JCM 1388

ee.umc.org/decisions/81133

When “Better Late than Never” Didn’t Work

Iowa Annual Conference also didn’t like the Traditionalists’ Plan passed into law in February, 2019.  And a resolution passed about that was challenged with a question of law.  However, for some reason, the questioner didn’t turn in the written form of the question during conference.  The bishop gave him permission, apparently in good faith, to send it in within a week, which he did.  But that became the disqualifying factor to the Council, and they refused jurisdiction. 

I’m as pastoral as anyone and where there are no obvious negative consequences, bend the rules a bit.  If the bishop hadn’t reported the grace period, would there have been an issue of jurisdiction?  But more important, why didn’t the bishop get the pastor help to get the written request in before the end of conference, a delay that has been allowed in other cases?

JCD 1389

ee.umc.org/decisions/81140

Another Conference Challenges the TP

Upper New York Annual Conference also voted on a proposal that negatively viewed the Traditionalists’ Plan, condemning it, apologizing for the harm it is doing, and “strongly recommending” not funding trials and related actions.

The bishop was asked for a “Decision of Law” about the resolution’s ignoring or contradicting the Discipline.  He accepted the condemnation as legitimate disagreement and as aspirational.  The “strongly recommend” phrase to him was sufficiently over the line as to “ignore or contradict the Discipline and he ruled so.  The ones who brought the resolution thought the phrase did not cross the line but the Council supported the bishop on his two rulings.

The Council traces precedents carefully on the “condemnation” passage but is not as specific when it comes to the other key phrase “strongly recommend.”  Instead, it argues only the General Conference can change the rules about trials, including their funding and therefore that part of the resolution is actually unconstitutional!. 

I do not think the Council really had to go there because “strongly recommend” has no legislative power.  It is really aspirational.  Even if it had legislative power, it would only disrupt Disciplinary requirements.  The phrase does not direct an action . . . unless you are a crime boss or the President and know a hint, a thought, a suggestion, or a recommendation is really a deadly firm direction to perform a specific action.

Would it be unconstitutional?  I’m against anything that disrupts fair process.  I think many things in the Discipline itself are unconstitutional (thank you to the Council for recognizing some of them in JCD 1383).  But I do not see anyone being charged with doing something unconstitutional.  They can only be charged for violations of the Discipline.  I don’t think that the Council needed to go to their argument about constitutionality.  They could have referred to precedents about direct law violations being called for in this kind of resolution.  

JCM 1390

ee.umc.org/decisions/81142

A Slick “Deferral”

The Council of Bishops sought another ruling on the constitutionality and other issues related to the Traditionalists’ Plan passed at the 2019 special General Conference.  This was their third shot at it.  

They asked for a ruling when its petitions were first sent to General Conference.  The Council deferred because it hadn’t any real legal context like being on the floor with other petitions at General Conference.  

The Bishops asked about it after all the petitions were in and the Council fastidiously went through identifying the unconstitutional parts.

The TP was revised before it came to the floor.  Many observers felt the revisions  had not met the Council’s judgments but it passed anyway so the Bishops decided to challenge it again through the instant case.

The Council polled its members about the constitutionality of the TP and there were not enough who felt there was an issue on that.  I do not know if that polling was before or after the Council’s preliminary reviews of the request.  This is not the first time I vaguely recall such a polling and the Council then not taking jurisdiction.  I’m not sure about the qualitative value of any action that occurs before full discussion of the body together.  But it does save time.

The Council recognized that the Bishops’ concerns are not without merit.  They softened their decision by saying it would take up challenges to constitutionality as cases were brought about specific passages.

Note:  While everyone else calls the TP the “Traditional Plan,” I am not comfortable with it. As noted in past blog postings here, my tradition is Arminian and in that, I am strongly traditional.  So when I use the whole name of TP, I feel “Traditionalists” is more appropriate because it is a plan brought by people who call themselves “Traditional” as if their Calvinist theology is the only real Wesleyan tradition.  You probably didn’t even notice but in case you did, now you know why I “misspelled” the term.