The Case for Reconsidering Judicial Council Decision #1032
An Open Letter to All United Methodists and
the Judicial Council
The following offers a rationale, based on Judicial
Council rulings for reconsidering its recent decision. It is offered to the
general church as a whole, for anyone who might find it helpful. Neither I nor
any other outside observer has the power to compel the Judicial Council to
reconsider Decision #1032. The members of the Judicial
Council can, of their own accord, choose to reconsider it at their next meeting.
Or any of the parties to the decision may also ask for
reconsideration.
However, it seems to me there is more than adequate precedent to ask the Judicial Council to reconsider its decision, based on its own previous precedent in church law. The Judicial Council can easily find precedent, in its own decisions, to modify this decision and to declare that while a pastor does have some discretion, in this case the pastor committed an abuse of pastoral discretion.
First and foremost are their own previous rulings, including one on this most recent docket. But the most compelling case is Decision # 913 . In this case, the Desert Southwest Annual Conference passed a resolution called "We Will Not Be Silent" in the wake of the 2000 General Conference.
Among other things, this resolution said the following:
“We acknowledge that there may be differences of opinion among us, but this does not require that we wait on justice. We cannot accept discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered persons and, therefore, we will work toward their full participation at all levels in the life of the church and society. Valuing the voices of those who disagree, we will continue to be in dialogue as we journey together in creative tension. We will continue to be in ministry with God’s children and celebrate the gifts diversity brings. We will continue to feast at table with all God’s children."
I direct your attention to the line that says: "We will work toward their full participation at all levels in the life of the church and society."
The Annual Conference passed this resolution, where upon a member of the Annual Conference immediately asked the Bishop for a ruling. The Bishop was asked if there was a violation of the Discipline in the wording of this resolution. The Bishop ruled that there was not.
The Bishop's decision was appealed to the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council upheld the Bishop. In its finding, the Judicial Council said this:
There is nothing in the resolution which violates the Discipline or Decision 911. Members of The United Methodist Church are not of one mind on the issue of homosexuality, but we need to continue to be in dialogue with each other on the subject. Further, our Social Principles commit us to be in ministry with all persons. Par. 161.g of the 2000 Discipline states in part:
...Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self... We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.
Friday, October 26, 2001.
The ruling by Bishop William W. Dew, Jr. that Resolution 21.20 adopted by the Desert Southwest Annual Conference affirming and supporting a resolution passed by the Western Jurisdictional Conference entitled: We Will Not Be Silent” is not in violation of the Discipline, is affirmed.
Finally, a decision of the Judicial Council, in its most recent session, also points to a precedent for reversing its recent decision in #1032. The decision is #1028.
At issue was a resolution passed by the California-Nevada Annual Conference. Part of that resolution asked for all churches in that Annual Conference to make a report on four specific goals for inclusion. One of those goals was:
“To make plans to welcome and include LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgendered) persons in leadership roles in the Church.”
A member of the Annual Conference asked Bishop Shamana for a ruling on this specific provision of the resolution. The Bishop ruled first that the resolution was a "recommendation" and not binding. But she then went further and said this:
Even if it did purport to be a mandate to district superintendents to ask certain questions at charge conferences, there is nothing in Par. 2.C that violates the Book of Discipline. (See Judicial Council Decision #913 citing ¶ 161.g)
Note that Bishop Shamana references the same Judicial Council decision that I have just referenced above! This case ended up at the Judicial Council as well.
What did the members rule? Among other things, they said this:
The adopted provision says the district superintendent would be asking for a report on how the church is making plans to welcome lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered persons into the leadership of the church. Paragraph 214 of the Discipline states,“[a]ll people may attend its [The United Methodist Church] worship services, participate in the programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection.…” Further, The United Methodist Church is committed to be in ministry for and with all persons. ¶161G, 2004 Discipline and Decision 913 .
Notice that the Judicial Council ALSO reference Decision 913 in their ruling!!!!
This is why I am in incredulous that they have ruled that pastors have "discretion" to exclude someone on the basis of homosexuality. By virtue of their own previous rulings, they have provided the necessary precedent that persons CANNOT be excluded on the basis of homosexuality.
It seems to me that the proper ruling in Decision #1032 should have been that, YES, a pastor does have "discretion," but NO in this case the exercise of discretion went beyond what is allowable under the Discipline and United Methodist Church law.
The quickest and cleanest remedy for Judicial Council Decision #1032 is for the members to reconsider the decision, and to clarify it on the basis of their own previous precedent. They used their own previous precedent to distinguish between "may" and "shall" in Decision #1032. That is fine. However, they should also use their own previous precedent in Decisions #913 and #1028 on the specific issue of admitting homosexual Christians as members in the United Methodist Church. For them to use precedent in the one instance and not in the other violates their own previously binding judicial rulings.
Another "remedy" for this would be for the United Methodist Church (probably General Conference) to compile a "list" of things a pastor might exercise discretion over when admitting a person as a United Methodist member. I personally believe this kind of "list" to be an unacceptable remedy. We are not a credal church, and there is no way that such a list would not end up being arbitrary and possibly capricious.
However, there are some things that should be outside pastoral discretion, because pastors in the UMC are, in fact, bound to uphold the Discipline and law of the United Methodist Church. Excluding a person on the basis of homosexuality appears to be outside the bounds of pastoral discretion, based on previous Judicial Council precedent.
I hope, pray, and encourage the Judicial Council to reconsider Decision #1032 based on its own previous precedent, and hold that the pastor, in fact, committed an abuse of pastoral discretion.
Eric Folkerth
However, it seems to me there is more than adequate precedent to ask the Judicial Council to reconsider its decision, based on its own previous precedent in church law. The Judicial Council can easily find precedent, in its own decisions, to modify this decision and to declare that while a pastor does have some discretion, in this case the pastor committed an abuse of pastoral discretion.
First and foremost are their own previous rulings, including one on this most recent docket. But the most compelling case is Decision # 913 . In this case, the Desert Southwest Annual Conference passed a resolution called "We Will Not Be Silent" in the wake of the 2000 General Conference.
Among other things, this resolution said the following:
“We acknowledge that there may be differences of opinion among us, but this does not require that we wait on justice. We cannot accept discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered persons and, therefore, we will work toward their full participation at all levels in the life of the church and society. Valuing the voices of those who disagree, we will continue to be in dialogue as we journey together in creative tension. We will continue to be in ministry with God’s children and celebrate the gifts diversity brings. We will continue to feast at table with all God’s children."
I direct your attention to the line that says: "We will work toward their full participation at all levels in the life of the church and society."
The Annual Conference passed this resolution, where upon a member of the Annual Conference immediately asked the Bishop for a ruling. The Bishop was asked if there was a violation of the Discipline in the wording of this resolution. The Bishop ruled that there was not.
The Bishop's decision was appealed to the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council upheld the Bishop. In its finding, the Judicial Council said this:
There is nothing in the resolution which violates the Discipline or Decision 911. Members of The United Methodist Church are not of one mind on the issue of homosexuality, but we need to continue to be in dialogue with each other on the subject. Further, our Social Principles commit us to be in ministry with all persons. Par. 161.g of the 2000 Discipline states in part:
...Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self... We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.
Friday, October 26, 2001.
The ruling by Bishop William W. Dew, Jr. that Resolution 21.20 adopted by the Desert Southwest Annual Conference affirming and supporting a resolution passed by the Western Jurisdictional Conference entitled: We Will Not Be Silent” is not in violation of the Discipline, is affirmed.
Finally, a decision of the Judicial Council, in its most recent session, also points to a precedent for reversing its recent decision in #1032. The decision is #1028.
At issue was a resolution passed by the California-Nevada Annual Conference. Part of that resolution asked for all churches in that Annual Conference to make a report on four specific goals for inclusion. One of those goals was:
“To make plans to welcome and include LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgendered) persons in leadership roles in the Church.”
A member of the Annual Conference asked Bishop Shamana for a ruling on this specific provision of the resolution. The Bishop ruled first that the resolution was a "recommendation" and not binding. But she then went further and said this:
Even if it did purport to be a mandate to district superintendents to ask certain questions at charge conferences, there is nothing in Par. 2.C that violates the Book of Discipline. (See Judicial Council Decision #913 citing ¶ 161.g)
Note that Bishop Shamana references the same Judicial Council decision that I have just referenced above! This case ended up at the Judicial Council as well.
What did the members rule? Among other things, they said this:
The adopted provision says the district superintendent would be asking for a report on how the church is making plans to welcome lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered persons into the leadership of the church. Paragraph 214 of the Discipline states,“[a]ll people may attend its [The United Methodist Church] worship services, participate in the programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection.…” Further, The United Methodist Church is committed to be in ministry for and with all persons. ¶161G, 2004 Discipline and Decision 913 .
Notice that the Judicial Council ALSO reference Decision 913 in their ruling!!!!
This is why I am in incredulous that they have ruled that pastors have "discretion" to exclude someone on the basis of homosexuality. By virtue of their own previous rulings, they have provided the necessary precedent that persons CANNOT be excluded on the basis of homosexuality.
It seems to me that the proper ruling in Decision #1032 should have been that, YES, a pastor does have "discretion," but NO in this case the exercise of discretion went beyond what is allowable under the Discipline and United Methodist Church law.
The quickest and cleanest remedy for Judicial Council Decision #1032 is for the members to reconsider the decision, and to clarify it on the basis of their own previous precedent. They used their own previous precedent to distinguish between "may" and "shall" in Decision #1032. That is fine. However, they should also use their own previous precedent in Decisions #913 and #1028 on the specific issue of admitting homosexual Christians as members in the United Methodist Church. For them to use precedent in the one instance and not in the other violates their own previously binding judicial rulings.
Another "remedy" for this would be for the United Methodist Church (probably General Conference) to compile a "list" of things a pastor might exercise discretion over when admitting a person as a United Methodist member. I personally believe this kind of "list" to be an unacceptable remedy. We are not a credal church, and there is no way that such a list would not end up being arbitrary and possibly capricious.
However, there are some things that should be outside pastoral discretion, because pastors in the UMC are, in fact, bound to uphold the Discipline and law of the United Methodist Church. Excluding a person on the basis of homosexuality appears to be outside the bounds of pastoral discretion, based on previous Judicial Council precedent.
I hope, pray, and encourage the Judicial Council to reconsider Decision #1032 based on its own previous precedent, and hold that the pastor, in fact, committed an abuse of pastoral discretion.
Eric Folkerth
Posted: Friday - November 04, 2005 at 05:11 PM |
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 05, 2008 04:47 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 05, 2008 04:47 PM