JCD 1162

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1282&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

The Philippines case returned in the form of a request for reconsideration. Usually such requests get no space in the memorandum. In this case, it appears the interim bishop may have not been truthful about having met on Feb. 3, 2010, with the Cabinet to get them to change the site for the annual conference. He answered the request for reconsideration of JCM 1152 and in his argument said that the Cabinet had not responded to his requests for meetings. That raises the issue of the credibility of the interim bishop. The chances are that he did not meet the Cabinet on February 3 as the statement of facts in both 1152 and 1162 provide but unilaterally changed the site of the conference for his own convenience. He had to appoint new superintendents in order to finally get the "Cabinet" authorization on February 18. If he already had the old Cabinet's support for changing the site, why did he need to appoint new DSs to get that vote?

The Council did not sense that possible question when it considered the case in JCM 1152 and despite being told by the brief from the opponents of the interim bishop for this docketed action, they found nothing egregious about the interim bishop’s actions and ruled he operated within church law.

One party seeking reconsideration was chastised for not copying his request for reconsideration to the other parties at interest.

The Council was in a situation where they did not know for sure who to believe.

Over the years, Councils have tended not only to believe the bishop’s side of the story but rarely ever have acknowledged anything said from the pastor’s side. Decisions like JCD 1156 occur about once a decade.

In this case, there was some acknowledgement that there were issues against the episcopal rendering of the situation. I appreciate that whenever the Council does it.