JCD 1250

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1371&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1259

LEGALITY OF THE “SENSE OF THE WESTERN JURISDICTION”

In JCD 1237, the resolution passed by the Western Jurisdiction was not ruled upon because the bishop chose to rule that the original question was so flawed by misspellings as to be moot and hypothetical.  The Council did not drop the matter but told the bishop to answer the questions because the misspellings were easily correctable from the context of the request.

The bishop responded to the Council’s request and ruled that the resolution penalties appropriate for conviction of the church “crime” of conducting ceremonies for same sex couples to be was suspension for 24 hours was aspirational.  (No surprise: see the post on JCM 1237 in this blog.)

However, the Council reversed the bishop’s ruling because the resolution went over the line.  Like the Northern Illinois Annual Conference’s resolution dealt with in JCD 1201, this resolution pushed the envelope farther than the Council would allow, so it is null and void.

This resolution, illegal under church law, is kind of like a bell that has been rung and there is no way to stop the sound once it has left the bell.  The idea is out there now and there will be the potential of trial courts considering such brief suspensions offered by the resolution.  

Will Counsels for the Church appeal such trial court decisions by calling them “egregious” in light of this and other similar rulings, the only grounds on which the Church can appeal results of a church trial?  See JCD 1215 and the posting in this blog related to it for one alternative that was tried.  Because of this ruling, look for a church appeal in the future.

JCD 1237

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1359&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1240

SUGGESTED PENALTY FOR APPOINTING HOMOSEXUALS

At the Western Jurisdictional Conference, a resolution was passed which said that if any bishop appointed a homosexual pastor was tried and convicted of violating the Discipline by doing so, that the penalty “would be” suspension for 24 hours.  A person rose to ask what was the force in law of that resolution.  That question was done in writing but contained several typographical errors.  The presiding bishop chose to lean on those errors and say the question was moot because it was flawed.

The Council disagreed and said the typos were easily correctable just from the context of the situation and that the bishop had thirty days to rule on the question and that the Council retained jurisdiction, which means they will rule on the bishop’s decision when they meet in November. 

It must be noted that the Council has held special sessions and may have done a number of its decisions by electronic exchange and conference calls in order to save time at their twice-a-year meetings.  They may feel free to hand down a ruling on the bishop’s response at any time.  It will be interesting to see if they choose to do that.

Here’s a hint:  if the resolution is aspirational (see JCDs 426, 1044, 1053, 1111, 1120, 1163, 1218, and 1220) and not binding, then it stands.