by Steve | May 5, 2017 | In the News
Warren Plowden, South Georgia Annual Conference
Par. 56 Article II. of the Constitution enumerates four specific instances in which the Judicial Conference has “authority” to act. It then enumerates a fifth instance in which the Judicial Council will “have such other duties and powers as may be conferred upon it by the General Conference.
The General Conference undertook to give the Council additional powers and duties when it enacted ¶ 2610 of The Discipline of the United Methodist Church 2012 (“The Discipline”). ¶ 2610.1 gives us “jurisdiction to make a ruling in the nature of a declaratory decision as to the constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the Discipline or any part thereof or of any act of legislation of a General Conference . . . .”
Par. 2610.2 then lists ten bodies which are authorized to make such a petition for a declaratory decision. One of these is a jurisdictional conference:
(f) any jurisdictional conference on matters relating to or affecting jurisdictions or jurisdictional conferences or the work therein; (emphasis added).
A plain reading of this phrase renders the conclusion that jurisdictional conference A can petition us on matters relating conferences B, C, D, etc. If the General Conference intended to adopt legislation which restricted a petition from a jurisdiction to matters which occur only within that jurisdiction, it would have used the singular of jurisdiction and jurisdictional conference. There is nothing elsewhere within the four corners of ¶ 2610 which would limit a petition for a declaratory decision to matters “relating to or affecting” only the petitioning jurisdictional conference.
The General conference knows how to legislate so as to grant jurisdiction in cases in which the petition must come from the annual conference or jurisdiction in which the complained of action took place. See ¶ 2609.3 which incorporates a portion of ¶ 56, Article II of the Constitution. See also ¶ 2610.2 (c), (g), (h), and (i). It did not do so with regard to (f)
In our prior jurisprudence, we have discovered that a request for a declaratory decision is limited to those situations in which the request has a direct and tangible effect on the work of the jurisdictional conference submitting the petition. JCD 452, Memorandum Decision 1200, and others. Happily, however, in this case, the election and consecration of a bishop has a direct and tangible effect on the work of jurisdictions, annual conferences, the General Conference and, and in fact, the entire church.
Although, bishops are nominated, elected, certified and consecrated within a jurisdictional conference, such nominations, elections and consecrations are for the whole church. Bishops are elders whose ordination is recognized throughout the connection; such recognition allows that person to serve anywhere in the global church. See JCD 1321. Moreover, elders who are elected to the Episcopal office of bishop are elected for the entire church and are eligible to serve within the confines of any jurisdiction. See Discipline ¶¶ 49, 422.1.
Consecration is a connectional and covenantal act done by and for The United Methodist Church. It is an act of the church, not the jurisdictional conference where it takes place. The service of consecration is an act of the whole church. An elder who is elected and consecrated is a bishop for the entire Church, not just the jurisdictional or central conference which elected and consecrated him or her.
I therefore concur with the conclusion reached by the majority that we have jurisdiction to entertain the petition from the South Central Jurisdiction which asserts that the Western Jurisdiction negated, ignored and violated provisions of The Discipline when it elected and consecrated Karen Oliveto as a bishop of the Church.
On October 1, 2014, Robin Ridenour and Karen Oliveto were married in the City of San Francisco by Reverend Angela Brown as recorded in a License and Certificate of Marriage, Local License Number 4301438008559 issued by the City and County of San Francisco. The Respondent conceded at oral argument that this was a same-sex marriage that has not been dissolved.
The fact of this marriage and that Karen Oliveto has entered into a homosexual union was not news to the Western Jurisdiction when it met in Scottsdale, Arizona beginning on July 13, 2016. During Plenary Session 4 on July 14 , the First Elected Delegates from the conferences making up the Western Jurisdiction issued a call for a Closed Combined Delegation Meeting to have a conversation about the possibility of electing an openly gay or lesbian clergy person to the episcopacy.
After opening statements about confidentiality—asking attendees to refrain from recording or posting information from the session—three questions were discussed in groups at tables:
- What does it mean to consider persons of all sexual orientating to be qualified to be bishop?
- What would it mean for your local church if your bishop was not straight?
- What would it mean for your Annual Conference if your bishop was not straight?
Responses to the questions were summarized by table and reported to the conversation:
The overall sentiment was that we really want the best candidate for this time. We followed the question and reflection time with a brief discussion around “legal” implications of electing an openly gay or lesbian person to serve. (emphasis in original).
The balloting for the election of a bishop began on Friday morning, July 15. By Ballot #3 the field had been narrowed to seven candidates (Daily Proceedings, p. 28). The balloting continued throughout the day and into the evening when on Ballot #16 there were three candidates remaining. Dr. Oliveto led the voting on each of the ballots taken thus far. After Ballot #16, the other two remaining candidates withdrew their candidacies, and on Ballot #17 Dr. Oliveto was elected unanimously. (Daily Proceedings, pp. 35-36.
She then addressed Plenary Session 7:
Bishop-Elect Karen Oliveto gave a speech to the delegates of the Western Jurisdiction to remind us that we are moving in the right direction but we are not there yet. She asked the delegates, “Are we able?” and the delegates replied, “Yes we are able!” (emphasis added) (Daily Proceedings, p. 36.)
Following which:
Bishop Hagiya led the group in a benediction celebrating this historic event (emphasis added)(Daily Proceedings, p. 36.).
The conclusion is inescapable that by this point in the proceedings, the Western Jurisdiction knew full well that it was acting unlawfully when it elected a self-avowed practicing homosexual as a bishop of the Church. I reach the conclusion that Dr. Oliveto is a self-avowed practicing homosexual because by this point in the proceedings, the conclusion is equally unescapable that her bishop, district superintendent, the delegates to the Western Jurisdiction session on July 15, 2016, and as a result of the media flurry surrounding her election, “all the ships at sea” were on notice as to her status as a self-avowed practicing homosexual.
The Discipline provides in ¶ 304.3 that the “practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” A clergy person who does not qualify for certification or ordination on account of being a self-avowed practicing homosexual is not qualified for election and consecration as a bishop. The proscription in ¶ 304.3 includes all self-avowed practicing homosexual ministerial candidates and ministers, and therefore, precludes the consecration of a self-avowed homosexual bishop elect.
The Discipline is the law of the Church, which regulates every phase of the life and work of the Church. As such, annual conferences may not legally negate, ignore or violate the provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objections to those provisions.
JCD 886. The Judicial Council applied the holding of JCD 886 to jurisdictional conferences in JCD 1250.
There are right and wrong ways to go about changing provisions in The Discipline with which one disagrees. Unfortunately for the Church, the ways and means chosen by the Western Jurisdiction were simply wrong; and the persons in the Western Jurisdiction who took this action well knew it.
The election, certification, consecration and assignment of Karen Oliveto as a bishop of the church was accomplished solely by the ipse dixit of the delegates and leaders of the Western Jurisdiction. It negated, ignored and violated provisions of The Discipline and is null, void and of no effect resulting in the invalidation of Karen Oliveto’s episcopal office.
Warren Plowden Jr. has been a partner in the firm of Jones Cork, LLP since 1975, serves as an alternate lay member of the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church, the Chancellor of the South Georgia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, and is a member of Vineville United Methodist Church where he has served as Chairman of the Administrative Board and as Chairman of the Staff-Parish Relations Committee.
by Steve | May 5, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Bishop Elaine JW Stanovsky, UMNS
By Walter Fenton-
“The ruling is long and complicated,” wrote Bishop Elaine JW Stanovsky in a statement on behalf of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops.
Stanovsky was of course commenting on the Judicial Council’s recent decision regarding the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s election and assignment of the Rev. Karen Oliveto as a United Methodist bishop. When she was elected and assigned, it was widely known she was married to another woman.
We certainly join Stanovsky and her colleagues in their assessment that the decision was “long and complicated,” but their statement goes on to make some claims that are misleading.
First, they claim the Council’s decision “reinforce[s] the reality that the church is not of one mind about the inclusion of LGBTQI people and sexual practices outside heterosexual marriage.” No, it does not.
It is not the role of the Judicial Council to read the “mind” of the church. Anyone who reads the decision plainly sees it studiously avoids doing so. Never once, in its 19 page decision, does it say something to the effect of, “the church is not of one mind so we decided to issue a long and complicated ruling to acknowledge that reality.”
On the contrary, in its decision the Council repeatedly reinforces the reality that the church “prohibits the consecration as bishop of a self-avowed practicing homosexual;” that “[a]n openly homosexual and partnered bishop is in violation of [the Book of Discipline],” and “[a]n openly homosexual and partnered bishop may be charged with being a self-avowed practicing homosexual.”
The Council’s decision firmly upholds church law regarding its ministerial standards, sexual ethics, and teachings on marriage. And while the Council maintains it cannot declare Oliveto’s election and assignment null and void, it does instruct the Western Jurisdiction’s Committee on Episcopacy to handle complaints filed against her, and to do so according to the standards it repeatedly cites in its decision.
So contra Stanovsky and her episcopal colleagues, no one should read the Council’s decision as if it is meant to be an indicator of the church’s conflicted nature on the matter.
Stanovsky goes on to write, “We thank the Judicial Council for allowing the Commission on A Way Forward to do its work.” Again, a statement like this gives the impression the Council considered a factor it never references in its entire decision.
Llewelyn Pritchard and Richard Marsh, legal representatives for the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops, UMNS.
Richard Marsh, the attorney who represented the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops at the public hearing in Newark, New Jersey, gamely made the case that the Council should defer to the commission. But it was fairly obvious this line of reasoning persuaded none of the Council members. And if it wasn’t obvious then, the 19 page decision made it abundantly clear. Neither the Commission on a Way Forward nor its work is referenced anywhere in the decision, and properly so.
The Judicial Council fulfilled its responsibility to render a decision in the case irrespective of any hypothetical plans the commission will share with the Council of Bishops, and that in turn will be presented to the called General Conference scheduled for February 2019.
Finally, conspicuous by its absence in Stanovsky and her colleagues’ statement, is perhaps the most important decision the Council reached. The Council clearly stated, “It is not lawful for the college of bishops of any jurisdictional… conference to consecrate a self-avowed practicing homosexual.”
This was the very reason the Council determined it had jurisdiction in the case. And it went on to instruct the Western Jurisdictional Conference, its committee on episcopacy, and its college of bishops to review and act on complaints filed against Oliveto.
In Stanovsky and her colleagues’ defense, they said they would have more to say on the ruling. We trust they will help people in the Western Jurisdiction understand the Council’s decision had nothing to do with “reinforcing the reality that the church is not of one mind about the inclusion of LGBTQI people,” or about deferring the matter to the Commission on a Way Forward.
The decision was about Stanovsky and her colleagues. It was about their willingness to consecrate as a bishop a person who, if the instructions of the Judicial Council are sincerely followed, must vacate that office.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | May 3, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht-
Last week’s decision by the Judicial Council regarding the election and consecration of an openly lesbian bishop in a same-sex marriage was very complicated and not entirely consistent. The Council strove to tailor its decision as narrowly as possible and delved into many legal technicalities. In the midst of all the complexity, it would be easy to lose sight of several positive aspects of the ruling.
1. The Judicial Council clearly and forcefully upheld the principle that a jurisdiction’s bishops, acting on behalf of the whole United Methodist Church, cannot legally consecrate as bishop a person who does not meet the qualifications for office. The Western Jurisdiction had maintained that it could elect and consecrate whoever it thought would be an appropriate bishop in light of their particular context, and that the rest of the church could say nothing about their choice. The ruling recognized that bishops are bishops of the whole church and that jurisdictional bishops are acting on behalf of the whole church when they consecrate a bishop. No jurisdiction or annual conference is completely autonomous. We are part of a connection that is responsible and accountable to each other.
2. The Judicial Council clarified that “a same-sex marriage license issued by competent civil authorities together with the clergy person’s status in a same-sex relationship is a public declaration that the person is a self-avowed practicing homosexual.” This important ruling will put an end to games that some openly homosexual clergy have been playing by living in a same-sex marriage, yet declining to acknowledge that they are practicing homosexuals. Rather than requiring church authorities to ask intrusive questions about the personal lives and practices of clergy, all that is now necessary for a person to be brought up on a complaint is the public record of being in a same-sex marriage. The Judicial Council recognized that being in a marriage assumes a sexual relationship, and that it would then be up to the clergyperson under complaint to give “rebuttal evidence” during a complaint process to refute that assumption in an individual case. This should make it much easier and more straightforward to hold accountable some clergypersons who are living contrary to the moral teachings of the church.
3. This decision also puts the spotlight on the Western Jurisdiction to make a decision about the future of The United Methodist Church and its participation in that future. The jurisdiction will have to decide between equally unsatisfactory alternatives. Either it will have to remove from office (and from clergy status) a person that it unanimously supported as bishop, or it will have to openly acknowledge that it can no longer be part of The United Methodist Church as it is currently configured.
Judicial Council, UMNS
“This ruling really does nothing to resolve the tension and impatience and anxiety in our system. It’s not clear-cut enough,” Bishop Bruce R. Ough, president of the United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops, told the New York Times. “One of the tensions that will play out now within our denomination in the next few months is people will be watching carefully whether the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops will in fact follow through and do the due process, and do it well.”
The leadership of the jurisdiction may seek to draw out the process as long as they can, putting off that decision by as many as six months to a year. Delay tactics in themselves will send the message that the Western Jurisdiction wants to play by its own rules, unconnected from the rest of the church. But the time clock on the complaint process will run out long before the special General Conference in February 2019.
The jurisdictional leaders may seek some kind of “just resolution” that leaves Bishop Karen Oliveto in office. But unlike the cases of clergy performing same-sex marriages, there is no middle ground here to find compromise for a resolution. Either Oliveto meets the qualifications for continuing in her clergy status or she does not. And if she does not, the only option is to remove her as bishop and revoke her credentials. No 24-hour suspension consequence is available as a “just resolution.” The Western Jurisdiction’s decisions over the coming months will speak volumes about the ability of progressives and traditionalists to live together in the same church body.
As expected, the Judicial Council decision did not resolve the impasse in our denomination over the role of LGBTQ+ persons in the life of the church. The only bodies with the authority to resolve the impasse are the Commission on a Way Forward, the Council of Bishops, and the special General Conference. As I understand it, the Commission’s final plan needs to go to the Council of Bishops for approval in May 2018. The Council of Bishops then needs to submit it in legislative form by July 2018 in order to meet the deadlines for the February 2019 General Conference. So we will know a year from now the final proposal that will be put before the called General Conference. Until then, we encourage United Methodists to remain steadfast in prayer and continue as members of their local churches, so that the evangelical voice is undiminished in helping to form whatever comes next.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergy person and the vice- president of Good News.
by Steve | Apr 29, 2017 | In the News
Good News greets with some dismay – as will many men and women in the pews – the Judicial Council’s convoluted and ultimately unsatisfactory ruling regarding the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s nomination, election, consecration, and assignment of Bishop Karen Oliveto, an openly gay bishop who is married to another woman, and one who has admitted to presiding at some 50 same-sex weddings.
In its dense, nineteen-page ruling the Council says many of the right things, but as so often is the case with the institutional church, it fails to take the necessary action. It leaves Oliveto in her office, and essentially remands the case to the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops. And as United Methodists have come to realize, that jurisdiction has a solid track record of defying and even mocking the church’s polity and law when it comes to its sexual ethics and teachings on marriage. Because of past decisions and statements, we have little confidence the Western Jurisdiction bishops will properly handle a case where the facts are obvious to all. It is unlikely that a penalty commensurate to the breach will be meted out swiftly.
By allowing Oliveto’s election and assignment to stand, the decision has sown further confusion across the connection. Many rank-and-file United Methodists will conclude no branch of the church is actually willing to defend its biblically rooted, time-honored, and widely shared teachings on sexual practice and marriage. It will deepen the sense of malaise and reinforce the growing opinion that church leaders just continue to “kick the can down the road.” Concerned United Methodists will find it strange that we do not permit our clergy to conduct same-sex unions in our sanctuaries but that a bishop was consecrated after having performed dozens of them and is herself party to one.
Despite this frank assessment we remain convinced we have very good reasons to remain hopeful for the people called Methodists.
First, the Judicial Council’s decision has now clarified things for the Commission on a Way Forward. If the Western Jurisdiction (and other jurisdictions and annual conferences) persists in defiance, it will make it clear that those actions have placed The United Methodist Church in schism and that it is no longer possible for us to live together in one body. It then becomes incumbent upon the commission to devise a plan of separation that is as fair and equitable as possible. If we can no longer go forward as a church united by its teachings and polity, then we must plan to go our separate ways. A new structure will allow conservative, orthodox, and evangelical congregations to give their full focus to proclaiming the Gospel and growing the kingdom of God through innovative and entrepreneurial forms of ministry for the 21st century.
Second, the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) holds the promise of being the vehicle for the renewal and revitalization of Methodism in whatever comes next.
Finally, we remain steadfastly confident in the power of the Gospel revealed to us in Scripture. It transforms us, empowers us, and enables us to rise above seemingly insurmountable obstacles. We will persevere, and we are confident the prize we contend for is not far off.
###
by Steve | Apr 27, 2017 | In the News, Uncategorized
To United Methodists from the Rev. Dr. Jerry Kulah, Central Conference Coordinator, UMC Africa Initiative (Liberia Annual Conference), and The Rev. Evariste Kimba, Coordinator, French & Kiswahili Region, UMC Africa Initiative (Democratic Republic of Congo).
Dearly beloved,
On behalf of our global church, we wish to invite you, your local church, district, annual and provisional annual conference to join ranks with us in a season of fasting and prayer for the Judicial Council and the Council of Bishops’ Special Commission on the Way Forward as they make critical decisions that will impact the future direction of our Church. Your prayers will make a difference.
From 24th to 28th April, the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church will convene for its regular meeting in New Jersey, USA. The Judicial Council is the Supreme Court of our denomination comprising of nine members from Africa, Asia, Europe and the USA. It is clothed with the responsibility, consistent with our Book of Discipline, to adjudicate cases of the church and come up with final rulings. One of the major issues to be addressed during this session of its meeting is to hand down rulings on a petition from the South Central Jurisdictional Conference which has asked the Judicial Council to rule on questions related to the election, consecration and assignment of a bishop who is in a same-sex marriage.
For the first time in the history of our Church, the Western Jurisdictional Conference, in July, 2016 elected a lesbian as bishop, Rev. Karen Oliveto, who is married to a deaconess. Since her election she has been serving as the bishop of the Mountain Sky [Episcopal Area]. This action of the Western Jurisdiction has caused many disagreements among United Methodists in the USA and globally, and it has created a sense of uncertainly about the future unity of our denomination. The Judicial Council is expected to make a decision on the matter.
Meanwhile, the Council of Bishops who will meet from 30th April to 5th May have set up a 32 member Commission to review every paragraph in the Book of Discipline on the subject of human sexuality in order to determine a way forward. That Commission is at work doing its utmost best to bring recommendations for consideration of the General Church during its meeting in 2019.
Based upon these concerns, and the times of uncertainly in which we find ourselves as a global church, we believe it is time to unite our hearts and minds in prayer to the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ, for His timely intervention in sustaining His Church. Indeed the UMC is at a crossroads (Jeremiah 6:16), and it is only the Lord that can lead us into the “paths of righteousness for His name’s sake” (Psalm 23:3b).
The Lord promises, “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins and heal their Land” (2 Chronicles 7:14). Also, in Jeremiah 33:3, the Lord challenged his people to “call upon me in the times of trouble, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things which you do not know”.
Based upon these scriptural promises, and our confidence in God’s intervention, the United Methodist Africa Initiative invites all local churches, districts, annual and provisional annual conferences of the Central Conferences of Africa in particular, and the global UMC in general, to a season of fasting and prayer, from Monday to Friday, 24th to 28th April, 2017.
At a minimum, we encourage everyone observing the fast to begin at 12:00 mid-night to 12:00 noon daily, while individual and corporate prayer sessions may be held throughout the day at your convenience. The purpose of this season of fasting and prayer is to intercede on behalf of the Judicial Council and the Commission on the Way Forward as they seek divine wisdom and scriptural guidance in their decision making process to the glory of God, and in the best interest of the global church.
We want to thank you in advance for your kind commitment to “stand in the gap” (Ezekiel 22:30) on behalf of our church. “If my people…pray…I will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).
For His Glory,
Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah, Central Conference Coordinator, UMC Africa Initiative
Rev. Evariste K. Kimba, Coordinator, French & Kiswahili Region, UMC Africa Initiative
