http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1191&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
I disagree that the manner of preparing petitions is clearly defined in the Discipline and the General Conference Rules of Order. I am surprised that the decision includes this line: “When a petition could potentially affect several Discipline paragraphs on a closely related topic, it should be presented as one petition.”
Having sent in petitions over the years has taught me two things: If you are not a general agency or the Council of Bishops sending in petitions, you must break up related issues into separate petitions with cross-reference to the others so that they are individual and yet so they can be seen as part of a larger issue, as the Council says. Otherwise, it is next to impossible to be sure each portion of an “omnibus” petition is put in the proper pile for distribution to the respective legislative committees of the General Conference. Petitions Secretaries much prefer that clarity.
The other thing I’ve learned is that despite what the Discipline and Rules say, only those who are not part of agencies and the Council of Bishops face this requirement. It is not uniformly enforced.
In practice, individuals are very fortunate to get something through General Conference because the agencies’ petitions tend to be handled first by the legislative committees. Their breadth and complexity are taken for granted, usually accepted, and nearly all other petitions are dumped into non-concurrence. That is not unexpected because the legislative committees tend to be structured in parallel with the church’s agencies and the members of those agencies elected to General Conference from the annual conferences sign up to be on that legislative committee.
This is partly a matter of institutional culture of the General Conference. And it is partly bad provisions in the Discipline and Rules of Order for preparing petitions. It works so well for the agencies that they would fight changes tooth and nail to prevent the Discipline and Rules from becoming more open and fair.
Finally, this ruling which says, “When a petition could potentially affect several Discipline paragraphs on a closely related topic, it should be presented as one petition,” supports what the requesting conference did.
But for the reason I noted above, ease of handling the referral of the various parts of the petition, the Kansas petition was divided up by the Secretary. The first sentence of the decision, “The secretary of the General Conference has the authority to determine when 507.2 is applicable,” supports that!
In my opinion, it is clear that neither the Discipline nor the Rules of Order nor this decision really resolve the handling of complex, inter-related petitions and leaves them subject to the politics, competence, and/or structures of the General Conference.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Re: JCD 1109
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1192&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
For the purposes of this commentary, I am most concerned about personnel matters. But it is hard to pass up some observations that can be made on this ruling.
The Council takes pains to parse their role in looking at whether pastors can send the elements of Holy Communion with lay people to remote places or where the pastor is not going for whatever reason.
That parsing means that no theological group can storm the gates of General Conference to precipitously change the Articles of Religion.
Meanwhile, on this issue, pastors are stuck with being directly involved with Holy Communion distribution. Perhaps Cabinet members can offer help on occasion to ease the loads of their pastors. Bishops are ordained elders, after all, as are superintendents. What an example that would be to us pastors if our superiors in office cared enough about the remote folks to help us out. That might be an encouragement to us pastors to make sure we find a way to reach out even more than we have . . . .
The dissenting opinion reinforces the responsibility of conference secretaries to get with the program. That this dissent is raised shows that the Council sometimes takes jurisdiction despite that failure.
Without thorough discussion with others on this ruling, I find myself accepting it and glad it was dealt with even though all the proper steps were not followed. The Council needs to have some flexibility to resolve conflicted issues.
May they be wise about which of their future decisions are handled with such Christian concern.
For the purposes of this commentary, I am most concerned about personnel matters. But it is hard to pass up some observations that can be made on this ruling.
The Council takes pains to parse their role in looking at whether pastors can send the elements of Holy Communion with lay people to remote places or where the pastor is not going for whatever reason.
That parsing means that no theological group can storm the gates of General Conference to precipitously change the Articles of Religion.
Meanwhile, on this issue, pastors are stuck with being directly involved with Holy Communion distribution. Perhaps Cabinet members can offer help on occasion to ease the loads of their pastors. Bishops are ordained elders, after all, as are superintendents. What an example that would be to us pastors if our superiors in office cared enough about the remote folks to help us out. That might be an encouragement to us pastors to make sure we find a way to reach out even more than we have . . . .
The dissenting opinion reinforces the responsibility of conference secretaries to get with the program. That this dissent is raised shows that the Council sometimes takes jurisdiction despite that failure.
Without thorough discussion with others on this ruling, I find myself accepting it and glad it was dealt with even though all the proper steps were not followed. The Council needs to have some flexibility to resolve conflicted issues.
May they be wise about which of their future decisions are handled with such Christian concern.
Re: JCM 1110
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1193&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
Once again the Council deferred to next Spring and chose to require full documentation from the conference before working on the issue of a bishop’s ruling a conference motion on homosexual uniting ceremonies null and void.
The dissent, from a member who usually blows the whistle on the need for all documents, is based on what he sees as a clear principle of the Discipline says. -- Many are convinced that the Discipline is of two minds, and maybe that is part of the reason to postpone consideration to see if this Council can reconcile those two positions.
Once again the Council deferred to next Spring and chose to require full documentation from the conference before working on the issue of a bishop’s ruling a conference motion on homosexual uniting ceremonies null and void.
The dissent, from a member who usually blows the whistle on the need for all documents, is based on what he sees as a clear principle of the Discipline says. -- Many are convinced that the Discipline is of two minds, and maybe that is part of the reason to postpone consideration to see if this Council can reconcile those two positions.
Conclusions re: Judicial Council's fall 2008 session
In going through the first set of decisions of this new Judicial Council, I find it refreshing to see the detail about what actually happened to precipitate the challenges that are before them. I hope they continue that practice. I wish previous Councils had done that on more cases before them. Even though much current church law allows church leaders to get away with poor administration, just seeing the back stories no matter what the decision provides us with examples, good ones along with the bad!
I think this Council has wisely deferred some more controversial decisions to next Spring. Sometimes history changes things so that some of the controversy dissipates as more pressing issues confront us.
This Council probably will not hit its stride until the fall session of 2009. It takes a year or more for the newer Council members to catch up with the learning curve. I hope they will look back at some of this session’s decisions and consider revisiting them.
I think this Council has wisely deferred some more controversial decisions to next Spring. Sometimes history changes things so that some of the controversy dissipates as more pressing issues confront us.
This Council probably will not hit its stride until the fall session of 2009. It takes a year or more for the newer Council members to catch up with the learning curve. I hope they will look back at some of this session’s decisions and consider revisiting them.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Letter to the bishops
Associates in Advocacy
www.aiateam.org
Dear Bishop,
I will make my announcement about the St. Martin of Tours award after Thanksgiving. There are two active bishops I am considering and need a little more data.
When I mentioned the courageous actions of Bishop Tuell to negotiate settlements of conflicts which were counter to the preferences of two bishops, I realized that he was the first since 1984 to bring successful unbiased mediation into conflicts in which bishops had a clear stake. That example has “trickled down” (bishops’ examples are more significant than they sometimes realize) in several places in the country.
On the east coast a number of years ago, Wescoat Sandlin successfully mediated a settlement on behalf of a bishop in a case involving a young layman. Mr. Sandlin and his wife have a mediation law practice in South Carolina (Wescoat is licensed in Texas and several east coast states) and can be reached through the AIA website.
Finishing his training in mediation, Spencer Turnipseed has used his skills in the Alabama-West Florida Conference for a number of years. He too can be reached through our website.
Just from sheer practice, Tom Griffith has been helping bishops in his California conference for a number of years. Starting as either a counsel for the respondent or counsel for the church, Tom has helped resolve complaints frequently by noting the mental or physical health of the respondent and gaining resolution through dealing with the real problem rather than the perceived complaint. He has been asked to handle cases not so clearly defined and has successfully worked out resolutions accepted by the bishops and respondents. Tom can be e-mailed at griffith@megapathdsl.net.
Also beginning as an advocate, John Grenfell has been able to work out resolutions in difficult cases based on his years of experience as a DS and working on behalf of Good News. John can be reached through our website.
Finally, let me remind you that JUSTPEACE not only works in restorative justice situations where the respondent admits guilt. They also facilitate discussions between conflicted parties. Stephanie Hixon and Tom Porter can be reached at www.justpeaceum.org.
The wave of the future, mediation, is very much more possible now than ever before.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
www.aiateam.org
Dear Bishop,
I will make my announcement about the St. Martin of Tours award after Thanksgiving. There are two active bishops I am considering and need a little more data.
When I mentioned the courageous actions of Bishop Tuell to negotiate settlements of conflicts which were counter to the preferences of two bishops, I realized that he was the first since 1984 to bring successful unbiased mediation into conflicts in which bishops had a clear stake. That example has “trickled down” (bishops’ examples are more significant than they sometimes realize) in several places in the country.
On the east coast a number of years ago, Wescoat Sandlin successfully mediated a settlement on behalf of a bishop in a case involving a young layman. Mr. Sandlin and his wife have a mediation law practice in South Carolina (Wescoat is licensed in Texas and several east coast states) and can be reached through the AIA website.
Finishing his training in mediation, Spencer Turnipseed has used his skills in the Alabama-West Florida Conference for a number of years. He too can be reached through our website.
Just from sheer practice, Tom Griffith has been helping bishops in his California conference for a number of years. Starting as either a counsel for the respondent or counsel for the church, Tom has helped resolve complaints frequently by noting the mental or physical health of the respondent and gaining resolution through dealing with the real problem rather than the perceived complaint. He has been asked to handle cases not so clearly defined and has successfully worked out resolutions accepted by the bishops and respondents. Tom can be e-mailed at griffith@megapathdsl.net.
Also beginning as an advocate, John Grenfell has been able to work out resolutions in difficult cases based on his years of experience as a DS and working on behalf of Good News. John can be reached through our website.
Finally, let me remind you that JUSTPEACE not only works in restorative justice situations where the respondent admits guilt. They also facilitate discussions between conflicted parties. Stephanie Hixon and Tom Porter can be reached at www.justpeaceum.org.
The wave of the future, mediation, is very much more possible now than ever before.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Letter to the bishops
ASSOCIATES IN ADVOCACY
http:www.aiateam.org
Dear Bishop,
I’ve been distracted by and attentive to the Presidential campaign. We are learning a lot about leadership style and decision-making on a national scale. The four major candidates differ quite a bit so we have examples to follow . . . or not!
I still like the humble but wise example of St. Martin of Tours. Following up on my letter seeking input about United Methodist bishops who should be considered for our informal award, first let me go back some years and talk about examples where there has been no other recognition before I address contemporary bishops to be so honored.
Rev. Dr. Harvey Potthoff never was elected but that may be because he withdrew in favor of an ethnic person high in the Western Jurisdiction voting. The example he set led to the Western Jurisdiction having no current white male bishop and has only had five since he withdrew his nomination in the ‘sixties (Tuell, McConnell, Dew, Wheatley, and Paup). He set a precedent that changed the denomination by opening the door to the episcopacy for non-male non-European American candidates.
Bishop Ralph Dodge passed away August 8 at age 101. The story on him is that he is the last American missionary bishop elected to serve overseas. That part of our efforts to build up indigenous leadership in our missionary conferences was going to happen sooner or later. The remarkable part of his story is that under the rules of his era, he was up for re-election every eight years, if my memory serves me correctly (could have been four?).
We are fortunate to still have with us Bishop Jack Tuell, the third bishop for whom I offer a deserved moment of recognition. Bishop Tuell has been honored for many things and still is highly esteemed in our denomination. But he has had some tough assignments for which he is not well known. He was called in to preside at a church trial by a bishop who had formerly been a member of the Judicial Council. The counsel for the respondent presented four objections to the actions and case of the conference officers (including the bishop) and Tuell found for the respondent, closing down the trial.
On another occasion, Bishop Tuell was called in to attempt to sort out a situation where the resident bishop followed bad advice that could have ended in a serious law suit. His efforts led to a reasonable resolution without any further legal actions but which required a formal apology by the resident bishop.
To these who had their moments as extraordinary leaders, I want to provide long overdue acknowledgment of actions they took which exemplify the spirit of St. Martin of Tours.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
(Rev. Jerry Eckert, contact person)
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Introduction
Two years ago before we started this blog, I introduced myself to the bishops with the letter posted below. I've updated it for the bishops most recently elected.
-----
Dear Bishop,
A friend pointed out that you may not have any idea who I am. Let me introduce myself. Though I have lived in the south for 18 of the last 23 years, I am from Wisconsin and am still a big Packer fan. I’ve been a part of the Methodist denomination since first grade (1942) and church choirs since 1951. My major in college was anthropology (UW-Madison, 1958) and I took four years of seminary at Perkins in Dallas (BD, 1962). I became an Elder in 1962 and served appointments in Wisconsin until retiring in 1995. I took a five year leave of absence beginning in 1985 to allow my wife to pursue her career. Our two children are adopted.
In 1967, I was a Masland Scholar at Union Theological Seminary in New York for a school year. I took a sabbatical in 1974 to work on a DMin program through United Seminary in St. Paul, MN. In 1978, I was left without appointment and challenged it to the Judicial Council (JCD 492). There were two consequences of that. One, all my bishops since considered me to be a minimum salary level pastor, which worked for me! Two, I began receiving phone calls from pastors in other parts of the country telling about their situations and asking what could I do to help them.
In 1983, while attending Judicial Council with Rev. Lloyd Hutchison, I met Revs. Andrew and Spencer Turnipseed who were advocates for Dr. Thomas Lane Butts. We worked together at the General Conference of 1984, the first of four in a row that I attended as a lobbyist for clergy rights. Tom Matheny, president of the Judicial Council invited me to address the Council that year because I had researched the change where bishops no longer transferred troubled pastors to other conferences and were now pushing them onto leave of absence, thanks to the Council‘s support of the 1980 legislation that allowed Cabinet-initiated leave of absence.
I would like to take credit for the 1988 General Conference decision to set up a study commission on the complaint process. I can’t. But one of your colleagues had, at one point, as many as eight lawsuits against him. The legal fees were killing GCFA even though the Church usually got out of the suits. I did follow the study commission’s actions by attending their meetings as an observer and having the occasional chance to offer information and opinions on the issues before the commission.
In 1996, I was nominated for Judicial Council and actually got 296 (or 269?) votes on the last ballot for clergy alternate. Obviously I was not elected!
In the 1990s, a number of pastors had consulted together on a number of cases and we decided to establish an association. GCFA told us we could not include the denomination’s name in our incorporation papers so we became simply “Associates in Advocacy.” General Conference removed the word “advocate” from the Discipline the following quadrennium.
I’ve watched incredibly bad manipulation of the petitions at General Conference, incredibly unfair abuse of legislative committee agendas to insure only petitions from the Council of Bishops were approved, lack of accountability of bishops, and some backdoor relationships between bishops and the Judicial Council over the years.
Here I am, as Albert Outler used call himself, a simple Bible Christian, trying to apply “going on to perfection” as a denomination, and trying to figure out how to help the bloodied bodies I still see lining the roads of annual conferences. I’ve seen the downside of our church and it has been hard holding back from running screaming into the streets!
Instead, I try to help pastors and lay people who have seen that same down side collapse on them. Sometimes, the church was in the right. Even then, it often did it all wrong and only exacerbated the situation.
Who can actually do something about how things are done in the church? The bishops. Hence, I try to provide periodic one page “continuing education,” clues as to how to handle some of the issues related to Fair Process but sometimes on other matters. Many of these are posted in one way or another on a blog at http://aiateam.blogspot.com and on the website noted above.
Thank God there are bishops who mostly agree with me, though they have every right to question some of my ideas. I know very well it is one thing to offer advice and another to actually have to take it!
A few bishops hate my guts.
I think the difference is that the ones who don’t appreciate me tend to want to run their episcopacies without any criticism or challenge. In recent years, I have become aware that more and more bishops tend to want no limits to their power. They don’t have the least notion that power must have limits. They become, well, like George Bush, who is secretive, runs deals that benefit his friends, makes humungous mistakes, and then keeps attention on insubstantial issues in order to minimize debate of his actions and administration.
Okay, maybe I’m overstating the matter. But we certainly should be a good example for the “world” to follow and not succumb to the practices of the “world.”
Any questions?
Within the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
PS I have two other major concerns: donating blood and seeking peace between Israel and Palestine. Christ calls us to be apostles, not just disciples.
-----
Associates in Advocacy - Rev. Jerry Eckert - Contact person
Website: www.aiateam.org
Website: www.aiateam.org
Dear Bishop,
A friend pointed out that you may not have any idea who I am. Let me introduce myself. Though I have lived in the south for 18 of the last 23 years, I am from Wisconsin and am still a big Packer fan. I’ve been a part of the Methodist denomination since first grade (1942) and church choirs since 1951. My major in college was anthropology (UW-Madison, 1958) and I took four years of seminary at Perkins in Dallas (BD, 1962). I became an Elder in 1962 and served appointments in Wisconsin until retiring in 1995. I took a five year leave of absence beginning in 1985 to allow my wife to pursue her career. Our two children are adopted.
In 1967, I was a Masland Scholar at Union Theological Seminary in New York for a school year. I took a sabbatical in 1974 to work on a DMin program through United Seminary in St. Paul, MN. In 1978, I was left without appointment and challenged it to the Judicial Council (JCD 492). There were two consequences of that. One, all my bishops since considered me to be a minimum salary level pastor, which worked for me! Two, I began receiving phone calls from pastors in other parts of the country telling about their situations and asking what could I do to help them.
In 1983, while attending Judicial Council with Rev. Lloyd Hutchison, I met Revs. Andrew and Spencer Turnipseed who were advocates for Dr. Thomas Lane Butts. We worked together at the General Conference of 1984, the first of four in a row that I attended as a lobbyist for clergy rights. Tom Matheny, president of the Judicial Council invited me to address the Council that year because I had researched the change where bishops no longer transferred troubled pastors to other conferences and were now pushing them onto leave of absence, thanks to the Council‘s support of the 1980 legislation that allowed Cabinet-initiated leave of absence.
I would like to take credit for the 1988 General Conference decision to set up a study commission on the complaint process. I can’t. But one of your colleagues had, at one point, as many as eight lawsuits against him. The legal fees were killing GCFA even though the Church usually got out of the suits. I did follow the study commission’s actions by attending their meetings as an observer and having the occasional chance to offer information and opinions on the issues before the commission.
In 1996, I was nominated for Judicial Council and actually got 296 (or 269?) votes on the last ballot for clergy alternate. Obviously I was not elected!
In the 1990s, a number of pastors had consulted together on a number of cases and we decided to establish an association. GCFA told us we could not include the denomination’s name in our incorporation papers so we became simply “Associates in Advocacy.” General Conference removed the word “advocate” from the Discipline the following quadrennium.
I’ve watched incredibly bad manipulation of the petitions at General Conference, incredibly unfair abuse of legislative committee agendas to insure only petitions from the Council of Bishops were approved, lack of accountability of bishops, and some backdoor relationships between bishops and the Judicial Council over the years.
Here I am, as Albert Outler used call himself, a simple Bible Christian, trying to apply “going on to perfection” as a denomination, and trying to figure out how to help the bloodied bodies I still see lining the roads of annual conferences. I’ve seen the downside of our church and it has been hard holding back from running screaming into the streets!
Instead, I try to help pastors and lay people who have seen that same down side collapse on them. Sometimes, the church was in the right. Even then, it often did it all wrong and only exacerbated the situation.
Who can actually do something about how things are done in the church? The bishops. Hence, I try to provide periodic one page “continuing education,” clues as to how to handle some of the issues related to Fair Process but sometimes on other matters. Many of these are posted in one way or another on a blog at http://aiateam.blogspot.com and on the website noted above.
Thank God there are bishops who mostly agree with me, though they have every right to question some of my ideas. I know very well it is one thing to offer advice and another to actually have to take it!
A few bishops hate my guts.
I think the difference is that the ones who don’t appreciate me tend to want to run their episcopacies without any criticism or challenge. In recent years, I have become aware that more and more bishops tend to want no limits to their power. They don’t have the least notion that power must have limits. They become, well, like George Bush, who is secretive, runs deals that benefit his friends, makes humungous mistakes, and then keeps attention on insubstantial issues in order to minimize debate of his actions and administration.
Okay, maybe I’m overstating the matter. But we certainly should be a good example for the “world” to follow and not succumb to the practices of the “world.”
Any questions?
Within the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
PS I have two other major concerns: donating blood and seeking peace between Israel and Palestine. Christ calls us to be apostles, not just disciples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)