Note: For some odd reason, there are two postings on JCM 1359 which are identical if separately posted.
Should Dockets Include Why Reconsideration Is Being Requested?
JCM 1359 dealt with JCM 1347. In that earlier memorandum, the questioners tried to challenge the anti-homosexual paragraphs of the Discipline as violations of the Restrictive Rules against changing the doctrine of the denomination. The Council said it had no jurisdiction because the question was theological and could not be shown to relate to any action taken by the Denmark Annual Conference.
The Council has long had rules for reconsideration which set high but not unreasonable bars. In the past, requests for reconsideration were all swept away in what appeared to be out-of-hand ways. They were automatic on the Disciplinary basis that the Council had the last word (Paragraph 2609.11, 2016 Discipline).
But then on one occasion, the Council reconsidered and sustained a decision based on an argument by a particular bishop (JCD 530 in re: JCD 524). On some others, they reconsidered decisions when the Council of Bishops made the request (JCDs 612 and 910). On one other, they chose to reconsider several decisions on their own (JCD 704).
Unfortunately, the practice of the Council not to include requests for reconsideration in their dockets leaves us bereft of the chance to see what arguments are put forward to challenge the Council’s rulings on things like lack of jurisdiction.