JCM 1387

ee.umc.org/decisions/81139

Confusion over Request for Decision

Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference was the site for two attempts to clarify whether a resolution to be a “One Church” conference was aspirational or contrary to the Discipline.  First, a verbal question of law not presented in writing was apparently resolved by the bishop.  Then another pastor presented a written “appeal  to the Judicial Council” on the legality of the resolution that the bishop had called “aspirational” earlier in the conference in response to the question verbally raised.

The bishop took the written appeal to be under ¶ 2609.7 (question of law voted upon) and called for a vote.  She did not send in her ruling other than what was reported by the minutes of the conference and assumed the motion was referring the question of law to the Judicial Council.  

The biggest difference between a question of law (¶ 2609) and a request for a Judicial Council ruling ¶ 2610) is who answers the question.  (Emphasis added.)

Here is another case where the bishop should have called a five minute (or longer) break to get the questioner together with someone who could make sure the differences in the two processes were understood and the choice made before proceeding.  Then the bishop and secretary and questioner should have made sure how to properly report the matter to the Council.

Annual Conferences are especially hectic for the bishop and even experienced bishops can get confused about keeping these processes sorted out.  

Would the Council be wise in setting up training for conference parliamentarians, secretaries, or even bishops on the details of the handling of law questions?  This case would be a wonderful example to use as a teaching aid!

The Council could have simplified everything by taking jurisdiction under ¶ 2609.6 and the minutes’ report of the bishop’s response to be adequate, given the confusing nature of getting rulings.  But, “going by the book” is the way this Council rolls and it has had too many times where the mishandling of questions has fouled up the cases..

BTW, the legal effect of the Council taking no jurisdiction is that the bishop’s advice to the conference that the resolution was aspirational is as much law as the conference is going to get.  It does not protect anyone from culpability if they violate the Discipline as revised in 2019.

JCD 1392

ee.umc.org/decisions/81141

Disagreeing and Aspiring

North Texas Annual Conference voted its disagreement with the new TP legislation and supported the aspirations of the One Church plan.  

Traditionalists brought a question of law about its legality and the Council affirmed the bishop’s rulings that the resolution had the right to disagree and to aspire to other values.

No briefs were filed.  But the Council’s careful analysis is still worth reading as a “rule of law” document, put in United Methodist legal terms.

JCD 1395

ee.umc.org/decisions/81144

“Desires” Is Aspirational and Not a Requirement

Central Texas Conference passed a resolution against the TP legislation now in the Discipline that the bishop ruled in a question law as aspirational.  The Council supported the bishop.

What makes this case unique is not that the word “desires” is understood as aspirational, though other conferences may now wish to use this term.  What is really important is that Central Texas is asking that for all trials, the actual costs are reported.

That is unique in the United Methodist Church.  Even GCFA has not had to be open about just how much church trials have cost.  No other annual conference to my knowledge has actually published the costs of its church trials.  There are many estimates floating around and I have a list of what conference funds would need to cover.  $100,000 is not an inappropriate amount when all of the costs are estimated.  And this does not include what a pastor pays to defend himself/herself in a trial.

I hope this decision will lead to more transparency about what the Church spends to put its pastors in trial.

JCD 1396

ee.umc.org/decisions/81145

Another Aspirational Expression of Upset Over TP

Central Texas Conference also passed another resolution more clearly focused on the anti-gay TP and it too was questioned.  The “Whereas” section of the resolution strongly indicated rejection of the TP and a desire to eliminate the anti-LGBTQI language from the Discipline.  The “Resolved” section called for conciliatory relationships among conference members.

The Council supported the bishop’s ruling that the “Whereas” section had no legislative authority so the resolution was legitimate.

It is curious that legislative intent as demonstrated in the “Whereas“ section was disregarded in this case but important in JCD 1385.

JCD 1255

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1376&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1259

RESOLUTION OF APPROBATION

New York Annual Conference passed a “petition” which commended people who acted out of conscience against church laws that relate to homosexuals and ceremonies celebrating Gay couples.  Some pastors on the list had been taken to trial for their actions.

Someone requested that the bishop rule on whether or not the petition had violated certain church laws and Judicial Council Decisions.  The Bishop said no, that the petition was aspirational and did not tell anyone what to do.  The Judicial Council concurred, saying, “The only way it could violate church law is by prescribing actions that are themselves contrary to church law or by calling upon individuals to negate or ignore church law.”

In typical fashion, Council took this opportunity to instruct us all about where they draw the line and why this petition did not cross it.  It is helping the Church to see how they differentiate between the various statements that have been sent to be tested by them.

It is a fine set of differences among aspiration, approbation, and alteration with regard to church law.  No wonder some people overseas shake their heads and people in this country tear their hair out!

JCD 1237

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1359&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1240

SUGGESTED PENALTY FOR APPOINTING HOMOSEXUALS

At the Western Jurisdictional Conference, a resolution was passed which said that if any bishop appointed a homosexual pastor was tried and convicted of violating the Discipline by doing so, that the penalty “would be” suspension for 24 hours.  A person rose to ask what was the force in law of that resolution.  That question was done in writing but contained several typographical errors.  The presiding bishop chose to lean on those errors and say the question was moot because it was flawed.

The Council disagreed and said the typos were easily correctable just from the context of the situation and that the bishop had thirty days to rule on the question and that the Council retained jurisdiction, which means they will rule on the bishop’s decision when they meet in November. 

It must be noted that the Council has held special sessions and may have done a number of its decisions by electronic exchange and conference calls in order to save time at their twice-a-year meetings.  They may feel free to hand down a ruling on the bishop’s response at any time.  It will be interesting to see if they choose to do that.

Here’s a hint:  if the resolution is aspirational (see JCDs 426, 1044, 1053, 1111, 1120, 1163, 1218, and 1220) and not binding, then it stands.  

JCD 1220

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1338&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

RENOUNCING GENERAL CONFERENCE’S STANCE ON THE LGBT COMMUNITY

A resolution passed by the California-Pacific Conference was challenged by a request for an episcopal ruling of law. The resolution renounced the stance of the General Conference with regard to incompatibility of homosexuality with Scripture and a number of other points of church law related to the LGBTQ community. The other stipulations had to do with affirming the sacred worth of those folks, building inclusive communities with them, and inviting churches and individuals to live out these principles.

The Bishop supported the whole resolution as aspirational. The Council supported him on all but the first stipulation and only those parts of the fourth stipulation related to the second, third, and fourth.

You can read it by going to the website for Judicial Council Decisions at http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263
And then click on “View the Current Judicial Council Docket” where you can scroll down to Docket Item 1012 – 18.

The Council pointed out that a conference can “announce” or “denounce” but it may not “renounce” without stepping over the line on relating to a church law.

To those in the world community, including the ones in the United States and Western Europe who do not agree with this resolution, you will see it again and again in coming years in some form or other. I pray for the day when people on both sides of this issue can understand why these resolutions will keep coming and how they can possibly be worded to reflect a consensus. As long as there is the stance that “We are right so you cannot possibly be,” the best we can do is to not let it turn into a stumbling block to our being in mission together.