JCD 1135

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1252&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

This decision based on a case from Wyoming Conference, while the proper one in this case, leaves this question: How is it that a pastor facing involuntary retirement, an administrative process, may raise a question of law of the bishop who is supposed to be out of the loop on administrative personnel matters and have the Judicial Council actually rule on the bishop’s answers and overturn the situation? I believe that in some past decisions, previous Councils have done that when a particular bishop or the bishop’s theology was out of favor with the respective Councils.

I also believe that the Council has usually abrogated its responsibility when questions of law presented in writing and entered on the minutes should be answered. See my commentary on JCD 1130 above.

In this case, the decision is over a case described as so badly handled that ruling the questions “moot,” etc. would be a manifest injustice. In the rare cases like this one that the Council rules against a bishop and for the pastor, I would encourage the Council to require a report back on how the bishop and conference responded to the decision and what happened to the pastor. (I happen to know and it isn’t pretty!)