Court Rules Against Bishop-Assignment Guidance

by

UPDATED Oct. 31, 2024

Oct. 29, 2024 | LOS ANGELES (UM News)

Key points:

  • The United Methodist Church’s top court said a committee’s recommendation for a bishop to serve in two jurisdictions went beyond what General Conference approved.
  • The narrow ruling resulted from questions about a bishop’s unusual assignment to serve in both the Southeastern and Northeastern conferences.
  • The decision was one of multiple rulings the Judicial Council released dealing with varied issues.

A committee exceeded its authority in recommending a bishop serve in both the Northeastern and Southeastern jurisdictions, The United Methodist Church’s top court ruled.

In Decision 1513, the Judicial Council responded to questions about the unprecedented assignment of a bishop to the Holston and West Virginia conferences, across jurisdictional lines. United Methodist conferences are organized into jurisdictions in the U.S., and central conferences in Africa, Europe and the Philippines.

The decision was among multiple rulings the church court released Oct. 29 dealing with issues as varied as bishop assignments, deaconess voting rights, a property dispute in Liberia and an update of the work on a General Book of Discipline. The council also released five decisions dealing with church exits and closures.

In Decision 1513, the Judicial Council addressed three docket items stemming from questions raised at this year’s Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference. At issue was how U.S. bishop allocations changed between what General Conference approved on May 3 and when the five U.S. jurisdictional conferences met in July.

One result of those changes is that Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett now serves as bishop of the Holston Conference in her home Southeastern Jurisdiction and the neighboring West Virginia Conference in the Northeastern Jurisdiction. She also is now a voting member of both the Southeastern Jurisdiction and Northeastern Jurisdiction’s colleges of bishops.

Amid all the complicated legal questions about this development, the Judicial Council determined that the only issue properly before it was the authority of the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy to advise the bishop’s assignment. The church court concluded in its narrow ruling that the committee went beyond General Conference’s mandate.

“The action of the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy in recommending the assignment of a bishop to the West Virginia Episcopal Area in the Northeastern Jurisdiction and the Holston Episcopal Area in the Southeastern Jurisdiction, is not consistent with the allocations approved by the postponed 2020 General Conference,” Decision 1513 said.

The little-known committee, which General Conference elects, developed both the original recommendation for bishop allocations that the lawmaking assembly approved and the new plan that led to Wallace-Padgett’s assignment.

The joint committee consists of a lay and clergy representative from each U.S. annual conference. Its responsibility in dealing with U.S. bishop distribution typically lasts only through General Conference. But that was not the case this year.

Faced with a significantly reduced denominational budget, the committee initially recommended reducing the number of active U.S. bishops from 39 to 32 with no U.S. elections to replace retiring bishops. The committee also initially recommended — and General Conference approved — the following bishop allocations:

  • Southeastern Jurisdiction: Nine
  • Northeastern Jurisdiction: Six
  • North Central Jurisdiction: Six
  • South Central Jurisdiction: Six
  • Western Jurisdiction: Five

To achieve this distribution, the committee recommended that one bishop each transfer from the Southeastern, North Central and South Central jurisdictions. Two bishops would go to the Western Jurisdiction, so it could have the mandated minimum of five bishops, and one bishop transfer would go to the Northeastern.

But between May when General Conference adjourned and July when the interjurisdictional committee made its final recommendations, a number of changes occurred.

An additional bishop in the South Central Jurisdiction decided to retire and a bishop in the North Central Jurisdiction requested long-term disability leave. The committee also found that no bishop was willing or able to transfer. The denomination’s constitution states: “No bishop shall be transferred unless the bishop shall have specifically consented.”

As a result, the interjurisdictional committee released a new recommendation on July 3. The committee advised the Western Jurisdiction to elect two new bishops to maintain the minimum of five active bishops mandated by the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book. The committee also recommended that the Southeastern and Northeastern jurisdictions share a bishop. This latter recommendation was where the committee crossed the line, the Judicial Council said.

“The recommended plan effectively results in 10 bishops being assigned to the SEJ, in excess of the 9 approved, and, therefore, improperly modifies the directives of the General Conference,” the Judicial Council said.

Ultimately, the five jurisdictions followed what the interjurisdictional committee advised.

The Judicial Council’s decision did not prescribe any further action by the jurisdictions.

The church court faced no questions about and thus did not weigh in on Bishop Carlo Rapanut’s assignment that also straddles jurisdictional lines. Rapanut now leads the Desert Southwest Conference in his home Western Jurisdiction and the neighboring New Mexico Conference in the South Central Jurisdiction. He retains his membership solely in the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops.

On Oct. 30, the Interjurisdictional Committee on the Episcopacy issued a response to the Judicial Council ruling:

Statement from ICOE Officers: Kim Ingram, chairperson; Jasper Peters, vice chairperson; Beata Ferris, secretary

The Judicial Council's Decision 1513 was in response to a request from the “Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference related to the authority of the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy.”

The decision states that “the action of the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy (ICOE) in recommending the assignment of a bishop to the West Virginia Episcopal Area in the Northeastern Jurisdiction (NEJ) and the Holston Episcopal Area in the Southeast Jurisdiction (SEJ) is not consistent with the allocations approved by the postponed 2020 General Conference.”

The ICOE respects the decision of the Judicial Council and offers these brief comments in response.

The ICOE, acting in July, based its decisions on the best information and circumstances available at the time, with no other viable options. Paragraph 49 of the Constitution stipulates that “No bishop shall be transferred unless that bishop shall have specifically consented.” This constitutional requirement posed a significant challenge for the ICOE, which sought to harmonize competing concerns such as church polity, fiscal responsibility, and mission effectiveness without sacrificing any of these priorities. After extensive discussions, inquiries, and scenario evaluations, the ICOE ultimately recommended a solution to the Jurisdictional Conferences that stayed within the 32 active bishops serving in the United States.

The Judicial Council did not offer any remedy to their observation that “the assignment of a bishop to the West Virginia Episcopal Area in the NEJ and the Holston Episcopal Area in the SEJ, is not consistent with the allocations approved by the postponed 2020 General Conference.”

Moving forward, several groups will work collaboratively between now and 2028 to ensure thorough preparation for the next election of episcopal leaders. This collaborative effort will uphold the Discipline and honor decisions made by the postponed General Conference

We extend our deep appreciation to Bishop Wallace-Padgett, who serves with dedication across two conferences and two jurisdictions.

Two deferred cases

In the rulings released Oct. 29, the Judicial Council also took up two cases deferred from its session on the last day of General Conference.

In Decision 1510, the Judicial Council ruled that only active deaconesses may participate and vote at annual conference sessions. Deaconesses and home missioners are United Methodist lay people called to ministries of love, justice and service.

The constitution lists only active deaconesses and home missioners as annual conference members with voice and vote. Another provision in the Book of Discipline lists deaconesses and home missioners as annual conference voting members without the modifier “active.” However, the Judicial Council said that the constitution is the supreme law of the church.

An effort to amend the constitution to give voting rights to retired deaconesses and home missioners failed to receive the required minimum two-thirds vote at this year’s General Conference.

In Decision 1515, the church court said the recent General Conference violated the denomination’s constitution with part of its update of the Discipline’s Paragraph 101. In its update, General Conference extended the mandate for United Methodist leaders to develop a proposed General Book of Discipline that would specify which parts of the church policy book are adaptable and what can only be changed by General Conference action.

However, General Conference’s update also references both jurisdictional and regional conferences having the ability to adapt the Book of Discipline.

At this point, only central conferences — church regions in Africa, Europe and the Philippines — have that authority under the denomination’s constitution. But the U.S. jurisdictional conferences do not.

Constitutional amendments are up for ratification that would transform the central conferences and the entire U.S. into regional conferences with equal adaptation authority. Annual conferences will vote on the amendments next year. For ratification, the amendments must receive at least two-thirds of the total votes at annual conferences.

In the meantime, the portion of the update that states jurisdictional or regional conferences may make changes and adaptations of the General Book of Discipline “is without constitutional authority,” the Judicial Council ruled. If the regionalization amendments are ratified, then the reference to regional conferences would be in line with the constitution. The rest of Paragraph 101 is severable from the references to jurisdictional and regional conferences “and can remain in place whether or not the Constitution is amended,” the church court said.

At least six members of the Judicial Council roster present must agree a General Conference action is unconstitutional to strike it down. The ruling in Decision 1515 was unanimous.

In Decision 1509, the Judicial Council deferred ruling on a property dispute between the Liberia Annual Conference and United Women in Faith, formerly known as United Methodist Women. Because the case is dependent, in part, on a ruling from a Liberian civil court on the property’s ownership, questions “concerning the development and use of the property are not ripe for decision,” the church court said.

But the Book of Discipline still applies to both the Liberia Conference and United Women in Faith, the Judicial Council emphasized. Therefore, the church court has instructed the parties to notify it within 10 days of the Liberian civil court’s decision. At that point, the Judicial Council said it will decide issues within its authority about the property.

Harriett Olson, the former chief executive officer of United Women in Faith, recused and did not participate in any of the proceedings related to this decision.

Molly Hlekani Mwayera was absent for the Judicial Council’s fall meeting. Erin Hawkins, first lay alternate, participated in all the fall decisions. The Rev. Øyvind Helliesen was absent for most decisions, but participated by Zoom in the deliberations of Decision 1515 because it dealt with the question of whether a General Conference action was constitutional.

Heather Hahn is assistant news editor for UM News.