JCM 1408

ee.umc.org/decisions/81524

 

Clarifying what was made unconstitutional in JCD 1383

 

The Council of Bishops hoped the Judicial Council’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of removing pastors by administrative means rather than through church trials was not as extensive as the Bishops feared.

 

The Council made it simple:  During the votes of the clergy in executive session, members of the Cabinet, Board of Ordained Ministry, and the various committees and individuals who took part in their actions and deliberations related to a particular pastor’s removal from ministry did not have the right to also vote on their decision during the clergy session.    

This follows precedents set in JCDs 917 and 950 relating to the involvement of Cabinet members in deciding what the Board of Ordained Ministries rules on the status of a pastor.  -  It takes awhile until exactly the right question is asked to build on a foundation established by such important rulings.

 

The principle established in JCD 1408 should have been in effect in the case described in JCM 1400 above.  Even in conferences not run by autocratic bishops, few pastors will stand up against the opinion of the bishop for fear of such “obstinacy” being “remembered” by the bishop when it came to appointments. 

 

That means that even when this change in church law is put into practice, the bishop must be extraordinarily careful to remain neutral in the handling of personnel matters that come before the clergy session.  Even when he or she hands the gavel to the parliamentarian or other person not involved in the processing of the removal of a pastor, there can be no clue or rumor perceived to share the bishop’s opinion.

 

Some bishops will hate that!  It was bad enough for those inclined to control everything that the Board of Ordained Ministry was written into removal of pastors back in 1980.  Now they will not have cover of their minions on the Board (have you noticed how the Board tends to have its leadership “graduate” into the Cabinet or other high place of standing in the conference?).  -  I get the feeling that the Council of Bishops tends to support the bishops who have autocratic tendencies and let them make their requests for Council rulings on church laws that could disrupt their need to control everything.  But since the deliberations of the Bishops in their meetings are held in secret, there is no way to know how many such requests come up and how many are shot down by the more thoughtful among the bishops!