Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

New Judicial Council's Initial Rulings

Expand Messages
  • U.M. Cornet
    CALLED OUT INFORMATION SERVICE The Judicial Council has nine members. Six new members attended this meeting. On May 8, 2000 the official Confessing Movement
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2000

      The Judicial Council has nine members. Six new members attended this
      meeting. On May 8, 2000 the official Confessing Movement posted this notice:
      "We Celebrate the Election of the Following to Judicial Council" naming Mary
      A. Daffin, James Holsinger, Keith D. Boyette (see
      http://www.confessingumc.org/gc2000_6.html). The other new members are:
      Sally Brown Geis, Larry D. Pickens and Rodolfo C. Beltran.

      This article is a long one; I snipped a number of paragraphs at the end. You
      can read the complete article at: http://umns.umc.org/00/oct/498.htm


      Church court acts on Norway Conference's power to adapt rules
      Oct. 31, 2000 News media contact: Joretta Purdue �(202) 546-8722�Washington

      DALLAS (UMNS) � For more than 30 years, the non-U.S. parts of the United
      Methodist Church have had the right to alter parts of the denomination�s
      rules and procedures to fit their own situations, but specific applications
      of this power were in question before the church�s supreme court at its
      recent fall session.

      The members of the United Methodist Judicial Council, meeting Oct. 25-28,
      may have been more divided by their decision about the Norway Annual
      (regional) Conference than any of the other 13 cases on their docket. Four
      of the nine members signed a dissenting opinion.

      In its decision, the council ruled that certain structural changes adopted
      earlier by the Norway Annual Conference, a regional unit of the Northern
      Europe Central Conference, were unconstitutional. These included eliminating
      the conference board of laity and combining the conference financial arm
      with other administrative bodies.

      From the beginning of the United Methodist Church in 1968, with the merger
      of the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church, the
      denomination�s constitution empowered the central conferences � those
      located outside the United States � to change or adapt parts of the Book of
      the Discipline, the church�s rules and procedures, as conditions in the
      respective areas may require.

      This authorization was subject to the powers vested in the General
      Conference, the denomination�s highest legislative assembly.

      The Judicial Council held that this limitation prohibited combining the
      annual conference council on administration and finance with the
      conference�s "Main Board," a Northern Europe Central Conference innovation
      that functions as an executive committee of the annual conference. The
      General Conference has mandated that each annual conference have a council
      on finance and administration, the Judicial Council noted.

      Combining the two entities eliminates a system of checks and balances that
      was specifically legislated by General Conference to provide a separation of
      powers, the council said, citing one of its own earlier decisions.

      The issue of the conference board of laity is "distinctively connectional,"
      the council said. It ruled that the Northern Europe Central Conference must
      remove from its Book of Discipline the adaptation permitting annual
      conferences to eliminate their board of laity, and that the board must be
      restored to the Norway Annual Conference structure.

      The council's decision also reversed Bishop Hans Vaxby�s ruling that these
      changes conformed to church law. Included in the decision was a
      determination that personnel decisions relating to the annual conference
      treasurer can only be made by the conference council on finance and

      In their dissenting opinion, four council members said they believe that
      "the changes made by the Northern Europe Central Conference are within the
      disciplinary authority given to the central conferences." The changes have
      been in place since 1976, they said. The relevant parts of the church�s
      constitution and Book of Discipline have become unwieldy and confusing, the
      four observed, a matter that only General Conference can address.

      "Allowing these central conferences to adapt certain parts of the Discipline
      to the situation in their part of the world affirms that we are a world
      church," they said.

      Joining in the dissenting opinion on the central conference question were
      Sally Curtis AsKew, Athens, Ga.; Sally Brown Geis, Denver; the Rev. Larry D.
      Pickens, Chicago; and Rodolfo C. Beltran, Cabanatuan City, Philippines.

      Geis, as first lay alternate elected at the 2000 General Conference, took
      the seat vacated by the Aug. 31 death of longtime council member Tom

      The docket also included two council items related to actions of the
      committee on investigation in the California-Nevada Annual Conference.

      The committee had investigated charges against 68 clergy members of the
      conference, who had been accused of officiating in a ceremony celebrating a
      same-sex union on Jan. 16, 1999. In the annual conference gathering last
      June, presiding Bishop Melvin Talbert was asked by two different people
      about "correcting errors" in the work of the committee, which had announced
      on Feb. 8, 2000, that it would not bring the clergy to trial. The council
      affirmed the bishop�s response that he did not have authority to review the
      committee�s action because a previous Judicial Council decision had declared
      unconstitutional the disciplinary passage granting such power.

      Two council members, the Rev. Keith D. Boyette, Fredericksburg, Va., and
      James W. Holsinger Jr., Lexington, Ky., joined in a supplementary opinion
      that both concurred and dissented. They agreed with the council�s decision
      based on the precedent of the previous council decision about the
      unconstitutionality of the directions for correcting errors, but urged that
      the original decision be reconsidered and reversed.

      In the other California-Nevada case, the bishop was asked if the committee
      was acting properly in allowing witnesses at a public hearing to speak on
      homosexuality and sexual orientation in general rather than specifics of
      events alleged to have taken place. The bishop ruled that the committee did
      act properly. The council said the bishop should not have answered the
      question because it did not involve a decision on church law.

      Three council members concurred because of the "procedural context" but
      observed that the council was unable to address important issues for the
      connectional system because of that procedural context. They were Boyette;
      Mary A. Daffin, Houston; and Holsinger.

      Lonnie D. Brooks of Anchorage made oral presentations related to two
      questions raised by the Alaska Missionary Conference.

      In one, he argued against provisions for lay members of the church to lose
      their membership on the churchwide boards and agencies when they move their
      permanent residence outside the annual conference from which they were named
      to the board. Brooks contrasted this with the provision that clergy lose
      their comparable memberships if they cease to be a member of the annual
      conference from which they came. The council found these rules to be in
      harmony with the church�s constitution.

      In the other request, the Alaska Missionary Conference asked which church
      groups are governed by the stipulation that the fiscal and program year be
      identical to the calendar year. The council ruled that this applies only to
      church entities created by the General Conference.

      The customary review of all bishops� decisions of law revealed an error in
      the June session of the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference. "Debate and a
      vote on a proposed resolution was erroneously suspended when the presiding
      bishop deferred ruling on a question of law until after adjournment of the
      annual conference session," the council said. "The question of law was not
      rendered moot by this erroneous action."

      Bishop Elias Galvan was directed to answer by Feb. 1 the question asked, so
      that the council could review his decision at its spring meeting. Council
      members AsKew, Geis and Pickens dissented, saying that the bishop properly
      declined to act until he had studied the topic and they did not think he
      withdrew the resolution from consideration.

      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

      Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.