JCD 1141

JCD 1141
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1260&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

This case from California-Nevada is another wonderful trip through difficult terrain for most people, determining pensions rates under conflicting Disciplinary passages and varying policies of related agencies. I will leave the details of the decision to those same experienced folks I noted above in the review of JCD 1132.

The Council reiterates a principle of law that must be noted. Where there are conflicts between related Disciplinary passages as there are in this case, the resolution of which passage takes precedence lies in which passage is the more recently passed by General Conference.

For those interested enough to read this blog, in situations where there is a conflict within the Discipline, you need to be ready to do one of two things:

1. check past Disciplines to determine which of the conflicting passages appears most recently, and

2. check past copies of the Daily Christian Advocate of General Conference, particularly if the conflicting passages both came from the same General Conference.
Another principle of law dates back to 1970 (JCD 331). “Acts in relation to the same subject or object should be constued together.” There may be a way that the apparent conflicts can be resolved by finding a frame of reference that allows both to be true.

In this case, however, the issue was clearly numbers which meant there was no way to construe them together, one or the other had to be chosen.

One other feature of this decision that is of special interest is that it is a case that came up after the docket’s deadline. The Council accepted jurisdiction under its own rules for emergency appeals. This is the first time I have been aware of the Council doing this in its history. If they did it previously, it was not mentioned in the decisions.