Re: JCM 1106

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1188&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110

This is the most disappointing decision of this Judicial Council session.

At issue, from the point of view of the one raising the questions of law, is whether or not the Cabinet can ignore the consultation process for appointments specified in the Book of Discipline.

The bishop changed the subject by hiding behind JCD 799, saying the issue was whether or not the questions were hypothetical.

When a nearly whole new Council was elected at General Conference, many of us wondered if the new members looked upon the whole church as its constituency or just the bishops who nominated them.

This is a largely new group who are seeking to find their way through how to apply justice and church law to the various questions brought. They are stuck with a bunch of bad precedents, in my mind. I really think JCD 799 is badly flawed as is the precedent established in JCD 75 discussed above in the observations on JCD 1099.

Hopefully these and other bad precedents can be shown to be unjust and inimical to a healthy church in cases yet to come before this Council. - Could the Council be signaling that it might rule differently if the bad elements of JCD 799 were brought before them?

As this ruling stands, its effect is that bishops are free for now to ignore the Discipline on handling appointments.

Unfettered bishops tend to be a downer for a conference. It won’t be long before there will be stories about bishops making appointments using a map of the conference and a dart.

I don’t think this Council wants to be seen as the facilitators of a return to the days of Bishop Angie Smith who was observed making appointments that way.