wfn.org | Annual conferences bound by Discipline, court says

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG>]

CLEVELAND (UMNS) - Affirming the Book of Discipline as the law of the United
Methodist Church, the denomination's Judicial Council ruled May 10 that
annual (regional) conferences may not "legally negate, ignore, or violate"
its provisions even when such disagreements are based upon conscientious
objections.

The decision was the first of three in response to referrals during the
church's top legislative body meeting May 2-12. The Judicial Council, which
serves as the denomination's supreme court, is meeting during General
Conference.

In a second case, the council said the General Conference had voided an
election held May 8 by its own legislative action a day later.

The third ruling originated in one of the 10 legislative committees dealing
with almost 2,000 proposals for different changes in denominational policy
and procedures being considered by General Conference. In response to this
question, the council has determined that any petition to give lay people
voting rights in conference committees on investigation is unconstitutional.

Regarding the first issue, initially raised by North Georgia delegate Joe M.
Whittemore, the council said the Discipline regulates every phase of the
life and work of the church. 

The series of questions referred to the council by the General Conference
contained four questions. They asked how the covenant relationship of an
annual conference and its clergy relate to church law; whether an annual
conference ever can ignore the rule book; whether the church's constitution
contains a right to conscientious objections; and whether any circumstances
could supersede the provisions of the Discipline.

Council member Sally Curtis AsKew, of Bogart, Ga., took no part in the
decision. Council members typically recuse themselves from cases that
originate with their annual conferences.

Two members wrote separate concurring opinions.  

Evelynn S. Caterson, expressing a need to directly address the question
about following one's conscience, said both Christianity and Methodism
resound with people following God in challenges to the religious and secular
status quo. She wrote that lay and clergy members have a right to violate
the Discipline, but they are still subject to processes set forth in the
book. "However, being 'subject to' the punitive provision of the law does
not mean that one must be charged nor, if so charged, must be found guilty."

The Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe noted that the covenantal relationship between
clergy and the annual conference is filled with love and respect and is
binding. "As in any covenantal relationship, there will be honest
differences of opinion and commitments," she observed. Expression of
differences of opinion "are always an option," but when actions by a clergy
person "are determined to be contrary to the Discipline, he or she is
responsible for the consequences."
 
In the other matter referred from the General Conference, the council ruled
that the delegates had voided the election of a person to serve the four
remaining years of a council member's unexpired term. That occurred when the
delegates approved legislation deleting the age limit on members of the
Judicial Council. The existence of this rule had led to the belief that a
vacancy would occur at the end of General Conference.

The Judicial Council sent for all the documents involved. The original
petition contained a sentence that said: "This legislation becomes effective
upon adoption." The legislative committee that handled the petition had not
removed the stipulation. As a result, the council ruled that the passage of
this legislation means that the vacancy does not exist.

The Rev. John G. Corry, whose term would have expired under the previous age
limit, did not preside nor participate in the decision.

In the third decision, the council responded to a legislative committee
question as to whether  lay people who serve on a conference committee on
investigation have voting rights and parity with clergy members. The court
ruled that they do not. "Any petition seeking to give them voting rights and
parity with clergy members of the committee is unconstitutional."
# # #
	
-- Joretta Purdue

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org