http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1321&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1101&EN=1200
There is a lot of history behind this case. One should read JCDs 301, 665, 794, 847, and 871 to understand the issues well. The first three essentially affirmed the right of conferences and churches to consider dissent from law, whether civil or church law, if there were no mandates or regulations requiring specific actions. Hence a church body could identify as Reconciling or Confessing or Transforming. While JCD 301 dealt with conscientious objection, the others dealt with aspirations related to welcoming homosexuals. However, in the last two, the Judicial Council said that identifying with one movement or another was a doctrinal matter even if such designations were not regulatory. Hence, they argued, becoming one or another was divisive and therefore contrary to the Discipline.
Interestingly, JCDs 665, 847, and 871 originated in the same place JCM 1200 does, the Northwest Texas Annual Conference.
In the instant ruling, the Council took no jurisdiction for two reasons: one, “the request has no direct and tangible effect in the work of the petitioning Annual Conference;” and two, they already clearly ruled on the same thing before.
In a concurring opinion, three members felt that the Council had no authority to direct how a conference or church identified its mission aspirations, thus making JCDs 665, 794, 847, and 971 inappropriate. The General Conference should provide by legislation for resolving the matter. Another member noted the reason the request came was because there is little compliance. Church bodies continue to identify with one or another of the movements. He writes the Council has done its job and now the legislative and administrative bodies need to do their job to bring every conference and church into compliance.
Bishop Norris pointed out in his ruling from JCD 847 that there was no enforcement mechanism.
The upshot of this series of decisions is that, just as the Council raised parts of the Social Principles related to homosexuality to the status of law (JCD 833), so the Council has raised aspirational affiliations with movements to the status of doctrine. These are peculiar to the issue of homosexuality and no application of the decisions to anything else in the life of the church has occurred.
But the Council is not insensitive to the aspirational. Affirmed in JCM 1200 without specifying it is the following from JCD 871. “We do, however, reiterate the proposition that local churches like Annual Conferences can freely pursue principles and causes affirmed in the Discipline and by the General Conference with the mandate of reconciliation and healing being required of the whole church.” They just can’t use affiliating with a movement to do it.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
JCD 1201
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1322&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204
Picky over whether or not the Judicial Council has jurisdiction, I was as surprised as the concurring opinion writer was that the Council took jurisdiction over a bishop’s forwarding a resolution about trial court penalties as if it were a question of law. But the Council did so they could tell the Church that only the trial court can set a penalty in a guilty verdict.
I hate to think that because a bishop said something, the Council took that as sufficient to take jurisdiction. The Council, in any case, is a human institution, subject to the same vagaries as the rest of us.
In our annual conference (Wisconsin), we have rules and we have policies. They are codified and published in the conference journal every year. The policies can change year to year with a simple majority vote and are not regulatory. The rules are as binding as regulatory just as is the Discipline, provided there is no conflict between them. They are subject to vote only after 24 hours for review.
Even policies may not contradict the Discipline which, in the instant case, the policy did as the Council points out.
Now that the matter is cleared up, despite the questionable basis for accepting jurisdiction, conferences cannot set penalties in cases where pastors conduct same sax marriages or union services. If nothing else, the Council has advertised what one conference wants to do. It will be interesting to see if a pattern develops where there occur trials of pastors on the violation noted. Will it influence trials in Northwest Texas Conference?
Picky over whether or not the Judicial Council has jurisdiction, I was as surprised as the concurring opinion writer was that the Council took jurisdiction over a bishop’s forwarding a resolution about trial court penalties as if it were a question of law. But the Council did so they could tell the Church that only the trial court can set a penalty in a guilty verdict.
I hate to think that because a bishop said something, the Council took that as sufficient to take jurisdiction. The Council, in any case, is a human institution, subject to the same vagaries as the rest of us.
In our annual conference (Wisconsin), we have rules and we have policies. They are codified and published in the conference journal every year. The policies can change year to year with a simple majority vote and are not regulatory. The rules are as binding as regulatory just as is the Discipline, provided there is no conflict between them. They are subject to vote only after 24 hours for review.
Even policies may not contradict the Discipline which, in the instant case, the policy did as the Council points out.
Now that the matter is cleared up, despite the questionable basis for accepting jurisdiction, conferences cannot set penalties in cases where pastors conduct same sax marriages or union services. If nothing else, the Council has advertised what one conference wants to do. It will be interesting to see if a pattern develops where there occur trials of pastors on the violation noted. Will it influence trials in Northwest Texas Conference?
JCD 1202
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1323&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204
The statement of facts about this case does not include the bishop’s ruling. Even though the Council vacated it, one wonders how a bishop could justify telling a pastor in any circumstance, without prior fair process (JCD 702), that s/he was unappointable.
In the cases of Revs. Winslow Wilson and Nathaniel Grady, both of whom were in prison, were put on leave of absence. Their respective conferences felt that they had each been incarcerated unjustly. Their appointability was never seriously in question. If church complaints were initiated against either pastor, no committee on investigation forwarded it to church trial.
In the instant case, after the bishop put in writing to the imprisoned pastor that he was unappointable, the formal complaint process has been begun. Appointability is a determination to be made by the conference, as I understand it in church law, and is not the prerogative of a bishop to determine. I do not know who advised the bishop to write such a letter or who gave him the impression such a letter was appropriate. I can guess, based on how frequently I have heard about bishops who thought they could make that determination on their own.
The Judicial Council, on the grounds of separation of powers, has stood up to the incursion of episcopal authority into employment matters. I hope their ruling receives better attention than has the Council’s rulings on some other matters (for example, JCD 1200 and its predecessors).
The statement of facts about this case does not include the bishop’s ruling. Even though the Council vacated it, one wonders how a bishop could justify telling a pastor in any circumstance, without prior fair process (JCD 702), that s/he was unappointable.
In the cases of Revs. Winslow Wilson and Nathaniel Grady, both of whom were in prison, were put on leave of absence. Their respective conferences felt that they had each been incarcerated unjustly. Their appointability was never seriously in question. If church complaints were initiated against either pastor, no committee on investigation forwarded it to church trial.
In the instant case, after the bishop put in writing to the imprisoned pastor that he was unappointable, the formal complaint process has been begun. Appointability is a determination to be made by the conference, as I understand it in church law, and is not the prerogative of a bishop to determine. I do not know who advised the bishop to write such a letter or who gave him the impression such a letter was appropriate. I can guess, based on how frequently I have heard about bishops who thought they could make that determination on their own.
The Judicial Council, on the grounds of separation of powers, has stood up to the incursion of episcopal authority into employment matters. I hope their ruling receives better attention than has the Council’s rulings on some other matters (for example, JCD 1200 and its predecessors).
JCD 1203
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1324&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204
Behind the question of law presented, there must have been a concern about an agency not fulfilling its responsibilities to pay a retired pastor. Unfortunately, the question was not tied to a specific person nor was it tied to a specific action before the conference. Consequently, by rule (JCD 799), the question was judged moot and hypothetical.
In a dissenting opinion, one member felt the bishop failed to offer an answer to the question of law. JCD 799 is clear. “The duty of the bishop is to respond with a ruling to all submitted questions of law. A ruling is required even if the ruling is simply that the question is moot, hypothetical or improperly submitted.” No such response to the question was offered.
Unfortunately, the Council overlooked its own rules (JCD 799 is incorporated into the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Council) and allowed a bishop to get away with refusing to send in her response to the question asked. There is no indication the bishop is unaware of the circumstances that precipitated the question of law. She just refused to answer it.
What if the Council had ruled the question of law was appropriate? That has occurred before when a bishop thought the question was moot and hypothetical. The Council would have to remand the matter to the bishop for an answer and keep jurisdiction until they received it. The bishop would have been in violation of the Discipline, returning the answer well past the thirty day limit. That would also have put off a resolution of the issue, a delay that could have caused harm to the pastor in question.
As the Council said of others in JCD 777 and others, that irreparable harm is done because of failure to follow the Discipline in personnel cases, so it may need to include itself among those required to obey the Discipline.
Behind the question of law presented, there must have been a concern about an agency not fulfilling its responsibilities to pay a retired pastor. Unfortunately, the question was not tied to a specific person nor was it tied to a specific action before the conference. Consequently, by rule (JCD 799), the question was judged moot and hypothetical.
In a dissenting opinion, one member felt the bishop failed to offer an answer to the question of law. JCD 799 is clear. “The duty of the bishop is to respond with a ruling to all submitted questions of law. A ruling is required even if the ruling is simply that the question is moot, hypothetical or improperly submitted.” No such response to the question was offered.
Unfortunately, the Council overlooked its own rules (JCD 799 is incorporated into the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Council) and allowed a bishop to get away with refusing to send in her response to the question asked. There is no indication the bishop is unaware of the circumstances that precipitated the question of law. She just refused to answer it.
What if the Council had ruled the question of law was appropriate? That has occurred before when a bishop thought the question was moot and hypothetical. The Council would have to remand the matter to the bishop for an answer and keep jurisdiction until they received it. The bishop would have been in violation of the Discipline, returning the answer well past the thirty day limit. That would also have put off a resolution of the issue, a delay that could have caused harm to the pastor in question.
As the Council said of others in JCD 777 and others, that irreparable harm is done because of failure to follow the Discipline in personnel cases, so it may need to include itself among those required to obey the Discipline.
JCD 1204
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1325&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204
Another conference attempted to restructure and had its plan forwarded for review by the Judicial Council. And again the Council had to point out significant flaws, remand the plan back to the annual conference, and retain jurisdiction to be sure the flaws were corrected.
Streamlining may seem like a good idea for administrative purposes and for cost effectiveness. What it usually shows is how low in priorities of key leadership are things like ministries to young people, maintaining an active mission outreach, and keeping adequate archives. What makes it worse is that certain conference leaders must have refused to respond to questions about such concerns during the decision-making process and forced the matter to be forwarded to take up time of the Judicial Council.
Another conference attempted to restructure and had its plan forwarded for review by the Judicial Council. And again the Council had to point out significant flaws, remand the plan back to the annual conference, and retain jurisdiction to be sure the flaws were corrected.
Streamlining may seem like a good idea for administrative purposes and for cost effectiveness. What it usually shows is how low in priorities of key leadership are things like ministries to young people, maintaining an active mission outreach, and keeping adequate archives. What makes it worse is that certain conference leaders must have refused to respond to questions about such concerns during the decision-making process and forced the matter to be forwarded to take up time of the Judicial Council.
Summary of the Fall 2011 Session
The biggest beneficiary of this fall’s decisions is the college of bishops of the Philippines on whose side the Judicial Council ruled. As I pointed out, if the Discipline is not on their side, having the Judicial Council is even better! Of the 16 items (2 were dealt with in one decision) before the Council this fall, 6 were related to the Philippines. The result of the Council’s rulings further entrenches the power of the college of bishops and their appointment of an interim bishop. That bishop may be a nice guy and popular with folks in the United States, but his actions should be compliant with the Discipline and they may not have been.
I have watched groups in the denomination triangulated into one power struggle after another, usually causing harm to the other side and the whole Church. I hate it when it happens at the highest levels of our Church.
Compliance issues with church law, as this session’s docket illustrates, ranges from individual failure to follow the rules for questions of law (JCD 1203) to annual conferences (JCDs 1198 and 1201) to the Council itself (also JCD 1203). Is church law breaking down? Is everybody so busy they don’t take boundaries and guidelines seriously but “roll their own” because they are in a hurry? Are things so complicated that nearly everyone misses the finer points intended to help? Even when the Council shows immense patience and offers significant teaching in its decisions and opinions as it does in JCDs 1197 and 1198 in particular, there seems to be a low level of responsiveness (JCDs 1200, in re: 847).
The struggle to minimize episcopal incursions beyond their Disciplinary authority continues to go on (JCDs 1191, 1194-6, 1198, 1202, and 1204).
Homosexuality continues to haunt us (JCDs 1201 and 1202) as do questions about handling of personnel (JCDs 1191, 1199, 1202, and 1203).
Still bound by arcane rules, lack of adequate information, and the discretion about what they report, this Council sometimes is not able to perform consistently. And the Council sometimes shows some awareness of its occasional lapses.
Maybe those of us who watch and understand the significance of what the Council does need to become more vocal in commending the good things the Council does in hopes of encouraging them on to consistency and authority so people pay more attention and accept the helpful guidance they offer.
I have watched groups in the denomination triangulated into one power struggle after another, usually causing harm to the other side and the whole Church. I hate it when it happens at the highest levels of our Church.
Compliance issues with church law, as this session’s docket illustrates, ranges from individual failure to follow the rules for questions of law (JCD 1203) to annual conferences (JCDs 1198 and 1201) to the Council itself (also JCD 1203). Is church law breaking down? Is everybody so busy they don’t take boundaries and guidelines seriously but “roll their own” because they are in a hurry? Are things so complicated that nearly everyone misses the finer points intended to help? Even when the Council shows immense patience and offers significant teaching in its decisions and opinions as it does in JCDs 1197 and 1198 in particular, there seems to be a low level of responsiveness (JCDs 1200, in re: 847).
The struggle to minimize episcopal incursions beyond their Disciplinary authority continues to go on (JCDs 1191, 1194-6, 1198, 1202, and 1204).
Homosexuality continues to haunt us (JCDs 1201 and 1202) as do questions about handling of personnel (JCDs 1191, 1199, 1202, and 1203).
Still bound by arcane rules, lack of adequate information, and the discretion about what they report, this Council sometimes is not able to perform consistently. And the Council sometimes shows some awareness of its occasional lapses.
Maybe those of us who watch and understand the significance of what the Council does need to become more vocal in commending the good things the Council does in hopes of encouraging them on to consistency and authority so people pay more attention and accept the helpful guidance they offer.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
On "incompetent pastors"
A recent daily UMNS e-mail carried the story of how bishops have a hard time removing incompetent pastors.
I submitted a comment which I offer through this blog:
Let me speak to the issue of incompetent pastors. For two reasons, I am not convinced by bishops who say they have hard time removing incompetent pastors. One, all they need to do is supervise, that is, keep track of times when pastors mess up in their work (keep a file and accumulate a paper trail), draw the incidents to the respective pastor's attention, work out a mutually agreeable plan for improvement with a warning about failure to work at it, follow up if the pastor fails, and take it to the Board of Ordained Ministy's personnel committee. It is a little bit of work but supervisors in every other employing entity do it all the time. Is it possible that superintendents do not have the time to do their job? Is it possible that superintendents are not properly trained to do their job? Is it possible that bishops choose superintendents who are incompetent at supervising? Is it possible that bishops are incompetent at supervising and thus fail to follow normal protocols when there is incompetence involved? Is it possible that bishops are not being held accountable for failure to properly supervise their superintendents or fail to follow normal protocols in handling pastors in trouble?
Such issues have a major effect on morale in an annual conference. Horrible bosses turn good pastors into troubled pastors....
Second, for many years, the hoops prospective pastors have to go through have raised the bar on the degree of competence pastors have to meet to become members of an annual conference. How is it that all these glowing candidates (prospective members are rarely being criticized but rather are greatly lionized during clergy session) are suddenly incompetent and need to be identified by the Cabinet as unappointable? Is there a possibility that their morale or their health have been crushed by lack of support and upbuilding of their ministries from their superiors in office?
Now let me add some additional observations about how things are actually going in the denomination.
Petitions dealing with these kinds of issues have been sent to General Conference since 1980 only to be ignored in favor of petitions from the Council of Bishops presented through GCFA or GBHEM. The protocols in the Discipline come from the bishops themselves, which makes their criticism misplaced. They want to take over the function of hiring and firing pastors at will, something they already have over Local Pastors, something some bishops have actually been doing with complete disregard for the Discipline.
No one compliments bishops on how successful they are at matching pastors and churches and helping both succeed together.
No pastors are encouraged to visit among the church members and constituents by the example of bishops and superintendents who visit among their pastors.
Everyone in the connection seems to have found more important things to do. We find it easier to complain and seek shortcuts.
Jurisdictional conferences take little time asking episcopal candidates about their pastoral care practices as pastors. Maybe we need to select pastors who like pastors and who like churches to become our bishops and who have some understanding of supervision. Morale builders may do more to diminish the number of incompetent pastors than giving bishops more power to fire pastors.
In conclusion, the voice of the bishops is not the only one that should be heard in the discussion of pastoral competence. Many of us see other dynamics involved and pray that our voices will be heard as well.
I submitted a comment which I offer through this blog:
Let me speak to the issue of incompetent pastors. For two reasons, I am not convinced by bishops who say they have hard time removing incompetent pastors. One, all they need to do is supervise, that is, keep track of times when pastors mess up in their work (keep a file and accumulate a paper trail), draw the incidents to the respective pastor's attention, work out a mutually agreeable plan for improvement with a warning about failure to work at it, follow up if the pastor fails, and take it to the Board of Ordained Ministy's personnel committee. It is a little bit of work but supervisors in every other employing entity do it all the time. Is it possible that superintendents do not have the time to do their job? Is it possible that superintendents are not properly trained to do their job? Is it possible that bishops choose superintendents who are incompetent at supervising? Is it possible that bishops are incompetent at supervising and thus fail to follow normal protocols when there is incompetence involved? Is it possible that bishops are not being held accountable for failure to properly supervise their superintendents or fail to follow normal protocols in handling pastors in trouble?
Such issues have a major effect on morale in an annual conference. Horrible bosses turn good pastors into troubled pastors....
Second, for many years, the hoops prospective pastors have to go through have raised the bar on the degree of competence pastors have to meet to become members of an annual conference. How is it that all these glowing candidates (prospective members are rarely being criticized but rather are greatly lionized during clergy session) are suddenly incompetent and need to be identified by the Cabinet as unappointable? Is there a possibility that their morale or their health have been crushed by lack of support and upbuilding of their ministries from their superiors in office?
Now let me add some additional observations about how things are actually going in the denomination.
Petitions dealing with these kinds of issues have been sent to General Conference since 1980 only to be ignored in favor of petitions from the Council of Bishops presented through GCFA or GBHEM. The protocols in the Discipline come from the bishops themselves, which makes their criticism misplaced. They want to take over the function of hiring and firing pastors at will, something they already have over Local Pastors, something some bishops have actually been doing with complete disregard for the Discipline.
No one compliments bishops on how successful they are at matching pastors and churches and helping both succeed together.
No pastors are encouraged to visit among the church members and constituents by the example of bishops and superintendents who visit among their pastors.
Everyone in the connection seems to have found more important things to do. We find it easier to complain and seek shortcuts.
Jurisdictional conferences take little time asking episcopal candidates about their pastoral care practices as pastors. Maybe we need to select pastors who like pastors and who like churches to become our bishops and who have some understanding of supervision. Morale builders may do more to diminish the number of incompetent pastors than giving bishops more power to fire pastors.
In conclusion, the voice of the bishops is not the only one that should be heard in the discussion of pastoral competence. Many of us see other dynamics involved and pray that our voices will be heard as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)