UMC high court to tackle issues of homosexuality
By Maidstone Mulenga
UMConnection Staff
When the Judicial Council – the highest court of The United Methodist Church – meets in Baltimore this month it will be tackling four cases that address the issue of homosexuality in the denomination.
It will also be weighing the links between non-profit corporations and annual conferences that would make annual conferences guarantors of any failed obligations of such entities.
In the first case involving the issue of homosexuality (1013-10), the Judicial Council will decide whether the North Carolina Annual Conference decision to include money in its budget to support the North Carolina Council of Churches (NCCC) is allowed. The NCCC is accused of promoting the acceptance of homosexuality.
The court will have to decide whether the amount budgeted for the NCCC violates ¶613.20 of Th e Book of Discipline, which forbids the giving of “United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.”
“Upon extensive research into the North Carolina Council of Churches position, I could find nothing that provides the position that the practice of homosexuality is a sin or a call to repentance. Quite the opposite – all the literature, position papers, etc., sound the call that the practice of homosexuality is to be accepted as a normal lifestyle,” said Chris Humphreys, a clergy member of North Carolina Annual Conference, in his request for the ruling.
If the Judicial Council rules against the North Carolina Annual Conference, a number of conferences which give money to regional Councils of Churches may be affected.
The second case involving homosexuality is from the Southwest Texas Annual Conference, where a candidate for ministry was discontinued.
“I request a ruling of law as to whether a Board of Ordained Ministry can discontinue the candidacy of a certified candidate for ordained ministry who has been appropriately recommended by a District Committee on Ordained Ministry without an interview and examination by that Board of Ordained Ministry,” the Rev. John Elford said in his request for a ruling.
Southwest Texas Annual Conference Bishop Jim Dorff ruled that the request, as presented, was moot and hypothetical.
By church law, all bishops’ rulings on law are forwarded to the Judicial Council for review.
The case centers on Mary Ann Kaiser, whose candidacy for commissioning and Provisional Membership in the Annual Conference was denied by the Executive Session of the Southwest Texas Annual Conference, following the recommendation of the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM).
According to the Reconciling Ministries Network, Kaiser’s candidacy was halted because “Mary Ann identifies herself as a lesbian.” As quoted on www.rmnetwork.org, Kaiser says: “I am called by God to serve Th e UMC as a Deacon. ... But the Southwest Texas Conference Board of Ordained Ministry won’t interview me because I identify as a lesbian.”
The question before the Judicial Council is whether BOM can discontinue a candidate who has been recommended by the district committee without interview and examination by the BOM.
The third case before the Judicial Council in regard to homosexuality is from the New York Annual Conference, which adopted a resolution to commend those who have taken a stand of justice for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
After the vote, William Voth, a Lay Member of the Conference, requested a ruling of law on whether the resolution violates The Book of Discipline, and Judicial Council Decisions 886, 1111, and 1115.
In his ruling, Bishop Martin D. McLee ruled that the resolution does not violate the Discipline.
In a similar case, the Judicial Council is being asked to decide whether the action taken by the California- Pacific Annual Conference regarding a resolution that supports a Western Jurisdiction statement of disobedience to the Discipline that states “our belief that the United Methodist Church is in error on the subject of ‘homosexuality’s incompatibility with Christian teaching.’”
The statement calls on bishops, clergy and churches to operate as if the law that condemns homosexuality does not exist.
The action prompted the Rev. Paul Dinkel to seek a ruling on whether it is “legal for an annual conference to take an action urging the church ‘to act as if ¶161F of The Book of Discipline does not exist’ as in Resolution 13-16.”
In her ruling, Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño, Resident Bishop of Th e California-Pacifi c Annual Conference, said that Resolution 13-16 does not violate the legal authority of The Book of Discipline.
In two other cases about non-profi t organizations and their associations with annual conferences, the Judicial Council has been asked to decide whether the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference should serve as the organization that underwrites the administrative overhead for “A Future with Hope” organization and provides volunteers and administrative staff .
In a related case, the Judicial Council is being asked to clarify the role of the Greater New Jersey president of the Conference Council on Finance and Administration and his role as president of the Board of Directors of the Future with Hope Corporation.
Another case from New Jersey deals with whether the annual conference can authorize the Council on Finance and Administration, the Primary Task Team and its Executive Committee, the Personnel Committee, and the Bishop to take certain actions between sessions of Annual Conference.
Among those actions would be the approval and implementation of the “A Future with Hope” corporation and electing its board of directors.
Since there have been no requests for oral hearings for this session of the Judicial Council, all of the work will be in closed session. Announcement of the decisions will be made as soon as possible following the court’s adjournment.
You can read about the decisions as they are posted on the Baltimore-Washington Conference’s Facebook page, www. facebook.com/BWCUMC.
Login/Register to leave comment