Kairos & Ambiguities

Judicial Council Decisions Fall 2008 #4

Last set of takes on the fall Judicial Council Decisions:

JD 1106:  Was not in the right form of a question of law.  The issues was consulting with pastor and the PPRC by appointing bishop.  Still an outstanding question, but needs to be in the form a declaratory decision to be handled by the Judicial Council.

JD 1107:  Was not in the right form of a question of law.  It was a statement of facts versus a question of business before the annual coference.

JD 1108:  Lets the General Conference Secretary split up legislation in regard to paragraph 507.2 of the Discipline.  This will make it very difficult to make massive changes in item before the General Conference and will complicate the regional conference debate in 2012.

JD 1109:  Is probably the most interesting case this docket as it concerns the use of the restirictive rule in regard to how we handle communion.  In essesence for something like allowing commuion to be held for long periods of time for laity distribution, has to be approved by changing of the restrictive rule and requires a super majority.  This Judicial Decision will be a good reference and precident on how the Judicial Coucnil will handle the restricitve rules of The United Methodist Church.

JD 1110:  Remanded back to the annual confernece due to secretary's error.

Until next time...Grace & Peace

Judicial Council Decisions Fall 2008 #3

More takes on Judicial Council Decisions:

JD 1102:  Remanded to Alaska due to Secretary's error.

JD 1103:  For a Probationary member, the hearing in front of the Executive Committee of BOOM is not an appeal but part of the process.  This has been practiced very well by the BOOM in Western Pennsylvania.

JD 1104:  Remanded to West Ohio due to Secretary's error.

JD 1105:  Was a difficult case from Eastern Pennsylvania.  A minister was acquitted of all charges related to several complaints regarding child abuse.  Bishop Matthews noted that the minister was in good standing, but still refused to appoint him.  The Judicial Council ruled that the Bishop had to appoint the clergy member.  There was also a concurring opinion that lifted up concern that appointing this clergy perons without a clear, expunged record compromises his ministry, his appointability, and his relationpship in the Annual Confernece.  A dissenting opinion was filed by one member to support that the Eastern Pennsylvania Confernece can hold all pastors serving local churches "to submit to their clergy record current mandated child abuse clearance" as a condition for continued eligibility.

This case deals with several very highly held principles in our culture and context of ministry

1. When you are acquitted at a trial, an acquittal acts as a total vindication of an accused, whereby, the accused is relieved of all badges and indicia of the charges.
2. When you are acquitted at a trial, you are restored to all previous status, rights and privileges to which you were entiteld prior to the commencement of the complaint process.
3. The difficulty the church has in prosecuting child abuse.
4. The difficutly our culture and church is confronted with after the Roman Catholic child abuse scandal.
5. The accusations of child abuse (and sexual harrassment) bring a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence.
6. What role can Annual Conferences play in reducing and preventing child abuse.

We will need to continue to struggle with these issues and pray for those who have been hurt on either side of these accusations.

Until next time...Grace and Peace

Judicial Council Decisions Fall 2008 #2

Here are some takes on the Fall Judicial Coucnil Rulings.

JD 1099:  Is from the Baltimore-Washington Confernece and discusses the nomination of BOOM members.  BOOM nominations are like Supreme Court nominations in the United States.  The Bishop makes the nomination and the Clergy Session like the Senate advises and consents.  You can't make nominations from the floor of Clergy Session for BOOM membership.  This has always conformed with the practice in Western Pennsylvania.

JD 1100:  Deals with the move to regional conferences instead of central conferences.  When you change the constitution you then have to pass implementing legislation to handle the changes in the Constitution.  There are two ways to do this.  The old fashioned way (prior to 2000 General Confence) where you change the constitution at one General Conference and then pass the implementing legislation at the next General Conference or the newly approved way of approving the implementing legislation along with the constitutional amendment (ala the local pastor's voting on General Conference delegates at the 2008 General Conference).  This decision says the old way is still valid and the regional conference implementation plan will be part of the 2012 General Conference.

JD 1101:  Reveses some action by the General Confernece that would have allowed retired local pastors to still go to annual confernece and vote as clergy members.  Clergy membership requires that local pastors be appointed to hold membership in the annual confernece.  If local pastors are not appointed their membership is held in a local church (as laity).  To allow retired local pastors to maintain their clergy membership (attendance and voting rights) would require either a constitutional change or the ability of a bishop to appoint a local pastor in a retired or emeritus relationship (i.e. not falling under the requirement minumum salary etc).

Until next time...Grace & Peace

Judicial Council Decisions Fall 2008

The Judicial Council met last week and has posted its decisions.  Here is a link to the write up about the decisions.  Nothing of real surpise in this batch of decisions.  Again there has been angst after the judicial council elections at the last General Conference, but all in all the decisions seem well put together with appropriate judicial restraint.  I am greatly rejoicing over this.

I thought I would take a couple of blog entries to lift up the principles and problems the Judicial Council wrestled with in these decisions.  It may help all of us struggle with these issues in our context of ministry.

The Judicial Council issued 12 decisions.  The one glaring theme across many of these decisions was the Secretaries of Annual Conferences seem not to be completing their obligations of providing the appropriate material for the Judicial Council.  JD 1102 remanded back to the Alaska Annual Confernece because the Secretary failed to file the appropriate documentation.  JD 1103 was ruled upon by the Judicial Council, but in a Dissenting Opinion it was noted that the Secretary of the California-Pacific Annual Conference failed to provide the approriate documentation.  This was also true for the Secretary of the West Ohio Conference (JD 1104), the Secretary of the Western North Carolina Annual Conference (JD1109), and the Secretary of the California-Nevada Annual Conference (JD 1110).

This many occurances is probably raising a training problem across the General Church.  I hope this will be able to be addressed by the General Council on Finance and Administration.  I rejoice again that we have such a good secretary in John Wilson for the Western Pennsylvania Confernece.  John always does an excellent job and has a great volunteer staff backing him up!

Take a moment and keep these folks in your prayers.

Until next time...Grace & Peace

A Hallway Chat

I was down at the Conference Center yesterday for a budget meeting as we put together the 2009 Budget for the Annual Conference.  Bishop Bickerton pulled me out in the hall to discuss my blog posting regarding Judicial Council Decisions 1077 and 1082.  Bishop Bickerton wanted to make clear that there was no direct consultation between himself and Bishop Wills of the Memphis Conference regarding Clergy Study Teams.  He has requested that the Memphis Conference send our conference a copy of the document discussed in ruling 1082.  Bishop Bickerton also said that he had shared the findings of Judicial Decision 1082 with our Conference Clergy Study Team and asked them to be sure that all the requirements would be followed so that he would not have to rule their work out of order.

Bishop Bickerton shared with me that he really looks at both of these Judicial Decisions as a gift to Western Pennsylvania and our efforts to deal with ineffective clergy.  It will allow us to do this in the right way.

I promised Bishop Bickerton to post this correction and clarification to my original blog entry.  I hope this brings some clarity.  I want to be clear that when I wrote about the collaboration of Bishop Bickerton and Bishop Wills the only factual first hand knowledge I had of their collaboration was from the Clergy Retreat, and the ministry experiences they shared at that retreat going back several years.  I had no first hand evidence that collaboration had taken place between Bishop Bickerton and Bishop Wills regarding the clergy study team and Bishop Bickerton wanted to assure me and wanted me to communicate that these clergy study teams were completely independent.

What I was trying to communicate in the original blog post was that "great minds think alike."  Historically The United Methodist Church is faced with similar problems in multiple areas of ministry (read annual conferences).  Often these problems and handled independently, but similarly as was the case with "alternate conference structures."  Independent alternate structures were ruled out of order or altered by the Judicial Council in Kansas West (JD 827); Northern Illinois (JD 831); Louisiana & Holston Annual Conferences (JD 835); West Virginia (JD 914); and Western Pennsylvania (JD 928).  Because of the clarity brought by these Judicial Council Rulings the issues surrounding alternate structures have been pretty much fleshed out, so we don't see many issues regarding alternative structures arising currently across The United Methodist Church.

The United Methodist Church is currently wrestling with the problem of clergy effectiveness (or ineffectiveness).  We have seen a great loss in membership.  What is the role of clergy in this loss?  How does the church handle clergy that do not have the gifts and graces for ministry?  What process do we use?  How do we improve the current process?

Our Constitution (in the most protected part of the Constitution the Restrictive Rules) provides for the fair process for clergy that are accused of ineffectiveness.  Fair process through a variety of established mechanisms protects the clergy member by providing for clear notification of the issues involved in ineffectiveness, the opportunity to fairly address accusations of ineffectiveness, and having an objective party resolve any accusations.  Also, and most importantly fair process makes the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise and that any remedial action that is taken regarding a clergy member is to establish a path to restore that person to effective ministry.  The Discipline is a book of grace and always provides a path back to effective ministry even for those placed on administrative location or removed from membership.

The current response in many annual conferences to address these questions seem to be Clergy Study Teams.  I believe we may be entering a season of clergy study teams across the church, much like we had a season of alternate structures.  These Teams will be addressing these questions independently, but in similar ways.

As I stated above, Bishop Bickerton told me that he views these Judicial Decisions as good news as our Clergy Study Team will now be aware of the Disciplinary requirements established by the Judicial Council as they do their work.  I agree it really is good news!  It really is a gift!  We have exceptionally gifted and faithful members of our Annual Conference working on the Clergy Study Team and I am sure that they will follow God's leading in the parameters of the discipline established by these Judicial Decisions to address these vital issues facing the church. 

I will be praying for them and I hope you will be praying for them with me.

Until next time...Grace and Peace 

What a Week!! God was Here

What an incredible week this has been.  Last Saturday-Sunday I was praising God and sharing in a fantastic experience with the Indiana District Youth and Hot Metal Bridge.  I did manage to upload the pictures to a photo album.  I hope you will get a chance to look at them.  What a blessing!

Tuesday and Wednesday I got to go to Chicago and share with AIA and talk about the recent Judicial Council Decisions!  Wow!  What a joy to share so deeply with others with the same calling.

And I had a great trip yesterday with Sara to New York and Cooper Union.  What a fantasitic art school, although I must admit I have to do some prayer and processing if that is the school for her.  Living in New York seems like a major jump from the streets of Du Bois.  I will trust God to take care of the rest just as God blessed us with a great trip!

May your blessings overflow as well!

Until next time...Grace & Peace

Judicial Council Ruling

Yesterday the Judicial Council posted its decisions on line.  There are many that are interesting and will have impact on the church (I may comment on them at another time), of course I am most interested in reflecting on the questions of law I submitted during the clergy session at our last annual conference.

Judicial Council Decision 1077 is the Judicial Council’s direct response to my questions, but these answers must also be understood in light of the Judicial Council’s response to a similar Clergy Study Team in the Memphis Annual Conference Judicial Decision 1082.  Both of these actions dealt with Clergy Study Teams appointed by their respective bishops to come up with a plan to define and deal with ineffective clergy in a streamlined process. 

This is not surprising, as both Bishop Bickerton of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Bishop Wills of the Memphis Conference have collaborated together on many good projects even before they became bishops.  Most recently they shared together at the "Clergy Get Away" for the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference.  So, it is not surprising to see two parallel clergy study teams in their respective conferences.

The Judicial Council chose to address all the issues raised about the WPA Clergy Team and the ad hoc process (aimed at exiting pastors) in the Memphis decision.  It did so for two main reasons, first it is easier and provides more freedom for the Judicial Council to speak clearly on a subject from a Declaratory Decision rather than from a Question of Law.  Second, the Memphis Clergy Study Team had completed a full report, whereas in Western PA these things were still in a more formative stage.

 

The Judicial Council has set excellent standards to which any Clergy Study Team seeking to streamline exiting procedures must meet, whether that team function in Western PA, Memphis, or any other annual conference in the connection.  Here is a summary of the problems found in this clergy team/ad hoc process.

The deficiencies in the policy include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The policy circumvents fair process as defined in the 2004 Discipline and prior Judicial Council decisions. The policy provides no means for the clergyperson to challenge the determination of ineffectiveness or to have access to all records that were relied upon in making that determination.

2. The policy does not provide for the clergyperson to be informed in writing of the problems or issues which caused the cabinet to determine ineffectiveness.

3. The policy does not allow the board of ordained ministry and its executive committee to carry out their disciplinary responsibilities for dealing with clergy ineffectiveness as provided in ¶ 362 of the 2004 Discipline.

4. The policy does not provide adequate pastoral care and support to the clergyperson who has been declared ineffective, nor is there any mention of pastoral care and support for his or her spouse and family.

5. The twelve month whirlwind process for dealing with a clergyperson’s ineffectiveness and the number of times the clergyperson is offered the opportunity to exit suggests that the primary purpose of the policy is to weed out ineffective clergy rather than developing the skills and abilities which would enable them to become effective.

6. The policy supplants the disciplinary provisions for dealing with clergy incompetence, ineffectiveness and unwillingness or the inability to perform ministerial duties as provided for in ¶ 362.2, .3, and .4 of the 2004 Discipline by establishing its own process for dealing with these issues. According to the policy, the initiation of an administrative complaint will be done only if the ineffective clergyperson fails to exit voluntarily.

7. The policy limits the range of remedies available in response to an administrative complaint as provided for in the 2004 Discipline.

8. Specific disciplinary paragraphs are not cited in the policy.

Having dealt with the Judicial Council on several other occasions, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday afternoon with a call from a member of the Judicial Council.  They may not talk to anyone prior to the announcement of the decision and normally they make no contact (this was this persons first time, as well as mine).  I was humbled that this person felt that the brief was the best the person had seen during the person’s tenure on the Judicial Council.  There was an expression of thanks for the good work and encouragement to keep up the good fight.

Knowing that God’s providence works all things for good, I rejoice that I may play a small part in the Kingdom of Heaven.  May you know that joy in your heart as well.

Until next time…Grace & Peace