{"id":8714,"date":"2014-10-27T22:14:50","date_gmt":"2014-10-28T05:14:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/?p=8714"},"modified":"2014-10-27T22:19:36","modified_gmt":"2014-10-28T05:19:36","slug":"judicial-council-looks-at-aspirational-declarations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/judicial-council-looks-at-aspirational-declarations\/","title":{"rendered":"Judicial Council looks at \u2018aspirational\u2019 declarations"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Linda Bloom |\u00a0<\/strong>Oct. 27, 2014 | MEMPHIS, Tenn. (UMNS)<\/h4>\n

When is language about The United Methodist Church\u2019s positions on issues of sexuality considered \u201caspirational\u201d and when could it condone a violation of church law?<\/p>\n

That question relates to several statements adopted in 2014 by the denomination\u2019s conferences. Rulings by bishops on the statements were among the\u00a021 docket items<\/a>\u00a0considered by the United Methodist Judicial Council during its Oct. 22-25 meeting in Memphis, Tennessee.<\/p>\n

The denomination\u2019s top court\u00a0affirmed the ruling of Bishop Marcus Matthews<\/a>\u00a0that a statement entitled “Agree to Disagree on Issues Pertaining to Gender and Sexual Minorities,” one of\u00a0\u00a0five human sexuality resolutions<\/a>\u00a0passed by the Baltimore-Washington Conference, was lawful and did not violate the Book of Discipline or other council decisions.<\/p>\n

In a separate decision<\/a>, the council \u201caffirmed in part and modified in part\u201d the ruling by Matthews that the small-group \u201ccircle process\u201d and written ballot used to vote on the five resolutions was lawful.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Judicial Council does not have jurisdiction in parliamentary matters,\u201d the decision said. \u201cAnnual conference rules that make no distinctions because of race, color, national origin, status or economic conditions and apply to all members are not discriminatory.\u201d<\/p>\n

The council\u00a0declared \u201cnull and of no effect\u201d<\/a>\u00a0the ruling by Bishop Sally Dyck that a\u00a02014 Northern Illinois Annual Conference resolution on marriage equality<\/a>\u00a0is \u201can historical and aspirational statement without prescriptive force which does not specifically negate, ignore or violate provisions of the Discipline.\u201d<\/p>\n

While noting that Dyck\u2019s response was \u201ca thorough explanation and analysis,\u201d the court said the questions presented to her were hypothetical and did not require a ruling.<\/p>\n

Also considered an improper request by the council was a request submitted by a clergy member during the May 15, 2014, session of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference.<\/p>\n

The questioner asked whether it was \u201clegal\u201d for members or advisers of the Board of Ordained Ministry to remain on the board when they had made public statements \u201cthat they cannot and will not uphold the Discipline.\u201d The request referred in particular to \u201cthose who participated in the\u00a0Arch Street same-gender wedding<\/a>\u201d and cited Judicial Council Decision 980, \u201cwhich held that persons who would not uphold the Discipline were ineligible to serve on the Committee on Investigation or a jury pool.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bishop Peggy Johnson issued a decision of law that Decision 980 does not apply to the nominations process by the conference\u2019s committee on nominations.\u00a0The Judicial Council reversed her decision, saying the request was moot and hypothetical.<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not a potential unwillingness by a clergy member to adhere to the Discipline, but a specified act of misconduct or a chargeable offense specified in the Discipline that can lead to ecclesiastical sanctions,\u201d the decision said. \u201cIt is not permissible for some moot or hypothetical matter to become the basis of church law.\u201d<\/p>\n

The council deferred decisions on sexuality-related rulings by Bishop Deborah L. Kiesey regarding a\u00a02014 Detroit Annual Conference resolution<\/a>\u00a0and by Bishop Sudarshana Devadhar on a\u00a02014 New England Annual Conference resolution<\/a>\u00a0until its April 2015 meeting.<\/p>\n

Oral hearing on complaint process<\/h4>\n

The council held an oral hearing Oct. 22 on a petition filed by the Western Pennsylvania Conference asking for a \u201cdeclaratory decision\u201d about Book of Discipline guidelines regarding the process for the review and dismissal of a complaint against a bishop.<\/p>\n

Although the questions raised in the petition applied to the church in general, the conference included details regarding its continued concerns about what it considered a lack of response from East Africa Bishop Daniel Wandabula over the handling of funds.<\/p>\n

Two years ago, the Western Pennsylvania Conference, which raised about $100,000 for church projects in Uganda, asked the Judicial Council to rule\u00a0whether funds given to the East Africa Conference were used in accordance with the intent of the donors<\/a>\u00a0as required by\u00a0Paragraph 258.4 of the 2008 Book of Discipline<\/a>.<\/p>\n

During the oral hearing, Nancy DeNardo and the Rev. Robert Zilaver, representing the conference, addressed the council and responded to questions. Wandabula filed a statement but reported that he was unable to participate in the hearing.<\/p>\n

The Judicial Council made two separate rulings related to the dispute during the Oct. 22-25 meeting.\u00a0Decision 1275<\/a>, addressing the general questions in the new petition, noted that the president or secretary of the College of Bishops has the power to refer a complaint and added, \u201cIf the matter is not referred, it is effectively dismissed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other issues raised by the questions in the petition \u201crequire legislative resolution by the General Conference,\u201d the decision said.<\/p>\n

Decision 1281<\/a>\u00a0addressed three issues raised earlier by the Western Pennsylvania Conference as part of Decisions 1238 and 1241.<\/p>\n

The partnership between Western Pennsylvania and the East Africa Conference does not fall under the council\u2019s jurisdiction, the ruling said, and the $3,000 the council agreed that Wandabula owed to the conference was received on May 27, 2014.<\/p>\n

A complaint against Wandabula \u201cwas resolved when the College of Bishops of the Africa Central Conference verified that they had dismissed the charges against Bishop Wandabula,\u201d the decision said. \u201cThe case has been resolved and the Judicial Council no longer has jurisdiction.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other rulings<\/h4>\n

In other rulings, the Judicial Council:<\/p>\n