JCD 1234

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1356&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1240

RECONSIDERATION OF JCMS 1176, 1184, 1192 and 1205

For the fifth time, someone in California-Nevada Conference raised a question about the closing of a church without all of the proper steps having been followed.  In two of the four previous Council responses, the argument was that the original request was parliamentary and not a question of law.

The Council resolves this request for reconsideration in the same way.  However, it presents much more of the story so that its decision has that much more historical context.  For one thing, they report that the bishop okayed the closing without there being a vote of the Cabinet as the Discipline requires.  However, at some time, possibly in 2011, the bishop allowed the lay person speaking on behalf of the congregation to make his argument and then asked the conference to vote.  The result was a conference vote to consummate the closing.  That fulfilled an unusual Disciplinary passage which says that the Discipline did not have to be followed in order for the matter to be settled by the conference.  Is that even constitutional?

The history added to this decision (note it is not called a memorandum even though all the Council does is turn down a request for reconsideration) describes a number of breakdowns and conflicts but only from the point of view of the pastor, superintendent, and conference committees involved and not from the church members.  Were the conflicts in the church because of a few people who were trouble-makers and had a disruptive history in that church?  Was there a better way to handle that possibility?  Or was the pastor being arbitrary and heavy-handed in seeking to resolve the problems?  Were the pastor’s actions legal under the Discipline?  Was a bad situation exacerbated by bad appointments to that church where sensitivity to cross-cultural and cross-racial issues were critical?  Did Cabinet members take arbitrary actions that worsened a tough situation?

In some ways, the Council needs to be commended for its patience (five requests for relief based on one event that would ordinarily be cut off after the first request for reconsideration).  In some ways, it appears that the situation was handled badly and the Council’s hands were tied by rules governing their authority.  In some ways, those seeking to resolve the conflicts which arose from processes and attitudes failed in their attempts to get it before the Council in a proper way.  In some ways, it feels like the Council passed up an opportunity to resolve a situation which was not really out of their reach.

Even what seems to be a simple case can be far more complex and far less tractable to our legal procedures.  To me, the more that is actually known about everything, the better chance there is to resolve it justly.  And if there were misrepresentations made, can any resolution by the Council in this case mean anything?  Technically, because the Discipline gives the Council the last word, we all have to move on.  But with what confidence?

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.

Re: JCM 1112

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1197&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118

This matter was held over from the 2008 Fall session of the Council and was given a very brief review in the Memorandum: the bishop ruled the presenter of the question was not a member of the conference and thus could not raise the question, which the Council upheld and therefore felt it could not take jurisdiction..

The story behind the questioning comes out in the concurring opinions.

The superintendent and pastor changed the locks on the church so the congregation could no longer meet.

The local church was summarily discontinued (P 2548.2) by the superintendent and then was called an abandonment (P 2548.3) when the Annual Conference met to vote on it. The process for each is different in the Discipline.

Besides the obvious lack of proper procedure for discontinuing the church reported in the concurring opinions, I wonder if the Council checked to see if the questioner was still a proper delegate since the abandonment was not final until after the conclusion of the conference. I also wonder if they could have taken jurisdiction despite the bishop’s ruling because the conference did have before it the matter of the closing of that church, thus making the question(s) germane to the actions of the conference.

I confess it is odd that a conference would consider closing a church with an average attendance of 40 worshippers. If the issue was theological, as I suspect, I wonder how those with a different theological stance would accept superintendents’ actions like this one.

This could be one of those things the Council missed in its learning curve.

As the ruling stands, superintendents can pull this same stunt with impunity in the future because of the precedent of this ruling.