JCD 1189

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1310&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

Officers of the Baltimore-Washington requested reconsideration of JCD 1156. They felt the Council was confused over two different cases and some other errors based on errors of fact about the case which the Council said occurred.

The Council did not really need to respond because they have usually not done so in the past.

But having gotten more (and confusing) statements of facts, they leaned back on the official minutes which gave one narrative compared with the multiple stories the Council received from the many briefs sent in.

It takes a real lover of church law to get inside the tight and extended argument prepared in the analysis. In effect, the analysis is a “How To" manual for Cabinets and Boards of Ordained Ministry on the changes in involuntary leave of absence that occurred in 2008’s Discipline.

The upshot is that the Council did not change its mind about what it said in JCD 1156: that the pastor be reinstated and have all pastoral support repaid from when the whole mess began. Then they added what was a real joy to my eyes: “We retain jurisdiction in order to monitor Annual Conference compliance with this decision. Evidence of compliance should be transmitted to the Secretary of the Judicial Council by July 15, 2011.”

You go, Council!