Judicial Council says part of the Traditional Plan is unconstitutional

The United Methodist Judicial Council, the denomination’s high court, looked at the three plans for the denomination’s future to be voted on at the General Conference in February. The Council of Bishops asked the Judicial Council to decide on the constitutionality of the three proposals well before the plans are voted on. This is according to the denomination’s constitution.

The complicated Connectional Conference Plan proposes several changes to the denomination’s constitution. Because of that the Judicial Council ruled it had no authority to scrutinize the plan.

The Council unanimously decided there are a few problems with the One Church Plan, the one to allow each Annual Conference (region) to decide whether to ordain LGBT people or to permit same-sex marriages. The Traditional Plan, the one to tighten restrictions against LGBT people, has several significant problems.

Since I don’t want to wade through the 87 page decision, I turn to Rev. Jeremy Smith and his blog Hacking Christianity. He had a post about the decision ready the day after it was released.

Of the many pieces in the One Church Plan, only three sentences were declared unconstitutional, and in Smith’s opinion are irrelevant to the overall plan of “unity in diversity.”

The Traditionalist Plan is made up of 17 petitions (perhaps described a components). Nine of those were declared unconstitutional. The major points, according to Smith:

* The Council of Bishops was not designed to have its members policing each other for doctrinal purity.

* A Board of Ordained Ministry (the committee in each region that decides who may be a pastor) cannot reduce its decision to one aspect of a candidate (whether they are LGBT) and cannot single out one group of candidates for disqualification.

* The plan allows for Annual Conferences and individual churches to leave the denomination if they don’t like the LGBT restrictions of the Traditional Plan. But the Council says only Annual Conferences can leave, but individual churches cannot.

So some of the worst of the Traditional Plan have been nullified. But that doesn’t mean the plan is dead. It’s still dangerous.

The February General Conference is just a few days. The overall plan will be voted on during the second day with the third day for refining it. That means those who support the Traditional Plan can say all the bad stuff is gone, it isn’t perfect, but we can fix it later. Vote for it! Smith wrote of the plan and its supporters:

Their vision of a church without progressives and moderates is within reach and they won’t let our own court (even their hand-picked one) stand in the way. … All that matters is that the progressives leave, not that the plan is actually legal.

Smith points out another aspect of the Judicial Council decision, the things they did not rule against. This, says Smith, means the JC wrote model legislation for further LGBTQ harm. The regular General Conference in 2020 could quote these Traditional Plan provisions, say they already pass constitutional muster, and should be given preference over other petitions. These provisions include such things as banning the eligibility of LGBTQ people serving as bishops, even if properly elected (overturning the one lesbian bishop we have), and upholding minimum trial penalties for officiating at same-sex weddings.

The first comment to Smith’s post was a declaration that if the Traditional Plan is approved the writer could in good conscience no longer be a member of the United Methodist Church. That is immediately followed by a person declaring she could no longer be a member if they don’t approve it. Another says the denomination is stuck in legalisms. And another laments a denomination that has become lawless.

This is my own opinion of what the denomination should do:

The Traditional Plan is vile, way too punitive for a church that says it is Christian, and should not be considered.

The Connectional Conference Plan is too complicated to be practical.

The One Church Plan is much better than the other two, but I still consider it evil. The reason is that it allows the denomination to continue oppressing LGBTQ people, approves of it, even though the justification of the oppression (the phrase that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching) is removed. But it gives that approval in a way that isn’t easily changed in a future General Conference.

My preference is for the Simple Plan, which removes the LGBTQ prohibitions and their justification (that incompatibility clause) and does nothing else. I’m aware this proposal is not officially on the agenda in February, though it has been submitted as a petition for legislative action (as it has been for every General Conference in the last 44 years).