How Did this Happen?!!
Some facts about recent Judicial Council
Decision #1032
The blog entry attempts to give background to the
recent Judicial Council ruling. It does not offer commentary about the rulings,
so much as "the facts" of the case. I've attempted to answer any of the factual
questions as carefully as I know how, after extensive conversation with other UM
scholars.
Please note: I am not defending this decision here, merely attempting to explain the issues, so far as I can understand them. If you need further clarification, please email me, or leave a blog comment, and I'll do the best I can to find an answer. Some of the links below lead to definitions of the language that is used, others to the actual source material.
What is the Judicial Council?
It's a nine member body, made of up of lay and clergy members of United Methodist Churches. It's membership is elected every four years, at the United Methodist General Conference. It has been called "The Supreme Court" of United Methodism, in that it's the highest judicial body in the UMC.
How do "cases" get to the Judicial Council?
Cases land in their lap by being "appealed" by a party subject to a ruling by some lower body. Often, the decisions that are appealed are decisions by individual Bishops. Or, alternatively, sometimes Bishops actually request a ruling from the Judicial Council.
The JC meets twice yearly, and so their decisions come in big "clumps" after these meetings. Here is an example of the Judicial Council docket.
What is the background of this case?
(Note: much of the following information is taken from the official Judicial Council website.)
On December 8, 2004, the associate pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church contacted the District Superintendent informing him that a person had expressed interest in becoming a member of the Church. He had been participating in the life of the Church in a variety of ways. The senior pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church met with the person aspiring to membership on at least five occasions over a two-month period discussing his membership request. The person was a member of another denomination and was seeking to become a member by transfer of his membership from another denomination. The aspiring member's sexual orientation and practice was a significant part of the ongoing discussions between him and the senior pastor. Although he continued to be in ministry to the person, including enrolling him as a constituent member of the Church, the senior pastor refused to transfer him to the Church from another denomination.
On January 26, 2005, the district superintendent discussed the situation with the senior pastor and the pastor informed the district superintendent that he would continue to be in ministry with the person but that he would not receive him into membership in the Church. On January 27, 2005, after consulting with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, the district superintendent met again with the senior pastor and informed him that he was required to receive the person into membership in the Church as well as anyone else who acknowledged that they would receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promise to fulfill the vow. Since the pastor would not acquiesce, the district superintendent filed a complaint charging him with "unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties."
On March 15, 2005, the bishop referred the administrative complaint to the Board of Ordained Ministry (a group of ministers in each Annual Conference, responsible for oversight of clergy matters) for review of the district superintendent's charge. Following a number of hearings and meetings, the Board of Ordained Ministry sustained the complaint against the pastor and recommended to the annual conference clergy session (a yearly meeting of all clergy in an Annual Conference) that he be placed on involuntary leave of absence along with other remedial actions. The recommendation of the Board was taken to the clergy session. The members of the clergy session voted the place the pastor on involuntary leave of absence, with health benefits, by a vote of 448 for, 114 against, 18 abstentions.
Following this decision, clergy members of that annual conference asked the Bishop for several rulings. These rulings were appealed to the Judicial Council who decided the case last Monday.
What did the Judicial Council rule in this case?
The Judicial Council ruled that the senior pastor of a local United Methodist Church has discretion as to who he or she may admit as a member of a United Methodist Church. They ruled that the senior pastor of a United Methodist Church is the only person who "may" receive someone into the membership of a United Methodist Church.
They ruled that just because someone is willing and able to "take the vow" of membership does not mean that a United Methodist pastor has to receive them into membership of the church and pastors have "discretion" whether or not to do so. In that sense, although homosexuality was the presenting issue, the ruling is far broader than this. The ruling appears to say that pastors have this "discretion" in a potentially limitless number of areas.
The legal ruling the Judicial Council has given hinges on their interpretation of the word "may" in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. In two key sections of the Discipline, church law says that:
A member in good standing in any Christian denomination who has been baptized and who desires to unite with The United Methodist Church may [emphasis added] be received as either a baptized or a professing member by a proper certificate of transfer from that person's former church, or by a declaration of Christian faith, and upon affirming a willingness to be loyal to The United Methodist Church (see ΒΆΒΆ 214-217)
The Judicial Council has ruled that "may means may." In previous precedent by the Judicial Council, they have ruled that there is a difference between the words "shall" and "may." The word "shall" has been ruled to indicate something that is "mandatory" while the word "may" has been ruled to indicate something that is "permissive."
Using this as their basis in precedent, the Judicial Council rules that this pastor did not have to admit this person as a member of that particular local church. It also ruled, in a separate finding, that the senior pastor should be reinstated from his involuntary "leave of absence."
This decision has many ramifications beyond the issues at hand. I discuss them here.
Please note: I am not defending this decision here, merely attempting to explain the issues, so far as I can understand them. If you need further clarification, please email me, or leave a blog comment, and I'll do the best I can to find an answer. Some of the links below lead to definitions of the language that is used, others to the actual source material.
What is the Judicial Council?
It's a nine member body, made of up of lay and clergy members of United Methodist Churches. It's membership is elected every four years, at the United Methodist General Conference. It has been called "The Supreme Court" of United Methodism, in that it's the highest judicial body in the UMC.
How do "cases" get to the Judicial Council?
Cases land in their lap by being "appealed" by a party subject to a ruling by some lower body. Often, the decisions that are appealed are decisions by individual Bishops. Or, alternatively, sometimes Bishops actually request a ruling from the Judicial Council.
The JC meets twice yearly, and so their decisions come in big "clumps" after these meetings. Here is an example of the Judicial Council docket.
What is the background of this case?
(Note: much of the following information is taken from the official Judicial Council website.)
On December 8, 2004, the associate pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church contacted the District Superintendent informing him that a person had expressed interest in becoming a member of the Church. He had been participating in the life of the Church in a variety of ways. The senior pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church met with the person aspiring to membership on at least five occasions over a two-month period discussing his membership request. The person was a member of another denomination and was seeking to become a member by transfer of his membership from another denomination. The aspiring member's sexual orientation and practice was a significant part of the ongoing discussions between him and the senior pastor. Although he continued to be in ministry to the person, including enrolling him as a constituent member of the Church, the senior pastor refused to transfer him to the Church from another denomination.
On January 26, 2005, the district superintendent discussed the situation with the senior pastor and the pastor informed the district superintendent that he would continue to be in ministry with the person but that he would not receive him into membership in the Church. On January 27, 2005, after consulting with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, the district superintendent met again with the senior pastor and informed him that he was required to receive the person into membership in the Church as well as anyone else who acknowledged that they would receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promise to fulfill the vow. Since the pastor would not acquiesce, the district superintendent filed a complaint charging him with "unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties."
On March 15, 2005, the bishop referred the administrative complaint to the Board of Ordained Ministry (a group of ministers in each Annual Conference, responsible for oversight of clergy matters) for review of the district superintendent's charge. Following a number of hearings and meetings, the Board of Ordained Ministry sustained the complaint against the pastor and recommended to the annual conference clergy session (a yearly meeting of all clergy in an Annual Conference) that he be placed on involuntary leave of absence along with other remedial actions. The recommendation of the Board was taken to the clergy session. The members of the clergy session voted the place the pastor on involuntary leave of absence, with health benefits, by a vote of 448 for, 114 against, 18 abstentions.
Following this decision, clergy members of that annual conference asked the Bishop for several rulings. These rulings were appealed to the Judicial Council who decided the case last Monday.
What did the Judicial Council rule in this case?
The Judicial Council ruled that the senior pastor of a local United Methodist Church has discretion as to who he or she may admit as a member of a United Methodist Church. They ruled that the senior pastor of a United Methodist Church is the only person who "may" receive someone into the membership of a United Methodist Church.
They ruled that just because someone is willing and able to "take the vow" of membership does not mean that a United Methodist pastor has to receive them into membership of the church and pastors have "discretion" whether or not to do so. In that sense, although homosexuality was the presenting issue, the ruling is far broader than this. The ruling appears to say that pastors have this "discretion" in a potentially limitless number of areas.
The legal ruling the Judicial Council has given hinges on their interpretation of the word "may" in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. In two key sections of the Discipline, church law says that:
A member in good standing in any Christian denomination who has been baptized and who desires to unite with The United Methodist Church may [emphasis added] be received as either a baptized or a professing member by a proper certificate of transfer from that person's former church, or by a declaration of Christian faith, and upon affirming a willingness to be loyal to The United Methodist Church (see ΒΆΒΆ 214-217)
The Judicial Council has ruled that "may means may." In previous precedent by the Judicial Council, they have ruled that there is a difference between the words "shall" and "may." The word "shall" has been ruled to indicate something that is "mandatory" while the word "may" has been ruled to indicate something that is "permissive."
Using this as their basis in precedent, the Judicial Council rules that this pastor did not have to admit this person as a member of that particular local church. It also ruled, in a separate finding, that the senior pastor should be reinstated from his involuntary "leave of absence."
This decision has many ramifications beyond the issues at hand. I discuss them here.
Posted: Friday - November 04, 2005 at 04:50 PM |
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 05, 2008 04:46 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 05, 2008 04:46 PM