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 1222

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1339&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

REVIEW OF AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESTRUCTURING

South Carolina Conference, in response to JCD 1204, offered documentation of its corrections to the reorganization plan overturned by the Judicial Council.

Again, as in the reorganizations of North Texas and North Carolina, there is a measure of compliance and some things were left out in efforts to respond to the Council’s overturning of reorganization plans of various annual conferences.

Reorganizing shows the priorities of the bishop supervising the discussions about how the conference “should” operate more efficiently.

In this case, the committee on Archives and History was not honored properly, which is common among the bishops who believe in reorganizing. I believe that is very short-sighted and unhealthy.

In this case, missions is given short-shrift. To me that is extremely scary!

JCM 1224

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1349&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

LEGALITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE’S REORGANIZATION

A series of questions of law were raised at the North Carolina Conference about the failure to consult regarding the reorganization of the Cabinet and administrative staff which changed the location and role of superintendents.

The bishop responded that permissions for all the changes were made at the 2011 annual conference and by the respective districts.

The Council, however, found none of these claims of the bishop documented. Further, they were left wondering if the conference even had real district lines anymore. Under the plan, superintendents are to have assistants whose job description is vague enough that the Council could not determine where one role left off and the other began.

So the whole matter was remanded back to the conference for review and correction and then to be returned to the Council within thirty days after the 2013 annual conference session.

In this plan, it appears that all the superintendents are to have their offices in the conference center. Each is to have an assistant. I have no idea where the assistant is to live and I have no idea if the assistant is a part of the Appointive Cabinet.

But this sounds like setting things up so that the superintendents become much handier to the bishop and may actually fulfill the old joke about Cabinet meetings becoming personal support groups (for “hand-holding”) for an insecure bishop than the infrequent meetings required to work on appointments.

Having all the superintendents in one location with the bishop centralizes episcopal power logistically. Maybe this structure will lead to superintendents becoming the assistants to the bishop and the assistant superintendents will become a personnel committee to do the appointment-making independent of the bishop’s office, much like the Roman Catholic model.

Probably not…!

JCD 1225

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1350&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

REVIEW OF REORGANIZATION OF THE NORTH TEXAS ANNUAL CONFERENCE

In light of JCD 1198, a member of the North Texas Conference shared the changes the conference believes fulfills the requirements of the Judicial Council regarding reorganization.

The Council appreciated the efforts of the officers from North Texas to meet the goals set in JCD 1198 but pointed out the new plans excluded Race and Religion, Status and Role of Women, and Archives and History. So the matter was remanded back to the conference to include those bodies.

My concern about the power accruing to the bishop stated in JCD 1198 is not mentioned either in the conference’s response or in the Council’s remanding.

JCD 1142

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1262&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

In JCM 1127, the Council described a complete set of materials sent in by the West Michigan Conference bishop and secretary. The bishop’s report included reference to a question of law but the minutes did not. The Council remanded the case, something it has done but only when no minutes are sent along.

In this decision’s description, the minutes “reflect” the question of law…. I take this acceptance of jurisdiction to mean that the Council really wanted to assure the law was properly fulfilled . . . on a property matter. Not having seen what had been sent in either previously or for this review by the Council, I cannot make an accurate judgment about how precisely the documents fulfilled the requirements for jurisdiction. It appears that in its own discretion, the Council felt it would handle the case no matter what. Ah, the privilege of discretion….

The Council decided that because the annual conference has an identifiable interest in the protection and security of church properties exercised through being involved in the sale or mortgaging of church properties by requiring the District to be in the decision-making process, the conference has the right to require all churches to have the same insurance carrier. The three decisions cited as precedent were relevant.

With the movement around the country of certain congregations leaving the denomination over social issues like abortion and homosexuality and wanting to take their church property with them, this insurance issue allowed the Council to emphasize who really owns the local church property, the annual conference.