The Judicial Council just posted the decisions from last weeks meeting. What will be of immediate interest to many are the two earlier decisions, 1031 and 1032, that were petitioned for reconsideration. Here is what happened:
First, the petitions for reconsideration of Decision 1031 filed by Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer (Virginia Conference) and that conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry are denied.
Second, the petitions for reconsideration of Decision 1032 filed by Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer (Virginia Conference) and that conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry are denied.
We see this as very good news. In Memorandum No. 1041, there is a Concurring Opinion by James W. Holsinger, Jr., Mary A. Daffin, and Keith D. Boyette. There are also two Dissenting Opinions.
To access the Concurring Opinion and two Dissenting Opinions, go to the UMC web site at UMC.org. Then click on “About Our Church.” Then under that, click on Judicial Council Decisions. Just click on Decisions 1001 – 1041. It is quite easy to access.
In the Concurring Opinion, the writers say that a petition for reconsideration does not just present parties to a proceeding a second opportunity to persuade the members of the Judicial Council on how a matter should be decided. There must be evidence shown clearly of an “error” in a ruling or the need to prevent a “manifest injustice” resulting from a decision. The petitioners have shown neither in the petition for 1032 to be reconsidered.
The Concurring writers acknowledged that “the issues presented in Decision 1032 are controversial in nature and the subject of heated debate long before they reached the Judicial Council.” They acknowledged that Bishop Kammerer’s decision of law did not conform to the Book of Discipline and therefore the Judicial Council reversed the bishop’s decision of law. That is the role of the Judicial Council.
The writers went on to say, “In our considered opinion, it is time for the issues addressed in Decision 1032 to now be debated by The United Methodist Church as is occurring. The presiding bishop fulfilled her disciplinary responsibilities when she responded to the questions of law. The Judicial Council has fulfilled its disciplinary responsibilities in reviewing the decisions of law rendered. We disagree with those in the minority who cavalierly assert that the Judicial Council has somehow exceeded its role in precisely fulfilling that role. The role of the Judicial Council is to interpret the Discipline and to apply its provisions to the scenarios that are presented.”
The Concurring Opinion went on to say, “We disagree with those in the minority who assert that further debate before the Judicial Council will be healing for The United Methodist Church. Rather, we believe that reopening this matter, especially where no grounds have been demonstrated to do so, will further polarize the various parts of the church. We have arrived at this view with great respect and admiration for those who disagree with us in the minority.”
Finally, the Concurring Opinion states “We continue to affirm that the 2004 Discipline invests discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make the determination of a person’s readiness to affirm the vows of membership (Par. 217). Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows. As noted in the concurring opinion filed by Keith Boyette in Decision No. 1032, we also affirm that the discretion of the pastor-in-charge must be exercised consistent with Par. 4 of the Discipline, Article IV of the Constitution. Paragraph 4 declares who is eligible for membership, but does not create an entitlement to membership.”
The full texts of the Concurring Opinion and two Dissenting Opinions can be found on the UMC.org web site noted above.