JCD 1413

ee.umc.org/decisions/81536

 

Did They or Didn’t They?

 

During a special called meeting of the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference to discuss Discipline changes of the 2019 General Conference, a report was made which included a set of ten recommendations for giving direction to the conference regarding LGBTQIA+ matters.  The recommendations were mostly pastoral, showing care and respect, especially toward teenagers.  Someone asked the bishop if the conference was trying to tell the local churches what to do.  He said in essence, “Not really.”

 

And the Council accepted his decision that the recommendations were moot and hypothetical.  In other words, the vote to accept the ten recommendations was without meaning or effect in church law.

 

Based on comments in concur/dissent section of JCD 1413, that the matter was parliamentary rather than “legal” may have stemmed from the bishop’s decision that the recommendations, while voted on, were not then finally settled because the full report was not ever voted upon.  

 

This is a quirk in annual conference processes where elements of an agency’s or committee’s report to the conference may be voted on but unless the whole report is voted upon, the matter actually fails to become binding for the annual conference.  

 

So the bishop’s response was that the conference had not actually told anyone what to do even though the content of the report was extensively discussed and parts voted upon.  The real effect was that the recommendations were given the support of the respective votes.  Anyone at the session would come away with the impression that the conference e was supporting the LGBTQIA+ community, especially the kids.

 

But technically, the Council went along with the bishop that nothing binding happened.

 

Did they or didn’t they?  Not really, I guess.  But existentially, they did.  And without the word “aspirational” being used.