until the churches paid up their apportionments in November and December. Previous budgets had built up a fund to cover that exigency but the bishop still complained.
When I met with the bishop before that “fateful” 1991 annual conference, it was clear the bishop wanted no line items. That surprised me because he knew church law very well. I went over all that the Discipline said about the necessity for them. When he insisted he was not changing his definition, I said I would have to ask a question of law to challenge that. He turned red in the face and said the conversation was over.
When the budget was presented with seven general categories (that was quite a concession, I thought, but not true to the Discipline) under the benevolence budget, I took the floor with the following question:
"In light of Judicial Council Decisions 5, 8, 400, 521, 539 and others, is the Annual Conference giving up a right reserved to it by describing the seven items on the 1992 budget request of the Board of Global Ministries as 'line items'" rather than the items listed under 'line items presented for information only?'"
The bishop ruled:
”It is the judgment of the Chair that this budget is properly before the Annual Conference through the recommendation of the Council on Finance and Administration, that the attached 'For Information Only' document was clearly introduced and discussed as an informational document and was not properly before the Conference as a budget recommendation, that the seven line items of the proposed budget are in fact operational line items for this agency, that the Conference members demonstrated their understanding of the nature of the budget by their discussion of it and the nature of several attempted amendments, that the budget as presented was approved by vote of a large majority of the Conference members, and thus, that the budget and its seven line items is in order and the Annual Conference has not given up any right reserved to itself.“
These are quoted from JCD 663.
The Judicial Council affirmed the bishop’s decision. He finally got what he wanted.
That decision changed the United Methodist Church.
From that time on, annual conferences all over the country found ways to fill time with Bible studies, preaching, banquets, award programs, and special events celebrating something or other because they no longer had to argue the budget.
Several things happened because of that.
One, bishops got considerable control over how much of the budget was spent. They could be sure programs they championed were funded fully and thus were more likely to be successful no matter what the priorities of the conference might be.
Two, lay members of conference who understood spreadsheets and budgets, often because they managed much larger ones in their own businesses, were frustrated because they never saw enough information to be able to understand the budget or the accounting.
Three, lay and clergy who were on the various program and mission projects were no longer called upon to discuss their efforts. That meant there was no chance to do more than put up booths outside the plenary area. Since conference members no longer made any decisions about those agencies or programs, they didn’t need to know about them. Because they no longer knew much about them, they had little reason to talk to their local churches about all the good things the conference was doing. Younger people never realized that their denomination was doing things that used to excite earlier generations.
That set of breakdowns in the life of annual conferences was a real loss because the conference was further away from the local church. The motivation to support apportionments declined. Many mission projects disappeared as a result because conferences had less money with which to work. Younger people had no reason to be loyal and supportive of their denomination because it had receded into the mists.
One more aspect of that 1991 event struck me. It expanded the power of the bishops.
I’ve been fussing for months about this kind of accumulation of power in their hands.
Look at the letters of bishops about the Virginia case where a pastor allegedly refused church membership to a gay man. You will find a sentence which says something like, “That pastor disobeyed his bishop.” So now the bishops want to be the gatekeepers of who joins the church rather than allow the pastor who is right there working with those folks?
Some of those who are and who want to be bishop are tempted to keep episcopal salaries and perks as high as possible despite other financial priorities will be the most potent “party” at the coming General Conference.
Bishops have led the fight in church law and in their actual behavior to take over the hiring and firing of pastors, ignoring and intentionally avoiding the directions of the Book of Discipline related to Fair Process.
Now we add this incursion into the expenditure of the conference finances which occurred in 1991.
I believe the fruit of it are manifest in a declining denomination.
I have submitted a petition to General Conference. The two sentences I pray will be added to Paragraph 613 are these:
“The council shall prepare, as noted below, a budget for the annual conference which includes line items, that is, specific amounts for administrative and program costs for every board, agency, cause, program, institution, mission and conference benevolence. Line items shall be before the annual conference prior to its vote on the whole conference budget.”
This is the rationale (had to be under 50 words!) that I gave:
“The current pattern of offering a general budget and trusting conference officers to take care of the details provides no protection from their neglecting, jeopardizing, and excluding ministries desired by the annual conference, contrary to Paragraph 613.3a) which demands ‘that none may be neglected.’”
Will this petition be passed at General Conference? We’ll see. Will it lead to positive changes if passed? It will help.
Monday, October 1, 2007
A Bridge
Ever since our Union in 1968, our denomination has been split over many issues and each General Conference since has seen many wondering if we would come out whole at the end.
We’ve limped along and held together.
In the field of advocacy and care-giving, we have discovered that split is irrelevant to our work. Most of us have clear opinions on all the controversial issues the Church faces and yet we find the greater concern to be a lack of commitment on the part of too many of our church leaders to follow the Discipline.
As you can imagine, that statement means some different things to various associates. But that still means we can work together to counter the institutional culture that allows Cabinet members to treat clergy and laity shabbily. We are still a part of the same denomination and so working together has been an energizing and helpful process.
Perhaps the denomination will allow a split. We hope not but should it happen, I fully expect that AIA will still bridge that for a generation since the lessons we have learned about how the arrogant want to handle their power and how church law and advocacy can counter that will be an ongoing struggle in both. Since we will each claim the same tradition, there is every likelihood that the segments of the split denomination will start out with the same polity. Hopefully, we will be able to influence how Fair Process is to be handled, and even then I expect we will be very similar or want to be!
The other thing I’ve noticed is that autocratic attitudes are not peculiar to one end of the political spectrum. They come from any theological background and use that background to justify their behavior. No wonder Jesus emphasized, “By their fruit ye shall know them!” He had friends and enemies among all the factions that made up the Judaism of his day. Why should we expect anything different in our day?
John Wesley may have been fussy about who stayed in the Classes but he never removed them from church membership nor did he care from what theological background others came who wanted to work with him. “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.”
So AIA will not take a stand on the unity or split of our denomination. We are here to serve anyone and we are willing to work together in hopes for a humane and just future based on things like the Golden Rule rather than on who our theological gurus may be.
Jerry Eckert
10/1/07
We’ve limped along and held together.
In the field of advocacy and care-giving, we have discovered that split is irrelevant to our work. Most of us have clear opinions on all the controversial issues the Church faces and yet we find the greater concern to be a lack of commitment on the part of too many of our church leaders to follow the Discipline.
As you can imagine, that statement means some different things to various associates. But that still means we can work together to counter the institutional culture that allows Cabinet members to treat clergy and laity shabbily. We are still a part of the same denomination and so working together has been an energizing and helpful process.
Perhaps the denomination will allow a split. We hope not but should it happen, I fully expect that AIA will still bridge that for a generation since the lessons we have learned about how the arrogant want to handle their power and how church law and advocacy can counter that will be an ongoing struggle in both. Since we will each claim the same tradition, there is every likelihood that the segments of the split denomination will start out with the same polity. Hopefully, we will be able to influence how Fair Process is to be handled, and even then I expect we will be very similar or want to be!
The other thing I’ve noticed is that autocratic attitudes are not peculiar to one end of the political spectrum. They come from any theological background and use that background to justify their behavior. No wonder Jesus emphasized, “By their fruit ye shall know them!” He had friends and enemies among all the factions that made up the Judaism of his day. Why should we expect anything different in our day?
John Wesley may have been fussy about who stayed in the Classes but he never removed them from church membership nor did he care from what theological background others came who wanted to work with him. “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.”
So AIA will not take a stand on the unity or split of our denomination. We are here to serve anyone and we are willing to work together in hopes for a humane and just future based on things like the Golden Rule rather than on who our theological gurus may be.
Jerry Eckert
10/1/07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)