Re: JCM 1107

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1190&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110

This decision is also a disappointment. It gives us a clue as to how hard it is to raise questions about behavior of church leaders, particularly bishops.

Looking at the background material given in this memorandum and its predecessor, JCM 1106, it is clear that some people see that bishops are ready to disobey the Discipline whenever it suits them.

I know from experience in many cases that direct complaints against bishops for failure to follow the Discipline, a chargeable offense under Paragraph 2702.1e), are usually dropped . . . by a small committee of two bishops from their jurisdiction. It is not strange that they do not want to challenge their episcopal brothers and sisters about how they handle their own conferences. Our “live and let live” culture occurs on that level too.

So what’s left?

Bishops are so busy they don’t usually have time for people who want to complain that the bishop isn’t operating under the Discipline. The bishop has the final word in the conference on what the Discipline says (Paragraph 2718). The only way to challenge that is to go to annual conference to present a question that can then be reviewed by the Judicial Council. JCD 799 makes that virtually impossible.

The next option is to make a fuss at conference as the questioner in this case did and hope that the Judicial Council will report it out some way.

Beyond this, there is the possibility of going to the local press who usually aren’t interested.

That leaves the challengers to tell their family and friends about the gross behavior of the conference.

Those folks are interested and often vote with their money (resolutions not to pay apportionments or just plain stopping contributing to the local church). If withholding money has no impact, that leaves the option of walking away.

Does this Council feel obligated to back the bishops’ bad behavior?

That remains to be seen.

But the fact that they tell as much of the back story behind the cases, something not all previous Councils have done, could be a warning to bishops that maladministration may not be tolerated in the future.