http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1347&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229
CHALLENGING A CHURCH CLOSURE
Reconsideration of JCM 1205 and its predecessor JCMs 1176, 1184, and 1192 was sought. The case originated in June 2010 when a church in the California-Nevada Conference was closed without any consultation by anyone in authority with the local church or notice given that a vote to close the church was to be held at conference time.
The Council ruled in JCM 1176 that it had no jurisdiction because the question had been a parliamentary question and not a question of law. JCMs 1184 and 1192 simply denied reconsideration, the usual way the Council deals with such requests. However, in JCM 1205, the Council patiently spelled out the jurisdiction issue reiterating that only a parliamentary question had been asked. In its last sentence of their analysis, they added another important argument.
As I wrote in my commentary on JCM 1205, “In this case, the judicial practice that an action by annual conference was made and not properly challenged at that conference session makes moot any such questions of law made one or more years later.” I also indicated that other cases did not hinge on that (JCD 777). See also JCD 1216.
The persistence of the person seeking the Council’s attention for the fourth time says to me that the conference action is “still devastating to the local church that was closed by fiat by those in power without proper consultation with the church itself” (from my commentary on JCM 1205).
The appellant’s approach is that the Council has not clarified the difference between a parliamentary question and a question of law in the context of his church’s discontinuation done in violation of the Discipline.
I expected that the Council would simply say, “Request denied,” having carefully laid out its rationale in JCM 1205.
Instead, the Council has deferred a decision until their April, 2013, session.
The deferral has no rationale or concurring or dissenting opinions to say why the Council chose not to respond. The significance and difficulty of several of this session’s decisions means that there was no time to consider every request for a ruling. One would think that since JCM 1205 shut the door on further reconsideration and that this request could be settled in a matter of seconds, it might be that there were not enough votes to close the case.
The obvious violation of the Discipline in the actions of the conference to close the church must haunt enough of the Council members that they may have won the day in keeping the request alive, even if only till they finally close the matter on strictly legal grounds. Who knows? Maybe this Council group will not just be legalistic….
Showing posts with label church closure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church closure. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
JCD 1228
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1341&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229
CONFERENCE POLICY ON CONSENSUAL SEXUAL RELATIONS AMONG PASTORS, STAFF, AND CHURCH MEMBERS
A question of law was raised at the Baltimore-Washington Conference about its policy on consensual sexual relations among pastors, staff, and church members. A section of a policy on sexual misconduct included a means by which to solve a real problem: how may the dating of single consenting adults within a church be wisely addressed?
Unmarried pastors, staff, and church members fall in love just like everyone else. And like everyone else who is an adult, consensual sexual relationships may feel right to the respective couples. Such sexual ties have been allowed in some church contexts when the matter came to being defined in church law: for example, “bundling” is allowed and even encouraged in some Christian groups.
The solution put forward by the new policy was to allow such a relationship if permission is granted by a person in authority in the church. Presumably, that leader knows both parties and trusts their relationship and discretion. That leader might also be able to assess the dangers of abuse of power or conflicts of interest in the relationship and affirm those are irrelevant. And if they were relevant and potentially toxic, the permission would not be granted. If the relationship was consummated in that latter circumstance, one or both of the couple would be subject to sanctions under church law.
One flaw is that the private relationship between two people would no longer be private.
Another flaw is that the United Methodist Church has not dealt with this issue outside of normal institutional practices and guidelines of recent years. Church law is clear: no sex outside of wedlock.
I have not seen the briefs so I have no idea how mature the arguments were with regard to the sensitivity to the dilemma that single pastors and staff face in their dating life. So it is hard to assess the depth of the consideration by the Council of this difficult subject.
The Council did give a bit of a clue, though. It appears they have no sensitivity to single people.
In a unanimous concurring opinion, the Council stomped on singles’ needs by asserting that the only factor involved is the power relationship that the Council presumes always exists in a relationship within the church.
There is always that danger. But not every relationship is tainted by it. Before the furor over clergy sexual misconduct began in the 1990’s, nearly every widowed or divorced pastor I knew found love and marriage within their respective congregations or staffs.
Propinquity reigns as a significant basis for establishing relationships. It always will. Again, it is not the only factor when love comes our way.
It is clear that this Judicial Council group will not allow for propinquity. The concurring opinion makes it sound like a moral matter. But it is a combination of fear of law suits and a fear that people can operate in a mature fashion when it comes to their love life. Ideologically, the Council joins with those who do not trust people in matters of love. The Pharisees would be very at home with them on this issue.
Please understand that many if not most women have experienced cruelty and abuse related to their sexuality by some man in their lives. Their concern about power abuse is well-grounded and deserves as much attention as any other form of abuse in our society. But that does not excuse fierce legalistic rules which are destructive of responsible relationships.
This is not to say the Baltimore-Washington proposed policy is a good option to solve this dilemma. This is not to say there are not dangers of conflict of interest and power abuse. What worries me is the lack of sensitivity to single people’s dating issues. Unfortunately, as a denomination, we are not having an adult conversation about that.
CONFERENCE POLICY ON CONSENSUAL SEXUAL RELATIONS AMONG PASTORS, STAFF, AND CHURCH MEMBERS
A question of law was raised at the Baltimore-Washington Conference about its policy on consensual sexual relations among pastors, staff, and church members. A section of a policy on sexual misconduct included a means by which to solve a real problem: how may the dating of single consenting adults within a church be wisely addressed?
Unmarried pastors, staff, and church members fall in love just like everyone else. And like everyone else who is an adult, consensual sexual relationships may feel right to the respective couples. Such sexual ties have been allowed in some church contexts when the matter came to being defined in church law: for example, “bundling” is allowed and even encouraged in some Christian groups.
The solution put forward by the new policy was to allow such a relationship if permission is granted by a person in authority in the church. Presumably, that leader knows both parties and trusts their relationship and discretion. That leader might also be able to assess the dangers of abuse of power or conflicts of interest in the relationship and affirm those are irrelevant. And if they were relevant and potentially toxic, the permission would not be granted. If the relationship was consummated in that latter circumstance, one or both of the couple would be subject to sanctions under church law.
One flaw is that the private relationship between two people would no longer be private.
Another flaw is that the United Methodist Church has not dealt with this issue outside of normal institutional practices and guidelines of recent years. Church law is clear: no sex outside of wedlock.
I have not seen the briefs so I have no idea how mature the arguments were with regard to the sensitivity to the dilemma that single pastors and staff face in their dating life. So it is hard to assess the depth of the consideration by the Council of this difficult subject.
The Council did give a bit of a clue, though. It appears they have no sensitivity to single people.
In a unanimous concurring opinion, the Council stomped on singles’ needs by asserting that the only factor involved is the power relationship that the Council presumes always exists in a relationship within the church.
There is always that danger. But not every relationship is tainted by it. Before the furor over clergy sexual misconduct began in the 1990’s, nearly every widowed or divorced pastor I knew found love and marriage within their respective congregations or staffs.
Propinquity reigns as a significant basis for establishing relationships. It always will. Again, it is not the only factor when love comes our way.
It is clear that this Judicial Council group will not allow for propinquity. The concurring opinion makes it sound like a moral matter. But it is a combination of fear of law suits and a fear that people can operate in a mature fashion when it comes to their love life. Ideologically, the Council joins with those who do not trust people in matters of love. The Pharisees would be very at home with them on this issue.
Please understand that many if not most women have experienced cruelty and abuse related to their sexuality by some man in their lives. Their concern about power abuse is well-grounded and deserves as much attention as any other form of abuse in our society. But that does not excuse fierce legalistic rules which are destructive of responsible relationships.
This is not to say the Baltimore-Washington proposed policy is a good option to solve this dilemma. This is not to say there are not dangers of conflict of interest and power abuse. What worries me is the lack of sensitivity to single people’s dating issues. Unfortunately, as a denomination, we are not having an adult conversation about that.
Summary Remarks for JCDs 1212 – 1229
1. The new group seems to have picked up where its predecessors left off, avoiding being factional and sticking with church law pretty rigorously. The new Council has also shown little propensity to side with the bishops automatically and has opened the door to accountability of bishops beyond the cases where one may be involved in sexual misconduct.
2. That objectivity about accountability of bishops will face tests in a special hearing set up in November reviewing an appeal of a bishop who was involuntarily retired and again next spring when a former bishop may seek readmission to being a retired bishop.
3. I personally appreciate the posting of the original requests for Judicial Council rulings as they were sent to the Council.
4. In the past, the Council has been unable to resolve cases because of the lack of needed materials that should have been sent in by appellants and conference secretaries. For this session, the New York Conference (JCD 1218) was alone in not sending in all the minutes that would have helped the Council get the full context of the case from them. Another bishop made assertions that he did not document (JCM 1224), something that was not the fault of the conference secretary. This degree of discipline getting documentation asked for by the Judicial Council is admirable and certainly helps facilitate the Council’s work.
5. With the one exception (JCM 1214), the Council wrote in ways that were good continuing education for those needing to know church law.
6. Consistency is always a goal and some questions about it could be raised on the basis of these decisions from the Council (especially JCM 1214).
7. Because of the absence of a “regular” member for whom an alternate had to sit in, there were three “first-timers” dealing with this very big docket. The overall quality of the decisions approaches the level reached by the previous group who had worked together for four years.
8. Even so, there were some things that will have an impact that cannot be fully anticipated (JCDs 1212, 1215, 1218, 1226, and 1229). And maybe some which I think the Council may need to reconsider or they will leave in place some things that hurt the church (JCDs 1216, 1221, and 1228).
9. Finally, if only the rest of us pay attention and provide insights and information useful to this new Council, the denomination will benefit the most.
Note: Many have honored my request for their critiques of these posts as I worked on them. I take full responsibility for what each of these posts says but much wisdom has been shared to improve them.
2. That objectivity about accountability of bishops will face tests in a special hearing set up in November reviewing an appeal of a bishop who was involuntarily retired and again next spring when a former bishop may seek readmission to being a retired bishop.
3. I personally appreciate the posting of the original requests for Judicial Council rulings as they were sent to the Council.
4. In the past, the Council has been unable to resolve cases because of the lack of needed materials that should have been sent in by appellants and conference secretaries. For this session, the New York Conference (JCD 1218) was alone in not sending in all the minutes that would have helped the Council get the full context of the case from them. Another bishop made assertions that he did not document (JCM 1224), something that was not the fault of the conference secretary. This degree of discipline getting documentation asked for by the Judicial Council is admirable and certainly helps facilitate the Council’s work.
5. With the one exception (JCM 1214), the Council wrote in ways that were good continuing education for those needing to know church law.
6. Consistency is always a goal and some questions about it could be raised on the basis of these decisions from the Council (especially JCM 1214).
7. Because of the absence of a “regular” member for whom an alternate had to sit in, there were three “first-timers” dealing with this very big docket. The overall quality of the decisions approaches the level reached by the previous group who had worked together for four years.
8. Even so, there were some things that will have an impact that cannot be fully anticipated (JCDs 1212, 1215, 1218, 1226, and 1229). And maybe some which I think the Council may need to reconsider or they will leave in place some things that hurt the church (JCDs 1216, 1221, and 1228).
9. Finally, if only the rest of us pay attention and provide insights and information useful to this new Council, the denomination will benefit the most.
Note: Many have honored my request for their critiques of these posts as I worked on them. I take full responsibility for what each of these posts says but much wisdom has been shared to improve them.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
JCM 1205
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1326&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1211
CHALLENGING A CHURCH CLOSURE
At General Conference, not all of the Judicial Council decisions were world-shaking, well, denomination-shaking anyway. In this case, reconsideration was sought for JCM 1176, 1184, and 1192, all related to the closing of a local church without consultation, but all based on the fact that the original concern was raised as a parliamentary question rather than as a question of law. This memorandum patiently clarifies why the Council took no jurisdiction. It is as though the Council read my blog post about JCM 1192 and that the one raising the original concern never saw my blog post on JCM 1176. It can be also seen as my failure to contact the concerned parties to consider a petition to General Conference as a means of working on this matter as I promised in my comment on JCM 1184.
For JCM 1192, I chastised the Council for just declining reconsideration without explanation. For JCM 1176, I suggested a question of law that would have engaged the Council’s jurisdiction but apparently no one in California-Nevada Conference followed my suggestion. I need to take responsibility for that because I know pastors in that conference and should have pressed them about my suggestion. And I must thank the Council for its providing a careful rationale for its memorandum
The Council states here as in JCM 1176 that the vote by the conference made moot the challenge that was brought. This might not have been considered final if the proper question had been brought.
Had the following question been asked at the time when the parliamentary challenge was made, “Was the process of closing this church consistent with Paragraph 2548 of the Discipline and if not, is our action to declare the congregation discontinued a valid action?” even a vote by the conference to close the church should not have made the concern moot. Current guidelines for questions of law require an action of the conference in order to provide a non-hypothetical ground to raise the question. The vote of the conference to discontinue the church provided the grounding in conference action that would have supported the Judicial Council taking jurisdiction for that question of law. The Council has previously ruled such conference votes invalid even where the Discipline allowed it when the process leading up to the vote was flawed. JCD 777 is one example.
In this case, the judicial practice that an action by annual conference was made and not properly challenged at that conference session makes moot any such questions of law made one or more years later.
The matter, if I read it correctly, is still devastating to the local church that was closed by fiat of those in power without proper consultation with the church itself. May future closures be done following the Discipline. And if not, then those who are concerned need to be prepared to refer the matter to the Judicial Council at the time of the vote by questions of law or by seeking declaratory decisions.
CHALLENGING A CHURCH CLOSURE
At General Conference, not all of the Judicial Council decisions were world-shaking, well, denomination-shaking anyway. In this case, reconsideration was sought for JCM 1176, 1184, and 1192, all related to the closing of a local church without consultation, but all based on the fact that the original concern was raised as a parliamentary question rather than as a question of law. This memorandum patiently clarifies why the Council took no jurisdiction. It is as though the Council read my blog post about JCM 1192 and that the one raising the original concern never saw my blog post on JCM 1176. It can be also seen as my failure to contact the concerned parties to consider a petition to General Conference as a means of working on this matter as I promised in my comment on JCM 1184.
For JCM 1192, I chastised the Council for just declining reconsideration without explanation. For JCM 1176, I suggested a question of law that would have engaged the Council’s jurisdiction but apparently no one in California-Nevada Conference followed my suggestion. I need to take responsibility for that because I know pastors in that conference and should have pressed them about my suggestion. And I must thank the Council for its providing a careful rationale for its memorandum
The Council states here as in JCM 1176 that the vote by the conference made moot the challenge that was brought. This might not have been considered final if the proper question had been brought.
Had the following question been asked at the time when the parliamentary challenge was made, “Was the process of closing this church consistent with Paragraph 2548 of the Discipline and if not, is our action to declare the congregation discontinued a valid action?” even a vote by the conference to close the church should not have made the concern moot. Current guidelines for questions of law require an action of the conference in order to provide a non-hypothetical ground to raise the question. The vote of the conference to discontinue the church provided the grounding in conference action that would have supported the Judicial Council taking jurisdiction for that question of law. The Council has previously ruled such conference votes invalid even where the Discipline allowed it when the process leading up to the vote was flawed. JCD 777 is one example.
In this case, the judicial practice that an action by annual conference was made and not properly challenged at that conference session makes moot any such questions of law made one or more years later.
The matter, if I read it correctly, is still devastating to the local church that was closed by fiat of those in power without proper consultation with the church itself. May future closures be done following the Discipline. And if not, then those who are concerned need to be prepared to refer the matter to the Judicial Council at the time of the vote by questions of law or by seeking declaratory decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)