Judicial Council Rulings

Three weeks ago I was at the Dedicated Reconciling United Methodists Fall Potluck and Program. The speaker was Bill Ritter who talked about his personal experiences with homosexual issues in the churches he served. As part of his talk he said the October meeting of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church was about to get underway and a few issues concerning gays would be on the docket. Ritter also said the Council of Bishops now has a distaste for conducting church trials for pastors who conduct same-sex marriages or civil unions.

I hadn't heard anything in the news or in any of my usual sources. Then a few days ago my dad sent me a link to a letter, which prompted me to go searching for the judicial rulings. I'll get back to the letter later. On to the rulings of interest with my attempt to decode the legalese:

Decision 1250: The Western Jurisdiction (Colorado and west) declared that when a pastor is brought to trial for conducting a same-sex ceremony the maximum penalty shall be one day. Those who promoted the declaration essentially said: You conducted a same-sex ceremony? Oh, darn, you get a day off.

The Judicial Council ruled that the Book of Discipline says the only people who can determine a penalty as a result of a trial is the jury at that trial.

Decision 1254: The California-Pacific Annual Conference (southern California, southern Nevada, Hawaii) declared they support another Western Jurisdiction declaration that calls on pastors to "operate as if the statement in Para. 161F does not exist."

I had to look this up to see which statement in the Book of Discipline is meant. Paragraph 161F is a long one, but this case could only refer to one big statement: "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." That one is the foundation for all the nasty stuff, the ban on gay clergy who are not celibate, the ban on clergy performing same-sex ceremonies, and the ban on such ceremonies in our churches. So if this one is to treated as if it doesn't exist, all three bans are to be ignored. The bishop for the conference declared it legal.

Those who support the declaration say the statement is in the Social Principles section and because of that does not have the force of law. Blessing a same-sex union should correspond to another Social Principle that says war is bad, yet various church leaders sometimes declare war as justified and suffer no consequences when blessing a soldier before deployment. Alas, there was a ruling a few years ago that says the incompatibility clause is the lone exception that must be seen as church law, not a guiding principle.

The Judicial Council thought it odd that they were not ruling on the Western Jurisdiction's declaration (no one filed a complaint on the jurisdiction), but on the conference's support of the jurisdiction's declaration. Even so, they ruled on the issue before them.

Since the conference didn't "renounce" the statement in the Book of Discipline and didn't take action itself (it only called on churches in the conference to take action) their declaration is legal. The bishop did the right thing.

This decision does have a dissent. They wrote that a bishop's ruling, if not opposed by the Judicial Council, will be seen as law and bishops are not allowed to change church law.

Decision 125: The New York Annual Conference adopted a resolution titled "Commendation of Those Who Have Taken a Stand for Justice." It is commendations of individuals who have provided care for same-sex couples, have performed ceremonies for same-sex couples, and who have faced formal complaints for those actions. The Council was asked to rule on the legality of the resolution.

The Judicial Council says they get a lot of complaints similar to this one. And this ruling is the same as all the others. Such a resolution is a declaration that the signers disagree with current church law and hope to have it changed. That is permissible. It is also quite distinct from actually breaking church law or calling on others to break the law.

The ban on performing same-sex ceremonies will be on public display starting tomorrow. Rev. Frank Schaefer of Iona, Pennsylvania will be put on trial for officiating at his son's wedding in Massachusetts in 2007. Sheesh, how can a dad say no? So, yeah, a father put his career on the line because he loves his son who happens to be gay. This article in the UK Progressive tells Schaefer's story and provides a bit of history. It also summarizes what's wrong with this picture:

The public trials of Creech and soon Schaefer are disciplinary means of control to evoke fear among our allies and us. While UMC’s ultimate objective is to reinforce ecclesiastical heterosexism, it also keeps the church itself trapped in its sins of both homophobia and inhospitality. This recent public act of religious intolerance by the church not only feeds into the existing climate of queer-bashing in this society, but it also has LGBTQs constantly questioning their self-worth and relationship with the church and with God.

That refers to Jimmy Creech who was the subject of a church trial back in 1998 for conducting a same-sex ceremony in Omaha. He was the first. That was beautifully documented in his book Adam's Gift.

At General Conference last year, once the vote to repeal the "incompatibility" clause (see above) went against us, retired Bishop Melvin Talbert declared it to be "wrong and evil… it no longer calls for our obedience." He called for Biblical obedience to the love of God to supersede the Book of Discipline's bans. He has now put actions behind his mouth. At the end of October, he officiated at a same-sex ceremony at the United Church of Christ in Center Point, Alabama. That's right, the ceremony was not in a United Methodist Church but was led by a United Methodist bishop.

The national Council of Bishops met for their fall meeting last week and got all worked up over this. They called for charging Talbert. Alas, the news article didn't say by what means the entire Council came by that call.

The whole matter now goes to the Western Jurisdiction, because that was where Talbert served. The bishops of the jurisdiction are the ones who actually bring the charge. And this could get interesting because it is the Western Jurisdiction that called for ignoring the key phrase in the Book of Discipline (see above).

The various bans related to gay people were very much on the minds of the bishops. There's the trial that starts tomorrow. In support of Shaeffer, 36 Methodist clergy and 9 more from other denominations presided over a same-sex ceremony. And UMC church in Cambridge, Mass. has invited gay couples to hold weddings there to be officiated by their pastor. These incidents are only the ones listed in the news article. There are a lot more that aren't reported because everyone involved is just fine with it.

Now back to that letter my dad sent me. Yesterday I was able to view the link he sent. Alas, today that link is "unavailable." So I searched for another source. This one includes commentary.

The letter was written by Rev. Thomas Frank from Missouri. He was asked to consult in Schaeffer's trial. Frank calls on the bishops to stop the trials. Yeah, our opposition will file complaints against pastors who disobey the Book of Discipline but it is up to the bishop to decide what to do with the complaint. It doesn't have to go to trial. In addition, the Bishops can act on their own (or as a group, I suppose) between sessions of the General Conference (which next meets in 2016) when there is peril to the denomination. And the immediate peril is a split in the denomination.

Frank lays out his reasons to not conduct more trials. They're expensive, divisive, and damage the church's image. Besides, we're a church, not an episode of "Law and Order." We're not discussing criminal acts.

This afternoon I attended "Faith and the LGBTQ community," a panel discussion held at First United Methodist Church of Ferndale. Alas, there were only five of us and not even the whole panel was there. A good deal of the problem was the various news sources had the drumbeat going about nasty storms and the possibility of tornadoes. Yeah, it stormed during the program and we probably extended our talking while waiting for the worst of it to blow over. But there were no alerts to seek shelter. As for the panel, there were last-minute conflicts, such as one of them starting a new job.

So the five of us served as the panel for each other. We told our stories of why we're interested in a discussion about the acceptance of gays in the church. Alas, it was like preaching to the converted. Even so, it was worthwhile and important.

One of the original panelists in attendance was Bob Schoenhals, the pastor of the church and very much on our side. He helps organize the First Sunday inclusive services.

The other original panelist caught my attention. His first name is Harry and I don't remember the rest. He is a Catholic priest, but is independent of the hierarchy headed by the pope. Because of that he conducts services in the chapel of First UMC Ferndale rather than in the big Roman Catholic church next door. He chose the independent route because he is gay, fell in love while in seminary, and is now married. The congregation of about 20 is half gay, half straight and all seeking inclusion other than what the RC hierarchy approves.

Harry said about 80% of his seminary class was gay. I asked him about that. He replied that for many of them becoming a priest was a way for them to be accepted and to hide. Parents stopped asking why there were no girlfriends. Priests were expected to be nurturing instead of macho. Harry added that we might finally see progress on the acceptance of gays in the church now that the current pope doesn't feel he needs to compensate for his orientation the way the previous two did. Yup, he went there.