JCM 1324

http://www.umc.org/decisions/69694

Reconsideration of JCD 1319

I thought JCD 1319 was perfectly clear.  The time for the Congo Central Conference had been set by the conference and could not be changed by the bishops. Apparently the bishops could not take “no” for an answer.

Unfortunately, I do not know what issues were involved so my snark could be way out of line.  Whatever was brought back to the Council was not compelling so there was no reconsideration.

JCD 1319

JCD 1319

http://www.umc.org/decisions/67688

May the Bishops Change the Conference Meeting Time?

No.

Next question?

The decision is clear.  What is not clear is why a delegate from the Congo Central Conference had to ask in the first place.  

My speculation is that the bishops wanted to change the date previously set by the conference to one that fit their own needs.  

If the need to change the date were serious, such as a civil war or devastating weather event, the question would never have been raised.  I do not think it is much of a stretch that there was a case of episcopal overreach and it was stopped by seeking the help of the Judicial Council.

But that’s me . . . .

Maybe the most important matter was that the Council took jurisdiction despite the fact that the matter was not before the General Conference in any petition or other action and it dealt with a matter that the General Conference could not handle.  The questioner was allowed to use the plenary to raise a hypothetical question and the Council saw the wisdom of allowing it.

I’ve been aware in the past that the Council tends to relax the rules a bit in order to show respect for concerns of delegates from the central conferences.  

Creative?  Not particularly.  Helpful?  Certainly.  Necessary?  Probably, because bishops were acting outside their authority and they already think that they answer only to God.  But the Judicial Council’s word has a way of sometimes keeping bishops within the bounds of their proper authority.  So it is worth it to make requests for declaratory decisions even when the normal practices of the Council show little promise of getting a meaningful response.  

JCD 1248

 http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1268&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1101&EN=1200

RETIREMENT AGE OF BISHOPS OVERSEAS

Applying the Book of Discipline outside of the United States is worse than applying it here.  There is also church law done within Central Conferences at different times in different places in response to the culturally sensitive needs that differ from Central Conference to Central Conference as well as differing from American culture.

In this case, apparently a Central Conference “Discipline” from 1990 was used in an attempt to clarify just what is required of aging bishops with regard to retirement.  Fortunately, a resolution could be made to questions of law, based on less than specific but adequate church law of related Disciplinary passages.  General Conference would be well to sort this out officially.  It won’t be simple because of the way some Central Conferences cannot meet until after a particular Discipline has gone into effect, long after most other Central and Jurisdictional Conferences have met under the rules set out in the previous Discipline.  

Based on observation, I must warn the Church that views of the nature of the episcopacy vary from one continent to another and between conferences within a continent.  The concept of “authoritarian chief” has come to my attention as I’ve had more contact with overseas pastors.  I have met leaders from other continents who have been anything but that kind of bishop.  I would love to have them teach some of our American bishops how to undertake the task!  Nonetheless, clarifying any rules about tenure for bishops overseas will not be simple because of the wide diversity of leadership practices.

For now, bishops not yet 68 at a particular time may remain bishops until their seventy second birthday, after which a different bishop must be assigned to finish out the term.  Got it?  I’d like to think I have.

JCD 1240

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1362&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1240

CLARIFYING RETIREMENT AGE OF BISHOPS IN CENTRAL CONFERENCES

Questions of law were asked at the Congo Central Conference about the retirement age of bishops.  The Council took jurisdiction but made no ruling because it needs to have the minutes of the session to clarify the context of the questions.

The bishop prepared written rulings that were recorded in this “decision” and the Council notes that a brief was sent which challenged the written statement of the bishop with what was heard at the conference.

The Council kept jurisdiction and will hopefully get all the information it needs so it can rule at its November session.