Online Archives

By Linda Bloom*

The denomination’s top court has decided that a United Methodist bishop in southwest Texas must rule within 60 days  “on the merits” of a process-related question regarding the elimination of a lesbian clergy candidate, Mary Ann Kaiser, from the ordination track.

The United Methodist Judicial Council, meeting in Baltimore in late October, also declared that a petition adopted by the 2012 Western Jurisdictional Conference suggesting a light penalty for bishops convicted of ordaining  self-avowed practicing homosexuals is “null, void, and of no effect.”

The Rev. Timothy K. Bruster, first clergy alternate, filled in for the Rev. Dennis Blackwell, a Judicial Council member, at the October meeting. First lay alternate Sandra Lutz and second clergy alternate John Harnish also participated in parts of the meeting.

Bishop James E. Dorff ruled in June that a question about the decision by the board of ordained ministry of the Southwest Texas Annual (regional) Conference to drop Kaiser from the ordination process was “as presented, moot and hypothetical.”

Although “The Book of Discipline,” the denomination’s law book, bans “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” from   “being certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church,” Kaiser and her supporters say due process was not followed in her case. An elder raised that point during a clergy session of the 2013 Southwest Texas Conference.

The top court reversed Dorff’s ruling that the question  
 “had nothing to do with the discussion, consideration or business of the annual conference.” The bishop is now required to issue a new ruling on the question’s merits within 60 days.

While taking up the specifics of the Southwest Texas case in Decision 1244, the council also considered a constitutional issue that applied to several of the October docket items.

This concerned an amendment to Disciplinary ¶2609.6, which requires one fifth of the annual conference present and voting to make an appeal of a bishop’s decision of law for Judicial Council review. The council found, effective immediately, that the amendment is unconstitutional
 “and therefore, null and void and of no effect.”

Paragraph 2609.6 gives Judicial Council the authority to “pass upon and affirm, modify or reverse the decisions of law made by bishops in central, district, annual or jurisdictional conferences…”

The court found the amendment, adopted by the 2012 General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body, “unconstitutionally vague,” restrictive and limiting to the council’s constitutional authority. General Conference cannot modify a constitutional process and procedure without amending the constitution, the decision says.

Western Jurisdiction resolution

The 2012 Western Jurisdictional Conference adopted a petition stating that “the sense” of the jurisdiction — based on its welcoming attitude to people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity — was to impose only a 24-hour suspension on any bishop convicted of ordaining or appointing a self-avowed practicing homosexual.

A lay member presented a question of law to Bishop Robert Hoshibata, who was presiding, over the resolution’s legality but the question was ruled “moot” because of a typographical error. At its April 2013 meeting, the council, which previously has said such an error in a question does “not necessarily negate the legitimacy of the questions,” remanded the question of law back to the bishop.

Hosibata then ruled that the resolution was aspirational in nature and “does not legally negate, ignore or violate the penalty provisions of ¶2711.3 of the Discipline.”

Judicial Council disagreed, reversing the ruling and voiding the resolution. “The Discipline grants to the trial court the exclusive power to set a penalty in a church trial which results in a conviction and the full legislated range of options must be available to a trial court in its penalty phase,” the court states in Decision 1250.

“A jurisdictional or annual conference may express disagreement with other bodies of The United Methodist Church, but it is still subject to the Constitution, the Discipline and the decisions of the Judicial Council,” the ruling says.

“The current controlling principle is that a conference — jurisdictional, central or annual — resolution may express disagreement with the current language of the Discipline and may express aspirational hopes, but a conference may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the Discipline, even when disagreements are based upon conscientious objection to those provisions.”

California-Pacific and New York resolutions

That principle was applied to the decisions of two other bishops before Judicial Council.

A 2013 resolution by the California-Pacific Annual Conference prompted a request for a bishop’s decision of law, resulting in an automatic review by Judicial Council.

The California-Pacific Annual Conference adopted a resolution on “Biblical Obedience” that supports the call from the Western Jurisdiction, in its 2012 “Statement of Gospel Obedience,” “to operate as if the statement in ¶161F does not exist.” That disciplinary paragraph prohibits the ordination of homosexuals.

Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño ruled July 15 that the resolution “does not violate the legal authority of the Book of Discipline in that it does not require any person, office or body within the church to violate the Book of Discipline.”

Judicial Council affirmed the ruling while not specifically addressing the content of the 2012 Western Jurisdictional Conference resolution, which it has not been asked to review.

Decision 1254 notes the bishop’s focus on the fact that the church’s Social Principles are not considered church law “but a prayerful and thoughtful effort” to speak on human issues.

The decision points out that individual United Methodists and organizations choose to ignore the guidance of the Social Principles on various issues, such as health care and gun control, and that “while doing so might theologically imperil or weaken the church,” such action is not illegal under church law.

“The request for a decision of law asked simply, ‘Is it legal…?’ In essence, the bishop said, ‘It is legal.’ We concur.”

A New York Annual Conference resolution, upheld by Bishop Martin McLee, commended both named and unnamed clergy, laity and congregations “whose bold actions and courageous statements help to provide for the pastoral needs of same-sex couples within The United Methodist Church.”

In Decision 1255, Judicial Council affirms that ruling: 
 “The resolution as adopted is permissible because it is primarily a historical recounting of actions by others, is aspirational, and does not call for action that is contrary to The Book of Discipline.”

Greater New Jersey disaster ministry

Decisions 1256-1259 from the October Judicial Council meeting relate to “A Future with Hope,” the nonprofit organization created by leaders of the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy
 “to handle the long term recovery of people in need in New Jersey.”

The council disagreed with the Bishop John Schol’s decision allowing conference leadership to establish A Future with Hope as a nonprofit corporation and elect a board of directors without prior annual conference approval.

The decision, states Decision 1257, “serves as a pronouncement” to the conference regarding the importance of maintaining the role of the annual conference in making such decisions.

A complete listing of the October 2013 Judicial Council rulings may be found online at http://bit.ly/18K0Eme.

*Bloom is a United Methodist News Service multimedia reporter based in New York.