JCD 1120

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1237&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

The Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference faced a resolution that attempted to moderate the anti-homosexual language in the Discipline. During plenary, someone asked the bishop for a ruling of law about whether or not the resolution was out of order. The bishop took the time to go beyond that question to answer the rationale of the questioner. And the Council did likewise, rather than just responding as they should have that the Judicial Council does not deal with parliamentary questions.

It appears the Council chose to educate. They seemed to want to share the bishop’s arguments which they would not have had to if they had properly refused jurisdiction. After spending a lot of text on helpful historical understanding of various resolutions brought to them in the past, they told the bishop his decision was reversed.

On the one hand, they should have kept it simple by avoiding a parliamentary ruling. On the other, they provided a good summary of church law on resolutions.