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 1201

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1322&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204

Picky over whether or not the Judicial Council has jurisdiction, I was as surprised as the concurring opinion writer was that the Council took jurisdiction over a bishop’s forwarding a resolution about trial court penalties as if it were a question of law. But the Council did so they could tell the Church that only the trial court can set a penalty in a guilty verdict.

I hate to think that because a bishop said something, the Council took that as sufficient to take jurisdiction. The Council, in any case, is a human institution, subject to the same vagaries as the rest of us.

In our annual conference (Wisconsin), we have rules and we have policies. They are codified and published in the conference journal every year. The policies can change year to year with a simple majority vote and are not regulatory. The rules are as binding as regulatory just as is the Discipline, provided there is no conflict between them. They are subject to vote only after 24 hours for review.

Even policies may not contradict the Discipline which, in the instant case, the policy did as the Council points out.

Now that the matter is cleared up, despite the questionable basis for accepting jurisdiction, conferences cannot set penalties in cases where pastors conduct same sax marriages or union services. If nothing else, the Council has advertised what one conference wants to do. It will be interesting to see if a pattern develops where there occur trials of pastors on the violation noted. Will it influence trials in Northwest Texas Conference?

Re: JCM 1115

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1204&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118

California Pacific Annual Conference tried a resolution that would recognize the pastoral need to handle same gender ceremonies. The Council accepted the bishop’s recognition of the right of those who violate the Discipline to fair process or just resolution, but the Council reversed her ruling that the resolution was permissible.

They felt it supported those pastors who celebrated same gender ceremonies.

I find that the phrase in the resolution that went over the line is “and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations….” That clearly authorizes the behavior proscribed in the Discipline even if it is supported in places like the preface of the Social Principles: “They are a call to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit.”

This Council’s frame of mind is reflected in Judge Gray’s view that such subtle resolutions on the annual conference level must be replaced by legislation at General Conference.