JCD 1377

www.umc.org/decisions/79321

They’re Back, the Traditionalists’ Petitions

Despite serious setbacks before the Council (JCDs 1366, 1375, and 1376), the Calvinists persisted with their petitions, modifying them a little more and presenting them in hopes they would still get passed at GC2019.  They were challenged in the General Conference plenary acting as a legislative committee and presented to the Council in a fashion parallel to JCD 1366, so much so that the Council even identified the parallels.

Again, despite some more tweaking of their unconstitutional petitions by the Calvinists, the Council found few if any that actually became constitutional.

In a dissent, there was a concern that the Council was not respecting local churches who decided to leave the annual conference because the Council was maintaining that the conference had a say in their leaving too and could veto the local church’s decision if it chose.  

There was no concurring decision countering their argument so let me add my two cents worth. There are two basic points against the dissenters’ argument.  

First, the whole point of the Trust Clause is to prevent ill-advised local church decisions regarding properties established or accepted by the conference.  That “branding” of the property brought with it an authenticity and reputation of major significance which enhanced the validity of that congregation in the first place.  It also brought with it an assurance of having a pastor when a local church’s pastor left for whatever reason.

Second, the United Methodist Church is connectional and not congregational in polity.  If we were Baptist, the argument of the dissenters in this case would be appropriate.  But the center of our polity is the annual conference (Par. 33) and not the local church.  That means the final decisions are made at the annual conference level.  Disaffiliation is about a two way relationship between the church and conference, not a one way relationship.

One more note to the dissenters:  The unconstitutionality of the Calvinists’ personnel processes is rooted in the basic fact of the heart of our polity being the annual conference and also not the General Conference.  I find it interesting that the dissenters to the instant decision chose not to argue against that.

JCD 1378

www.umc.org/decisions/79922

Traditional Plan Passes Anyway

The Council was given a “present” by the General Conference.  Just like the presents our pet cats occasionally drop on us, like a dead rat.

Instead of allowing the Traditional Plan (TP) to be taken piece by piece where the Council’s rulings on constitutionality could be considered as the plenary worked through the package, the delegates apparently felt their work was going to be reviewed by the Council anyway so they put the whole TP up for a vote and let the Council sort it all out!  With friends like that . . . .

But with a penache we have all come to know and love (church law nerds, anyway), the Council introduced a new legal term to spin our brains: “the doctrine of severability.”

Actually, all they did was look at the petitions in the TP package, pull out the unconstitutional ones, and then look to see what difference that made to the rest of the package.  Easy peasy.

I know the Council had other matters on their docket and I was surprised when they only worked on two.  In trying to get inside of this ruling, I understand why they had no energy left to get to those other items.  This decision is careful and thorough and exhausting.

Thanks to Beth Capen for adding her concurring opinion in which she points out what survived.  Like her, I’m sure some of the new passages for the Discipline will be challenged back to the Judicial Council in the future.  These survived based on not being legally linked to the unconstitutional petitions struck down by the Council.  Other criteria may be brought to challenge them later.  

Among the cited surviving petitions is one that clearly responds to JCD 1374, now listing the Judicial Council as a party to appeal by a church counsel.

Also among the surviving passages are a number which require that the complainant be a part of any just resolution.  This is similar to them being able to have a greater role in civil and criminal cases, particularly the punishment phase.  (Just resolutions require confession so that all parties can work together to build a response to what actually happened.  The respondent gives up presumption of innocence once a just resolution is accepted.  In fact, even entering into just resolution may be an admission of guilt, legally speaking.)

There is one possible snag in that addition to just resolutions.  If the complainant is a Calvinist, just based on the historical record, he or she will bring to the table an attitude that is likely to be disruptive (“My authority is Scripture and if you disagree, you are wrong.”)  In the best sense of just resolution, there must always be a level of openness to alternatives between black and white in order for agreement to be reached.  Theologically, involving a Calvinist can lead to no concensus on anything but the Calvinist’s position.

JCD 1378 includes references to and following of precedent and continues this Council’s commitment to going by the book.  

The instant decision just had to put a civil law term as a concept (doctrine of severability) needed to resolve a church problem.  See p. 1373 of BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Sixth Edition.  I don’t know if Bishop Tuell is rolling over in his grave wishing we’d made up our own terminology or is glad to have this addition from civil law.  But we have it now and it appears to have worked.

One last word: the new passages for the Discipline cited in this decision do not go into affect until Jan. 1, 2020.  (I don’t recall seeing anything about going into affect right away.)  And as I write this, the docket for Fall, 2019 contains at least four items directly related to the TP passages that survived at GC2019.

JCD 1379

www.umc.org/decisions/79923

How to Disaffiliate a Local Church, Modified

The Traditionalist Plan (TP) was designed to let congregations leave the denomination in an amicable way because either the congregation could not tolerate the tolerance to gays shown by many conferences and jurisdictions or they could not accept the righteousness of the anti-gay church laws.  In other words, the TP is a step closer to splitting the denomination by allowing angry churches to disaffiliate.  

From what I’ve seen and read, most Arminians have not even discussed leaving whereas the Calvinists are cutting ties where they can in every conference around the country.  

The General Conference plenary, acting as a single legislative committee, asked the Council if the TP disaffiliation plan was constitutional.  The Council studied the matter with the help of a number of briefs from a variety of sources and concluded that it was not.  

As in JCD 1377, they found the TP failed to include a vote by the annual conference as a part of the process.  Besides financial and legal obligations that could be taken care of on a local level including a two-thirds majority of the congregation present and voting, the TP failed to honor the significance of the annual conference as stated above.  The Council, noted that another Disciplinary paragraph was missed in everyone’s consideration: Par. 2529.1b)(3) which disallows a charge conference from disaffiliating without annual conference consent.  That was the law expression of Par. 33’s affirmation of the centrality of the annual conference to our polity.  Hence, the TP was unconstitutional on its disaffiliation plan.

The Council cleared up (modified) JCD 1377 to only require a simple majority vote by the annual conference rather than a two thirds vote.

It seems to me that pastors of churches seeking disaffiliation tend to be congregational in polity, tend to be charismatic in the general sense of that word (that is, personally influential as long as he or she is around), and tend to be Calvinistic.  Unless the superintendent actually gets to know the local church and unless the Board of Ordained Ministry actually gets to know the pastor it is turning over to the bishop for appointment, there is the distinct possibility that pastors with a “party spirit” (Galatians 5:20) will take over a congregation and lead it away from the United Methodist Church.  So it is wise that the annual conference be in the loop toward disaffiliation to protect the local church from manipulative pastors.  

This decision (JCD 1379) does not, nor was it called upon, to go further in its analysis and decision.  But certainly one of the “effects” of the decision is that annual conferences must be ready to spot disaffiliation considerations long before they get to that point, be able to evaluate if it is truly conscience or “party spirit” in operation in that church, and either move the pastor or consider bringing him/her up on charges (such pastors tend also to think of their churches as their own kingdom and fail to follow appropriate financial practices or use other serious bad actions).