The following compilation contains summaries of rulings by the Judicial Council which convened over April 23-26, 2014 in Little Rock, Ark. Marriage equality, GCFA’s ability to offer benefits to same-sex spouses, a\u00a0question on\u00a0a ruling on the candidacy of Southwest Texas woman, and matters from the\u00a0Greater New Jersey Annual Conference the Philippines Central Conference, made up the docket.<\/p>\n
Click here<\/a> for more information on the issues under discussion. You will also find links under each ‘Digest’ below to view a lengthier discussion of the particular matter\u00a0before the council.<\/em><\/p>\n In Re: IN RE: Review of a Bishop\u2019s Decision of Law in the Philippines Central Conference Regarding the Legality of Proposed Rules for the Election of Bishops In Light of Judicial Council Decision 1249 SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING AND REVISION<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Consequently, the matter again is remanded to the Philippines Central Conference, and it is instructed to forward to the Secretary of the Judicial Council the minutes of the December 12, 2012, session of the 20th Regular Session of the Philippines Central Conference and a copy of the Committee on Plan of Organization and Rules of Order Proposal within 60 days as of this decision. The Philippines Central Conference is specifically instructed to encourage the Conference Secretary and provide the Conference Secretary with all necessary support and assistance for him to complete and submit the minutes of the December 12, 2012, session and a copy of the Committee on Plan of Organization and Rules of Order Proposal. In the event that the requested documents are not received within the 60 days deadline, Bishop Warner Brown will be requested to provide the Judicial Council with the legislative documents he relied upon in rendering his decision of law. The Judicial Council retains jurisdiction.<\/p>\n In Re: IN RE: Review of a Bishop\u2019s Decisions of Law in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference Regarding the Relationship Between the Annual Conference and \u201cA Future with Hope\u201d in Light of Judicial Council Decision 1259 SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING AND REVISION<\/em><\/p>\n DIGEST OF CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n The bishop\u2019s decision of law is affirmed. The non-profit corporation A Future with Hope, Incorporated, is not a conference agency.<\/p>\n In Re: IN RE: Review of a Bishop\u2019s Decision of Law in the Desert Southwest Annual Conference Regarding a Resolution Entitled \u201cMarriage Equality Resolution\u201d SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING AND REVISION<\/em><\/p>\n DIGEST OF CASE<\/b><\/p>\n The Bishop\u2019s decision of law is modified. An annual conference may express an aspiration or a prophetic appeal for a change in Church Law. But an annual conference may not negate, ignore, or violate the provisions of the\u00a0Discipline. In its first \u201cResolved\u201d section, the \u201cMarriage Equality Resolution\u201d by the Desert Southwest Annual Conference expresses an aspiration. In its second \u201cResolved\u201d section, the action ignores Church law and encourages a violation of Church law. In its third \u201cResolved\u201d section, the Resolution declares that the annual conference and its local churches will offer some limited forms of support for those who violate Church Law. The decision of law by the Bishop neglects to recognize the factors where the Resolution may ignore Church Law, negate Church Law, or affirm a violation of Church Law.<\/p>\n The Bishop\u2019s decision of law is modified to acknowledge these deficiencies. The first \u201cResolved\u201d portion of the \u201cMarriage Equality Resolution\u201d is within Church Law. The second \u201cResolved\u201d section is null and void and of no effect. The third \u201cResolved\u201d section is within Church Law to the extent that its definition of supporting someone \u201cspiritually, emotionally and prayerfully\u201d is understood not to ignore, negate, or violate Church Law.<\/p>\n In Re: IN RE: Review of a Bishop\u2019s Decision of Law in the Southwest Texas Annual Conference Regarding the Meaning, Effect, and Application of \u00b6\u00b6 313 and 635.2 in Regards to the Discontinuance of a Certified Candidate in Light of Judicial Council Decision 1244 SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING AND REVISION<\/em><\/p>\n DIGEST OF CASE<\/em><\/p>\n The Bishop\u2019s decision is affirmed. When a district committee on ordained ministry recommends a candidate for election to provisional membership, the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry shall include a personal interview with the candidate as part of its full examination of the candidate in order to determine his\/her fitness for election to provisional membership. Because this disciplinary point was ignored by the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, the candidate remains a certified candidate for ordained ministry.<\/p>\n In Re: IN RE: A Request from the General Council on Finance and Administration for a Declaratory Decision Regarding the Meaning, Application and Effect of the Use of General Agency Funds to Subsidize the Benefits Premiums for General Agency Employees and their Same-Gender Spouses in Light of \u00b6 806.9 SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING AND REVISION<\/em><\/p>\n DIGEST OF CASE<\/b><\/p>\n The General Council on Finance and Administration has the authority to determine whether or not the use of general agency funds violates the prohibition against using church funds \u201cto promote the acceptance of homosexuality.\u201d (\u00b6 806.9) By its action on October 21, 2013, in fulfillment of its mandate found in \u00b6 807.12, the General Council on Finance and Administration determined that the use of general agency funds to subsidize the premium costs for employees and their same-gendered spouses enrolled in the General Agencies Welfare Benefits Program does not violate \u00b6 806.9 of the\u00a02012 Disciplin<\/em>e.<\/p>\n In Re: Request for Reconsideration of Decision 1256<\/em><\/p>\n Reconsideration denied.<\/p>\n Dennis Blackwell recused and took no part in this memorandum.<\/p>\n Timothy K. Bruster participated in this decision.<\/p>\n In Re: Request for Reconsideration of Decision 1257<\/em><\/p>\n Reconsideration denied.<\/p>\n Dennis Blackwell recused and took no part in this memorandum.<\/p>\n Timothy K. Bruster participated in this decision.<\/p>\n In Re: Request for Reconsideration of Decision 1258<\/em><\/p>\n Reconsideration denied.<\/p>\n Dennis Blackwell recused and took no part in this memorandum.<\/p>\n Timothy K. Bruster participated in this decision.<\/p>\n In Re: Request for Reconsideration of Decision 1259<\/em><\/p>\n Reconsideration denied.<\/p>\n Dennis Blackwell recused and took no part in this memorandum.<\/p>\n Timothy K. Bruster participated in this decision.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nMemorandum No.\u00a01260<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1260<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nDecision No. 1261<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1261<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nDecision No. 1262<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1262<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nDecision No. 1263<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1263<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nDecision No. 1264<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1264<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nMemorandum No. 1265<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1265<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nMemorandum No. 1266<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1266<\/a><\/h4>\n
\n<\/h3>\n
Memorandum No. 1267<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1267<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nMemorandum No. 1268<\/h3>\n
Click here to read the rest of Decision No. 1268<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nMemorandum No. 1269<\/h3>\n