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?
Showing posts with label Judical Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judical Council. Show all posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Summary of the Fall 2011 Session
The biggest beneficiary of this fall’s decisions is the college of bishops of the Philippines on whose side the Judicial Council ruled. As I pointed out, if the Discipline is not on their side, having the Judicial Council is even better! Of the 16 items (2 were dealt with in one decision) before the Council this fall, 6 were related to the Philippines. The result of the Council’s rulings further entrenches the power of the college of bishops and their appointment of an interim bishop. That bishop may be a nice guy and popular with folks in the United States, but his actions should be compliant with the Discipline and they may not have been.
I have watched groups in the denomination triangulated into one power struggle after another, usually causing harm to the other side and the whole Church. I hate it when it happens at the highest levels of our Church.
Compliance issues with church law, as this session’s docket illustrates, ranges from individual failure to follow the rules for questions of law (JCD 1203) to annual conferences (JCDs 1198 and 1201) to the Council itself (also JCD 1203). Is church law breaking down? Is everybody so busy they don’t take boundaries and guidelines seriously but “roll their own” because they are in a hurry? Are things so complicated that nearly everyone misses the finer points intended to help? Even when the Council shows immense patience and offers significant teaching in its decisions and opinions as it does in JCDs 1197 and 1198 in particular, there seems to be a low level of responsiveness (JCDs 1200, in re: 847).
The struggle to minimize episcopal incursions beyond their Disciplinary authority continues to go on (JCDs 1191, 1194-6, 1198, 1202, and 1204).
Homosexuality continues to haunt us (JCDs 1201 and 1202) as do questions about handling of personnel (JCDs 1191, 1199, 1202, and 1203).
Still bound by arcane rules, lack of adequate information, and the discretion about what they report, this Council sometimes is not able to perform consistently. And the Council sometimes shows some awareness of its occasional lapses.
Maybe those of us who watch and understand the significance of what the Council does need to become more vocal in commending the good things the Council does in hopes of encouraging them on to consistency and authority so people pay more attention and accept the helpful guidance they offer.
I have watched groups in the denomination triangulated into one power struggle after another, usually causing harm to the other side and the whole Church. I hate it when it happens at the highest levels of our Church.
Compliance issues with church law, as this session’s docket illustrates, ranges from individual failure to follow the rules for questions of law (JCD 1203) to annual conferences (JCDs 1198 and 1201) to the Council itself (also JCD 1203). Is church law breaking down? Is everybody so busy they don’t take boundaries and guidelines seriously but “roll their own” because they are in a hurry? Are things so complicated that nearly everyone misses the finer points intended to help? Even when the Council shows immense patience and offers significant teaching in its decisions and opinions as it does in JCDs 1197 and 1198 in particular, there seems to be a low level of responsiveness (JCDs 1200, in re: 847).
The struggle to minimize episcopal incursions beyond their Disciplinary authority continues to go on (JCDs 1191, 1194-6, 1198, 1202, and 1204).
Homosexuality continues to haunt us (JCDs 1201 and 1202) as do questions about handling of personnel (JCDs 1191, 1199, 1202, and 1203).
Still bound by arcane rules, lack of adequate information, and the discretion about what they report, this Council sometimes is not able to perform consistently. And the Council sometimes shows some awareness of its occasional lapses.
Maybe those of us who watch and understand the significance of what the Council does need to become more vocal in commending the good things the Council does in hopes of encouraging them on to consistency and authority so people pay more attention and accept the helpful guidance they offer.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
JCD 1161
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1281&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
An oral question of law was given during a plenary session of Mississippi Conference about a provision that allows the conference to respond to emergency financial situations between sessions of conference.
Despite taking no jurisdiction, the Council took the time to try to state the problems and describe what the conference wanted to do before vacating the bishop’s ruling.
Those who like such intricacies surrounding church finance, this decision appears to be down their alley.
Mississippi has had Katrina in 2005 and tornadoes this summer which might just trigger a financial crisis. It is important that conferences have a way to respond. Even if such catastrophes are not identified as the emergencies which drop conference receipts below a certain percentage level, good procedures would be wise to have in place.
An oral question of law was given during a plenary session of Mississippi Conference about a provision that allows the conference to respond to emergency financial situations between sessions of conference.
Despite taking no jurisdiction, the Council took the time to try to state the problems and describe what the conference wanted to do before vacating the bishop’s ruling.
Those who like such intricacies surrounding church finance, this decision appears to be down their alley.
Mississippi has had Katrina in 2005 and tornadoes this summer which might just trigger a financial crisis. It is important that conferences have a way to respond. Even if such catastrophes are not identified as the emergencies which drop conference receipts below a certain percentage level, good procedures would be wise to have in place.
JCM 1171
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1291&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
Indiana Conference (newly merged) set up a steering committee on which the bishop had a vote. That is contrary to our tradition that the bishop may preside but not have a vote on conference matters. A lot of the restructuring done around the country features bishops adding another illegal arrow to their quiver of authority. Since the Council overturned the bishop’s supportive rulings on the questions of law, I hope bishops elsewhere will stop the overreaching they’ve done.
Indiana Conference (newly merged) set up a steering committee on which the bishop had a vote. That is contrary to our tradition that the bishop may preside but not have a vote on conference matters. A lot of the restructuring done around the country features bishops adding another illegal arrow to their quiver of authority. Since the Council overturned the bishop’s supportive rulings on the questions of law, I hope bishops elsewhere will stop the overreaching they’ve done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)