Observations on Recent Judicial Council Decisions

 I have not regretted going over a year without commentaries on Judicial Council Decisions.  Most of the issues before the Council were of how best to allow separation from the denomination by discontented pastors, bishops, churches, and conferences over gay rights.  Those decisions regarding separation have been carefully and thoughtfully described by Heather Hahn of the United Methodist News Service in her respective articles at the time of their publication by the Council.  I really had nothing to add regarding the meaning and legality of Paragraph 2553 and related paragraphs allowing withdrawal.

I have temporarily passed over the decisions on other subjects.  I hope to address those in the near future.

 

I complained privately that the whole issue of splitting the denomination was distracting us from global warming, THE crisis facing humanity.  A recent Council of Bishops was reported as incidentally looking at climate change and I realized I had to say something publicly.  

I knew the bishops were stuck in various levels of litigation over separation.  If I was going to get them to shift priorities (dropping so much of the other stuff they are expected to do) and build up the denomination, I needed to offer some specific steps to consider to do that building and finally offered some vignettes to encourage use of those steps.  I hope my letters to the bishops was of help to them.  

Part of saving the planet, besides facing up to global warming, is establishing a stronger church so that we can work together better and so that we can lean on each other through the tragedies of floods, fires, and storms that are upon us and yet to come.

The Judicial Council has little opportunity to deal directly with global warming because there is little church law dealing with it.  Once General Conference provides appropriate laws, the Council will be able to get involved.

Ah, presumptuous sin

 Dear Bishop,

When I wrote to you earlier this month about global warming, several of your colleagues responded in a very helpful manner.  More on those responses in a moment.  As I read them, I reread my letter and realized I was not clear as to what I was concerned about.  

 

I presumed that you would know I was criticizing the Council of Bishops' (COB's) practice of setting up parallel action groups at the same time the agencies of the general church were doing those same things.  It appeared to me both a waste of time and money and it appeared to me that as a body, the COB felt it had to be in a position to take credit for what others were already doing.  

 

I also presumed that the action of the COB on global warming was more of an afterthought than a genuine concern.  The one good thing was that the COB was out ahead of the GMC on it.

 

But several of your colleagues graciously drew my attention to Bishop Dyck's 2010 book A HOPEFUL EARTH (which I am reading now) and that as a retired bishop, she is working through the COB's ecumenical office with other denominations on global warming as well as working closely with Church and Society.  I had forgotten about retired bishops being freer to focus on critical issues.  I understand the COB is realizing that and calling upon retirees to help on a number of concerns.

 

I also presumptuously forgot that bishops could be deeply involved with their own annual conference's agencies and task forces on climate change as is the case among several active bishops. 

 

My hope is that you will forgive my presumptuousness.  Life is far more nuanced than we may believe.  That is something of which even we older observers need to be reminded.

 

One other presumption I have had is that you and your colleagues would know how to handle reprioritizing what the cabinet does to help pastors and their churches to succeed.

 

In the coming weeks I hope to offer suggestions and I will try to keep my emails about a page or so long.

 

In any case, please read Bishop Dyck's book if you have not already.  I think you will encourage your conference to read it.  It preaches!

 

In the collegiality of the clergy,

 

Jerry

 

Rev. Jerry Eckert, retired clergy, Wisconsin Annual Conference

Interesting Day

 Dear Bishop,                                                                                        May 3, 2022

 

The focus of my day was preparing for and having a CT scan.  The warmth of the iodine I received for the scan reminded me of how my body warmed during a similar test when I was hospitalized two years ago.  Only that time, the warming did not stop after a few minutes.  The scan required that I tolerate the heat build up for 18 hours.  Sorry for the hyperbole - it was 24 minutes but in minute 23 I was ready to claw my way out of the machine because I could no longer tolerate the heat.  By 2031, the whole planet faces heat that billions will not be able to tolerate.

 

Then this afternoon, there was a crash of thunder and our TV went off.  Out our windows we saw the branches were thrashing all around, and suddenly we could hardly see more than a few yards because of the downpour (four and a half inches in two hours).  Typical of summer weather in Florida.  Except, it is not summer for six more weeks.  And the downpour lasted way more than the typical ten minutes.  Certain parts of our country may find themselves wishing such storms would end in two hours.  And they may be flooded out before 2031, you know, like 2019.

 

My neighbor went out after the rain and found a tree on fire (struck by lightning and still dry despite the storm).  Our fire department got it under control, luckily.  Our dry winter weather causes a wild fire season by early spring so our neighborhood was fortunate this time.

 

And the GMC is a week old, leaving you all with a ton of concerns as pastors and churches absorb your time as they seek to leave.  They will again drain the focus you've begun on global warming.  I know both Keith Boyette and Tom Lambrecht and asked them what they are doing about climate change.  I got no response. 

 

Good leaders know when to delegate.  Maybe you should hand off direct action on global warming and give that responsibility to one of the denomination's agencies who can focus on it and not be distracted by all the stuff for which you are responsible.  Let someone else save the world so that you can focus on saving the Church. 

 

In the collegiality of the clergy,

 

Jerry

 

Rev. Jerry Eckert, retired, Wisconsin Annual Conference

Concluding thoughts on Judicial Council’s Spring 2021 Session

The COVID 19 pandemic hit the world in the fall of 2019.  By March of 2020, that caused the postponement of all gatherings of church bodies from the local church to General Conference for 2020 and into 2021.  The Judicial Council struggled with figuring out how to respond to matters raised by annual conferences and the Council of Bishops in 2019 which had been deferred from the November, 2019, session and which began to arise as church bodies found ways to “meet” by using computer programs like Skype and Zoom.  

 

In early December of 2020, on the personnel case of Erik Seise which had been before them in several ways since August of 2018, the Council was polled by the Secretary and it voted not to reconsider (JCM 1400) its decision on his case (JCD 1384).  Though we were notified immediately, the formal report was not published until April 16, 2021.  The Council actually broke up its Spring 2021 session into four release dates:  JCM 1408 on March 22, JCD 1409 on March 25, JCM 1400-JCD 1410 on April 16 (excluding the two already published), and JCM 1411-JCM 1418 on May 5.

 

Not only was the Council unable to maintain any continuity for the sake of connecting the dots, they had to work remotely rather than face-to-face which further exacerbated their work.  These complicating factors could not have come at a more difficult time because the 2019 session of General Conference caused a great deal of consternation among many annual conferences.  The Council tried to remain neutral as the “Traditionalists” and the rest of the Church fought over relating to the LGBTQIA+ community and splitting the denomination.

 

The rule of law, in principle, tends to maintain the status quo, which means we have largely stayed stuck together despite our differences.  The internal squabbles have distracted us from the immediate crisis of global warming.  One would think that the imminent disaster of climate change would draw us together at least for the short term.  But I’m not even sure that our experience of staying home during the pandemic during which time skies cleared of smog and waterways cleared of pollution gave us a feeling of having done something that affected the Earth.

 

Because we were at home, more of us heard of continent-sized patches of plastic in our oceans and some efforts to diminish their size.  We also began to realize how unequal our police enforcement has been toward people of color.  For the summer, of 2020, at least, the nine minute twenty nine second death of George Floyd was a story universally watched and internationally protested by people of all races.

 

These issues were not before the Council in any way, even though they are the major crises facing humanity.  

 

But the Council did clarify some things for the Church.  The primary concern in declaring the administrative way conferences (mis)handle troubled pastors unconstitutional (JCD 1408) has to do with the conflict of interest of the Cabinet and Board members voting on the status of a pastor during the clergy session they had previously worked on in their respective groups.  Further, the Council made it clear that the Church has no way to be flexible financially during a major world-wide crisis (JCD 1409).  The Council showed the denomination has no real way to handle cheating on General Conference votes (JCD 1401).  And finally, the Council reminded the Traditionalists again and again that the Church allows disagreement over policies though not over behavior (most of the rest of the Council’s decisions!)

 

My final observation about the winter/spring work of the Council is that the Council of Bishops has come to be the “go to” group to take questions to the Judicial Council.  That means that they become the party at interest and become second-hand purveyors of evidence of cases they bring on behalf of others.  I think that hurt the Commission on the General Conference on the voting irregularity situation.  I believe it hurt the appeal of a bishop several years ago.  Putting the Council of Bishops between an appellant and the Council also worked against Rev Seise.  I hope the Council will be wiser about taking jurisdiction when the Bishops appeal like that.

 

Our Historical Context

Historically speaking, the Methodist tradition has been plagued by trying to contain the theological problem of how to hold Calvinists (followers of John Calvin) like George Whitefield and Arminians (followers of Jacob Arminius) like John Wesley.  Charles Wesley tried to gloss over the differences by using language and frames of reference from both in his hymns.  But it did not resolve John’s and George’s disagreements over theology.  So Whitefield began his exile (my term) of preaching in America and occasionally in the British Isles.  Though George died in the colonies, he arranged for John to preach his funeral sermon in England.

The same differences in theology plague us today.  I have put together a more expansive statement on this in my personal blog at http://jerryeckert.blogspot.com. 

The evangelical fervor which led to the missionary movements in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and disrupted the settled denominations in Europe and North America (the main complaint was that the religious life and practice of the settled churches was not really Christian as far as the Calvinists were concerned).  The Calvinists focused on conversion (being saved from sin) while most other churches emphasized sanctification (becoming more and more like Christ).  The Calvinists tend toward believing in inerrancy of the Bible and the rest include other sources of revelation such as reason, experience, and tradition.  

In America, United Methodism has tried to hold Arminianism and Calvinism together.  There are deep pockets of both, hence there are large swaths of Arminian-type United Methodists, largely in the north and west and Calvinist-type United Methodists largely in the south.  In world wide United Methodism, Arminianism prevails in Western Europe and Calvinism tends to influence the mission areas (former colonial areas to Europe) in most of Africa and Asia.

Since 1972, the Calvinists in America serving as United Methodists have taken as their flag the fight against homosexuality.  Why that instead of abortion (which was carefully resolved in the 1960s in our Social Principals) or divorce (also resolved back then) or racism (on paper we’re good), is because it was controversial for the first time in the 1960s when a popular Baltimore pastor came out of the closet, throwing the denomination as a whole into an uproar, and then having a civil court stop the denomination from kicking him out.  

Homosexuality was a non-issue up to that point.  There was little real data, experience, or tradition in the church at the time so the Calvinists took the new use of the term “homosexual” as the Revised Standard Version translation of the words in their original language used instead of the term “pedophile” and raised that flag to assert their response to the controversy.  

While every nation, every culture, has among its people those who are homosexual, not all societies have had a niche for them.  The Calvinists were thrilled when an African bishop addressed General Conference in the 1990s saying the Church must deal with the problem of homosexuality.

I take this much space to remind you, dear reader, that the Arminians among us feel their tradition has been violated by the Calvinists and the Calvinists think they are the bearers of traditional Christianity and each side has lots of support and a long history in the church as it stands today, though neither’s true history extends back before 1500 A. D.  In fact, in our denominational history, until 60 years ago, neither tradition really bothered with concerns about homosexuality.  It is a mostly modern issue in the lifetime of around half of UMC members worldwide.

But it is our problem and this commentary needs to address the current manifestation of this wedge issue in the remaining decisions of the Council from February and April of 2019.

And global warming is dangerously upon us while we squabble . . . .

JCD 1366

http://www.umc.org/decisions/78138

Constitutionality of the Various Plans Before General Conference

Other writers have provided information on the three main plans before General Conference meant to deal with the deep divide in our denomination over the practice of homosexuality.  They include differing efforts on how to allow amicable separations of congregations, establishing new jurisdictions for each of the two sides in the debate, and more enforcement and punishment for those who disagree with current church law on the matter.

I admire the careful consideration provided to the Council of Bishops’ request.  That was very gracious of the Council, considering that the Council turned down a similar request last year because the Council did not see the request taking into account all the options that might be petitioned.  I’m sure there was a fear that calling out one or another of the plans as unconstitutional or as “clean” might prejudice the General Conference.  

With the plans in their petition form and the establishment of clear limits of any further petitions, the Council gave attention to sorting through everything coming through the Bishops from the Way Forward Commission and noting which petitions among that lot were okay and which were not under church law.

In briefest summary, the Council found the Bishops’ favorite, the One Church Plan,” to be mostly okay.  The Council found serious flaws that violate the constitution in the “Traditional Plan.”  The third plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, was not examined because it required constitutional changes and the Council cannot take jurisdiction over those kinds of petitions.

If you are interested in those details, the decision is well framed and any editing down as was thought necessary for JCD 1341 (the “Bishop Oliveto” decision) was laid aside.  Nerd out on JCD 1366 to your heart’s content.  You will also find many articles at the websites of the United Methodist News Service (https://www.umnews.org) and at United Methodist Insight (um-insight.net).  You may also find of interest a critique of the Bishops’ favorite plan which while it passed muster with the Council would leave the denomination vulnerable.  Go to http://www.wesletspace.net/GC-2029/Critique - One Church Plan.pdf.

This decision will not resolve the tension the 2019 General Conference faces.  It puts more pressure on the conservatives to come up with amendments that clean up their petitions and leaves them facing further challenges to the Council if they prevail with their votes.  I do not see many moderate to liberal churches leaving to denomination as the conservatives hope if the conservatives win.  

What I do see, though, is that by 2028, our successors will bemoan the fact that we wasted decades on the issue of homosexuality while the earth warmed.  The latest projections are that the world economy and politics have to change dramatically toward cooling the planet or the life we have known faces EXTINCTION . . . IN OUR LIFETIME.*

I have more to say on how we got here.  You can find that in posts I made on my personal blog at www.jerryeckert.blogspot.com.  

What I am advocating for in this posting here is that all of the differences of opinion, of tradition, of Biblical understanding, important as they are to who we as individuals feel them to be, pale in light of how rapidly the globe is warming and how soon the damage that is doing will become irreversible.  My prayer is that this General Conference will drop this whole controversy and face the most critical issue of our existence, find a collective prophetic voice to face it, and look for ways we can work to save the planet.

*Type “2030 global warming" into any search engine like Google for confirmation.

Concluding Thoughts on the Fall 2018 Session

Overriding all that faces the Judicial Council are the scientific warnings that global warming is proceeding faster than previous predictions.  We are accustomed to projections pointing to the end of the century (80 years).  Some have identified 2050 is a check point with regard to some aspect of global warming.  But the most recent observations indicate that we have ten years before reaching the point of no return for our survival.*  No, everyone will not die in 2031 like the dynosaurs all seemed to die at one time.  But the oceans will be too hot to function right, terrible storms and fires will strike many parts of the earth.  Shore lines will be inland from where they are now and millions of people will be displaced and food will be scarce for most of them, to say nothing of housing and order and jobs.

What will our children and grandchildren say when they look back at what we are spending our time on now.  Splitting a denomination?  Arguing fine points of legal terminology?  Questioning how much it will cost to go to General Conference?

John Wesley once was asked what he would do differently if he discovered that he would die tomorrow, so my history professors said during seminary.  He replied, “I’d finish out what I have to do today.”  Or something to that effect.  There is wisdom in that.  After all, what am I doing?  These things have to be done, seeking resolution to complicated questions, resolving personnel issues, etc.  If predictions are wrong. if solutions are found that put off or even eliminate the dangerous future facing us, these kinds of things will be important.

But where are our priorities.  Can we change them to mobilize in such as way that we can be part of the solution rather than be distracted by personal feelings, by legalisms that complicate things, by agendas that have been important perhaps for our whole lives?  Is our heart as a denomination big enough to show our love for the Earth and for our neighbors?  Can we lay down our petitions and our arguments and our distractions long enough to see what is actually happening and see just how critical it is to act now?  

To the Judicial Council and those bringing their cases, I say do your thing.  But to the General Conference, I ask you to switch priorities and start asking how to plug in on all the ways being found to deal with global warming and save some of these intramural conflicts for another generation.

*Type  “2030 global warming” into any search engine like Google for confirmation.