JCM 1380

ee.umc.org/decisions/81130 

No Reconsideration of JCD 1378

Three members of the Council supported someone’s request for reconsideration of the complex “doctrine of severability” case last session.  The docket does not list such a request so it is impossible to know if the three members asked or if WCA or Council of Bishops or MFSA asked.  All would have their respective reasons to challenge something in the complex exhausting decision.

The Council rarely reconsiders.  I do not recall any dissent among the members listed in past requests.  I am not sure how significant that is but if I ever hear or see something I may share, I will pass it on,

JCM 1192

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1296&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1101&EN=1200

This memorandum deals with two unrelated petitions seeking reconsideration. It denies both without analysis or comment. The effect is to sustain earlier decisions on both. JCM 1176 was the case where a church closing was challenged because the Conference gave no prior warning to the congregation. JCM 1184 was about requesting reconsideration of JCD 1152 in which the Council affirmed after the fact the authority of an interim bishop in the Philippines case.

The requests were not without merit, as my blog posts on those earlier decisions state. It is a shame the Council chose not be share their thinking as they have on other requests. Their docket was surprisingly small compared to other fall sessions in recent years.

The upshot is that the Council feels all further argument on the respective cases adds nothing to what they already said about them. On these two requests, I wish the Council did not choose to play their “We have the last word” card because I think there still are serious issues left unresolved.

JCD 1162

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1282&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

The Philippines case returned in the form of a request for reconsideration. Usually such requests get no space in the memorandum. In this case, it appears the interim bishop may have not been truthful about having met on Feb. 3, 2010, with the Cabinet to get them to change the site for the annual conference. He answered the request for reconsideration of JCM 1152 and in his argument said that the Cabinet had not responded to his requests for meetings. That raises the issue of the credibility of the interim bishop. The chances are that he did not meet the Cabinet on February 3 as the statement of facts in both 1152 and 1162 provide but unilaterally changed the site of the conference for his own convenience. He had to appoint new superintendents in order to finally get the "Cabinet" authorization on February 18. If he already had the old Cabinet's support for changing the site, why did he need to appoint new DSs to get that vote?

The Council did not sense that possible question when it considered the case in JCM 1152 and despite being told by the brief from the opponents of the interim bishop for this docketed action, they found nothing egregious about the interim bishop’s actions and ruled he operated within church law.

One party seeking reconsideration was chastised for not copying his request for reconsideration to the other parties at interest.

The Council was in a situation where they did not know for sure who to believe.

Over the years, Councils have tended not only to believe the bishop’s side of the story but rarely ever have acknowledged anything said from the pastor’s side. Decisions like JCD 1156 occur about once a decade.

In this case, there was some acknowledgement that there were issues against the episcopal rendering of the situation. I appreciate that whenever the Council does it.