Scales of Justice
The following observations are intended to encourage you to read the Fall 2015 decisions of the Judicial Council for yourself. These blog posts are in no way church law in any form but could help you understand some important aspects of the decisions. Should you feel I have made an error of fact or interpretation, please let me know so it can be corrected.
I began offering commentaries in November 2008, starting with JCD 1099. This brings them up to date. While I have not considered going back to the earlier decisions of the Council, there have been a few that have drawn comments that you may discover on this blog.
Please feel free to send your questions about any ruling by the Judicial Council, past or present, for my observations based on your question. Like this blog, my answers carry no weight of law. But maybe we can both learn something.
I've included the URL for each of the rulings. That should allow you to click it or paste it so you can go directly to the decision. I’ve added subject titles and have put in labels that can be picked up by search engines.
Each decision’s commentary is posted separately so this review doesn't seem so long! And by using the list of contents in the left margin of this blog, you can go to whichever decision is of interest to you.
The phrase “the Council” when used refers to the Judicial Council.
Rulings of the Council may be referred to as JCDs (Judicial Council Decisions) or JCMs. Judicial Council Memorandums do not provide decisions of law but may refuse to take jurisdiction, remand, or show a question is not legally appropriate under Council rules. On rare occasions, the Council may provide their rationale in a memorandum.
Associates in Advocacy (AIA) publishes updated indexes of all Judicial Council decisions and memoranda. If you are interested, contact Rev. Michael Brown, 158 Saxony Ct., Vallejo, CA 94591. The AIA website (www.aiateam.org) offers indices under “HELPS for the Judicial Council.” AIA’s website is not up to date, however. The Judicial Council website now offers a search function which covers every JCD since 1940. Go to http://www.umc.org/decisions/search. To go straight to all decisions, leave all the boxes blank on that search page and click on the “search” bar. Then you can scroll and scan to find what you want.
RECONSIDERATION OF DROPPING CHARGES AGAINST A BISHOP
The Western Pennsylvania team seeking justice in dealing with East Africa Bishop Daniel Wandabula who they allege (with ample evidence) misused funds sent by them to his conference were denied reconsideration of the decision that closed down their complaint. In JCD 1275, the Council ruled that since the College of Bishops in Africa chose not to forward the charges against the bishop in question, the matter was closed.
The docket does not include the arguments seeking reconsideration so I cannot comment on those. As noted in the update on this blog related to JCD 1275, JCD 1281 essentially closed the case so the Council probably felt that was that.
If past experience means anything, the Council has been put under extreme pressure from the Council of Bishops to back off their occasional efforts to hold the bishops accountable (my terminology, not theirs). Followers of this blog know of my opinion that nearly all bishops with whom I have personally spoken have been respectful, poised, and gracious but that the Council of Bishops as a body influences good bishops to allow bad bishops free reign to seek more and more control with less and less accountability, especially on personnel issues. Someone needs to adapt Reinhold Niebuhr’s "Moral Man, Immoral Society" to the contemporary scene in the United Methodist Church.
It is exceptional when the Council rules in favor of an accused pastor even when the bishop has violated church law, and this Council has done that more than any other since 1992-1996. Church law is usually there to aid the oppressed and block abuse of power and the Council has sometimes been creative in seeking that out.
"If past experience means anything, the Judicial Council has been put under extreme pressure from the Council of Bishops to back off their occasional efforts to hold the bishops accountable ..."
Not having anything more than what has been reported in the past to put Western Pennsylvania’s request in context, it may be that church law is not complete enough to overcome actions (or failure of actions) in our system of holding of a bishop accountable.
In any case, because of this ruling no matter what the Council intends, the bishop in question and his episcopal brothers and sisters can feel a little better protected from challenges to the authority they want to have.
DUMPING A SUPERINTENDENT
A District Conference in the Middle Philippines Annual Conference, located in the Manila Episcopal Area under the supervision of Bishop Rodolfo Alfonso Juan, voted to petition the Judicial Council to review the firing of their superintendent.
The facts of the case are very incomplete. For example, the bishop emailed the superintendent and told him he was no longer one. There is nothing in the record which says to what appointment he had been assigned in place of the appointment to the Cabinet. It also appears that the fired superintendent presided at the District Conference where the petition idea originated.
Questions were devised and forwarded to the Council but the Council could not take jurisdiction. For one thing, they said, no questions of law were asked on the record at the district conference nor of the bishop at the annual conference. Hence there was no access to the Council under ¶¶ 2609.6 or 2609.7. Nor, I might add, did the District Conference vote a request for a declaratory decision under ¶2610.2(i) –“any body authorized . . . by a central conference. . . ,” if that even applies.
The appointment of a superintendent is at the final discretion of a bishop so even if proper questions had been handled correctly, the Council would have called them moot. The challenge to the bishop’s actions should have been to the College of Bishops of the Philippines Central Conference in the form of a complaint and not to the Judicial Council, another way the petition was moot. Unless the Philippines is totally different from other Colleges of Bishops, and past rulings by the Council on matters coming from there indicate it is not, such a complaint would have fallen on deaf ears. Colleges of Bishops NEVER challenge a bishop for any Disciplinary violation except sexual misconduct (whether true or false).
There is a chance this case may be brought back to the Council in other ways. The Council will need far more information and a proper approach under ¶¶ 2609, 2610, or 2715 to deal with it.
DEFINING THE APPOINTIVE CABINET
The Arkansas Annual Conference Bishop Gary Mueller has been challenged regarding his use of non-superintendents when appointments are being considered. The Discipline does not contain the phrase “appointive cabinet” even though many bishops now bring their administrative assistants, conference program directors, or others chosen by the bishops to sit in with voice and vote on appointments.
Revisions of the Rules were passed by the annual conference among which was one small section to define the appointive cabinet and someone asked the bishop a question of law related to the legality of that small section.
The bishop ruled it violated the Discipline and the Council agreed. Interestingly, the problem was that the Rules’ terminology differed slightly from that of the Discipline, that being the “violation.” As one might expect in our bishop-centric denomination, a major change in conference rules would not occur without the full support of the bishop. Whether or not the Rules were Disciplinary, who he added to the “appointive cabinet” was not affected. The new rules did not deny or abridge the bishop’s freedom to add anyone he wanted. So it is interesting that he ended up in the position of being against a rule he probably favored and could show it violated the Discipline while, at the same time, not interrupting his stacking the appointment process with anyone he chose.
This commentary presumes this case is related to other Council cases related to the Arkansas “appointive cabinet.” See JCDs 1279, 1280, 1293, 1294, and 1307.
COMPLETION OF A MERGER
The 2015 session of the new Rio Texas Annual Conference, the merger of the Rio Grande Conference and the Southwest Texas Conference, accepted changes in the merger documents recommended by the Council in JCD 1271. Keeping jurisdiction from that decision, the Council reviewed the report and related materials from the bishop and affirmed with commendation the new conference’s following the Council’s suggestions.
Will the conference follow my suggestions about making sure the mission projects of the Rio Grande Conference such as retirement homes and children’s ministries are not neglected as the smaller ethnic conference is subsumed into the larger Anglo body?
PLAN UMC REVISED
As predicted (see this blog’s post on JCD 1210), “CALL TO ACTION/PLAN UMC” with most of its worts has been resurrected to eat up time and attention at General Conference in Portland, OR, next year.
It is still based on the presumption that the bishops have been flawless in their ministries and that the blame for the decline of our denomination lies with everyone else, especially with the General Commission on Religion and Race and the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, which the revised plan marginalizes. Oh yes, they also want to diminish Archives and History. I find it interesting that the three agencies which have the facts about what is happening in the Church and have an advocacy role (history does so by just being there!) that can challenge the bishops are the principle targets of the “reorganization.”
I do not believe it is coincidental that the Council of Bishops sent in the request for a declaratory decision. The Council Table, a body “created or authorized by” the General Conference” (¶2610.2c), could have done it. I really think it is the Council of Bishops’ arrogance, unrecognized by them, and rarely withstood, that caused them to try to triangulate the Judicial Council into the argument.
Wisely, the Judicial Council has deferred any decision on the constitutionality of Plan UMC Revised. They have thus avoided being sucked into the argument. They are waiting to allow other plans to be presented before they decide on the constitutionality of Plan UMC Revised.
They did not say the request was hypothetical. They have jurisdiction since a request for a declaratory decision may be prospective when the decision directly affects the work of the conference addressing the issue.
I believe the same arguments laid out in JCD 1210 will make this “revision” unconstitutional, primarily that it directs bodies to give up their constitutional authority to other bodies. That would be how decision-making and financing are put into the wrong hands.
We live in tumultuous times. It is sorely tempting to let someone else handle the difficult decisions rather than fight the good fight in democratic processes. There are those who believe all authority resides with them and would love to take over decision-making to make it easier for the rest of us and to make it easier to make decisions. What a blessing these self-identified “servant leaders” can bestow upon us by accepting the power we don’t mind letting slip away. That’s how autocracies devolve from democracies.
I could be incorrect about my presumption that Plan UMC Revised is unconstitutional. The Council may actually think it is okay and are just postponing having to say so. An endorsement at this time would ease the railroading of it through General Conference. In any case, I hope the wise heads among the delegates will do a better job of identifying causes for whatever malaise there is in our Church and provide better solutions than the top-heavy Plan UMC Revised offers.
Postscript: The Judicial Council occasionally does things that seem counter-intuitive. In this case, it has to do with who is actually the appellant.
In a case a few years ago, a bishop was appealing his being dropped from episcopacy. When questions related to his case went before the Council, however, he was not considered the appellant. The bishops who pushed for his unseating were. In that case, the advocate failed to bring the questions in writing and the College of Bishops did!
In this case, the ones most critical of the Plan UMC Revised were not considered the appellants. In fact, they were not even allowed to address the open hearing of the Council. The Council of Bishops pre-empted criticism of Plan UMC Revised by bringing the question of constitutionality and none of the ones who were identified as parties to the request were actually arguing against it!
EXERCISE IN MOOT AND HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS
Over the summer, as I was working on commentaries on JCDs from October of 2014 and April 2015, I found myself studying what makes questions moot and hypothetical. Those two terms are not defined anywhere and seemed to me to be used arbitrarily, especially to protect a bishop who may have allowed violations of fair process. Last year’s JCDs were a lot of help to me in clarifying how this Council sees what is moot and what is hypothetical.
I don’t know if it was glee or consternation that hit me when I read the intelligent questions asked by a layperson about one aspect of rules that had been passed by the California-Pacific Annual Conference. The sad part of his concern is that he was trying to get answers the wrong way. If the bishop, he, the conference chancellor, and anyone else with smarts about referring questions to the Judicial Council had had about fifteen minutes together, they might have resolved all of his issues without resorting to formal seeking of legal rulings.
Hey, Bishops, be ready to call a break, request a meeting as soon as possible, or some such thing to allow exploring the questions and the proper forms for formal legal questioning to see if there is a reasonable way to resolve the issues. The result might be clearing up everything. But if there is even one issue unresolved, that could then be put into proper form for presentation over which the Judicial Council could take jurisdiction.
Now about the questions and the bishop’s answers:
Upon analysis, the questions, while on a worthwhile subject, were mostly hypothetical in that they were intended to change the opinion of the bishop rather than appeal an action that could have been illegal. That is a very subtle matter and lawyers are about the only ones who can tell the difference. The bishop brought in a lawyer to go over the questions before responding, something the lay person would not ordinarily have thought to do. So the bishop then ruled the questions moot, with some elements being hypothetical. The Council affirmed the bishop’s decision though it finessed some of the questions as hypothetical.
I am in the process of trying to nail down the definition of “moot” and “hypothetical” so that lay and clergy, bishops and Council members can all get onto the same page.
Let me suggest what the lay person might have done with his concern about episcopal overreach in the new plan. It appears he realized after the new rule passed that the Discipline was at variance with the new plan on the issue of separation of powers. With the help of others to offer a second, he could have moved reconsideration of Rule Change 15-15. If the motion was seconded, the motion for reconsideration would be up for discussion, particularly the grounds for making the motion. Instead of asking the bishop to rule on the Disciplinary discrepancies, he could have asserted his interpretation of them as grounds for reconsidering Rule Change 15-15. If the motion to reconsider passed, then he could make a motion to amend the Rule Change to be in line with the Discipline and hope the conference agreed and voted to support his amendment. If the conference chose not to accept his motion to change the new rule, then he could have moved a request for a declaratory decision under ¶ 2610 on the constitutionality of Rule Change 15-15 in light of the Disciplinary passages he felt conflicted with the new rule and whether or not the other passages used to support the new rule were indeed constitutional.
If you understood that legal-babble of mine, we’re good. If not, contact me.
As the questions were asked, the Judicial Council was blocked from a substantive response of looking at the real issue of possible episcopal overreach by arcane rules that are not clearly defined nor widely understood.
If I succeed in helping define “moot and hypothetical” based on the Council’s own decisions, maybe we can minimize that impediment in the future.
Note: The concurring opinion does take the questions to have enough substance that it offers an answer which has some teaching value for consideration by the questioner. It may or may not resolve his concerns but it respects them despite the technical flaws in the wording and approach of his questions.
ELECTING BY CASTING LOTS
Northwest Philippines Annual Conference, like several of its sister conferences in the Philippines, elected delegates to General and Central Conferences using a system of casting lots. The bishop was asked if this was legal. Saying there was no prohibition, he honored the process and the delegates were thus the legal representatives of their conference.
The Judicial Council deferred a decision until its October 2016 session. Since the ruling of the bishop was made with regard to only the one conference, and his decision is law for them only, deferral allows the delegates to function legally and gives the Council time to get all the documents that should have been sent in. Without that material and answers to the Council’s questions about the details of the process used, they will not have enough upon which to base their decision.
It is likely that using casting of lots will not become common in the United Methodist Church. The ambitious who successfully work the politics required for a voting election will not allow it. Casting lots would be tantamount to trusting that God would pick the best delegates. And the means of gaining certain kinds of jobs in the denomination would be disrupted if just anyone was elected to General, Jurisdictional, or Central Conferences. Hmmm. On the other hand, . .
MAY ABSENT ELDERS BE DISQUALIFIED FROM ELECTION?
The Northwest Philippines Annual Conference voted to elect only members present at the conference. The bishop ruled that all members were eligible. The election proceeded based on that ruling. However, the ruling was not a response to a question of law. It was a parliamentary ruling that was not challenged in any way, apparently.
As the bishop reported in his response to questions of law about the legality of using casting of lots to elect delegates to General and Central Conferences discussed in JCD 1305 above, the casting of lots process was handled with grace and respect. Based on the cultural patterns of their region, it may have worked better if only those present were eligible. But, this time around, there apparently were no formal challenges over which the Council could take jurisdiction.
NON-SUPERINTENDENTS ON THE “APPOINTIVE CABINET’
This decision relies, unspoken, on the absence of prohibition from the Discipline about who may join the Cabinet in consideration of appointments. It opens up the consultation process to outsiders, with one exception, the director of administrative services. That would often be the conference treasurer. That exception is taken in this decision to be “the exception that proves the rule,” that opens up the appointment consultation to whomever the bishop wants.
I disagree with this ruling on three grounds. violation of the original intention of consultation, removing the right of the pastor and church to respond to the non-superintendents’ additions to the consultation, and episcopal overreach.
First, the consultation process began in Wisconsin and was shepherded by our delegates through General Conference in 1980. Its purpose was to include the superintendent, Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, and pastor in a sharing of hopes, dreams, needs, and concerns so that a change or maintaining of an appointment was a shared decision. This was to counter the autocratic appointment processes used in many conferences which caused harm to the pastor and family and the local church.
Despite changes, failure of many Cabinets and some Judicial Councils to take it seriously, the consultation process has survived in church law and when done right has tended to be a morale building process for churches and pastors because their concerns were respected. The negotiations were among the parties affected, with the superintendent mainly acting as moderator until a decision had to be made. Then the bishop would finalize the decision by fixing the appointment, usually in line with the mutually formed decision of the pastor and local church.
The role of a non-superintendent in the negotiations of the consultation is a disruption since the non-superintendent is not related to either the pastor or the local church. In fact, the non-superintendent is not even involved in those direct discussions among superintendent, pastor, and church. Data kept by the conference statistician and treasurer have often been used by the three parties, especially the superintendent, in those consultations so those particular conference officers were not really needed.
The intrusion of non-superintendents violates the original intent of consultation.
Second, the non-superintendents are not engaged in those primary consultation processes and so neither the local church nor the pastor gets to respond to any of their input. The opinions of the non-superintendents cannot be countered by “on the ground” persons involved in the primary discussions.
While it can be argued that the superintendent involved in the pastor/local church discussions can respond on their part as would be done during a superintendents-only appointment session as has been the practice in the past, the non-superintendent has no “skin in the game” other than to be supportive of the bishop. Superintendents are looking out for their pastors and the churches in their district.
If the bishops have been using non-superintendents as a way of getting support to do what they want to do, and now making it a matter of open rather than subrosa practice as a way to stand up to the superintendents, then maybe the discussion ought to be brought up at General Conference to resolve whatever problems arose from only working with the superintendents on appointments. There may be other alternatives that would actually be better personnel practices than concocting an “appointive cabinet.”
The whole point of consultation was to bring in a measure of empowerment of pastors and churches over their own destinies in a system of episcopal appointments. Since neither gets to talk to the non-superintendents to get their input, that empowerment is undercut.
Third, the traditional understanding of appointment-making was that it was the responsibility of the superintendents and bishop to seek the best matches of pastor and church with input by the churches and pastors as part of the consideration. There has been no effort to bring legislation to expand that appointive group. There has been nothing brought to General Conference to regulate such a group. Rather, it has become an episcopal addition without review or balance-of-power elements. Under this decision, the bishop is free to add as many non-superintendents as he or she wants, perhaps stacking the appointive Cabinet to where the superintendents no longer have authority to do their Disciplinary responsibility. Being able to bring in non-superintendents to work on appointments is granting authority from one body to another without General Conference authorization or constitutional support. That is episcopal overreach.
So far, some people in the Arkansas Conference are shining a light on this practice. The Judicial Council has now looked at their situation in six interrelated cases, JCDs 1279, 1280, 1293, 1294, 1301, and now this one
The General Conference may be called upon to deal with this addition by 2020. Overreach usually means overplaying their hand. In a democratic system like ours, such usually is dealt with eventually. It will probably be the cost of extra travel and meeting expenses which will trigger the petitions. But at the heart of countering the overreach will be the sense of oppression and unfairness.
A lay member following proper procedure within the time frame of the annual conference, raised a question of law about a Local Pastor who was dropped from ministry by a district committee on ministry because of charges against her. The bishop ruled the question of law was moot and hypothetical, using JCD 799 as the main reason. The Council supported that ruling. Case closed.
Laywoman frustrated, Local Pastor frustrated. And possibly the congregation frustrated.
This is so disturbing because that’s completely legal under church law in the United Methodist Church.
Even though Local Pastors have fair process rights when under complaint (¶ 2702), they can be dropped from ministry simply by the bishop refusing to appoint them or by the District Committee on Ministry having the discretion to taking away their license without a hearing (¶ 320).
The bishop has full discretion about appointing Local Pastors or not (¶ 316.3). For years, unappointed Local Pastors came to our annual conference session hoping to be appointed again but even though licensed, they never were. And there was no explanation.
When the district committee takes away the Local Pastor’s license, there is no vote at Annual Conference even though that license requires a vote by the clergy session to authorize it (¶ 319.2). The de-licensing is simply reported with no action required by the conference (¶ 320.1).
The way the Council and that bishop understand the situation, there is no appeal by means of questions of law. Such questions are understood as moot because the bishop under current church law may not answer any questions about what is going on in the personnel area because of “separation of powers” (JCD 799).
The fact that the laywoman raised the question of there being complaints that were not resolved under fair process is hard to assess. I have been aware of situations where a bishop lied about there being complaints against a pastor and where a superintendent told the pastor there were complaints but that word was never passed up the chain of command to anyone else. Did the latter occur in this case? We do not know. The Council was convinced that there were no complaints, though I have not seen any of the briefs where that matter might have been addressed.
In short, church law gives but then takes away fair process protections for Local Pastors.
I wish the Council’s secretary or staff would follow up on that kind of claim and request any evidence about possible complaints in order to help the Council deal with the reality of the case and not just what the bishop can give them under the shadow of plausible deniability. While the Council as an appellate body is not a “fact-finding body,” it is required of them to have all the available materials related to the case, something they are very serious about in other cases such as where a conference secretary sends in no minutes or the bishop sends only an email notification rather than details of a change of appointment. As JCD 595 says, “The Judicial Council has authority to determine factual matters which are essential to decide the legal question involved.”
In short, church law gives but then takes away fair process protections for Local Pastors.
There are other serious problems showcased by this decision that I address in other contexts and in previous blog postings. I try to show that JCD 799 is only partly right and grossly unjust in some important ways, and that there are no real forms of appeal in the administrative track, thus no way for administrative actions like administrative location, involuntary leave of absence, or involuntary retirement to be appealed, which violates ¶¶ 20 and 58, the constitutional rights of trial and appeal. I also want to clarify that “substantive” can mean a bishop may answer a question of law about process but answering a question about the substance of a complaint may be inappropriate. The bishops and the Council need to learn such distinctions or many more people will be very frustrated with the United Methodist Church.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON THE 2015 FALL SESSION
I have four observations to make about the fall session of 2015. One, the caseload was exceptionally light. Two, the bishops won big on many little things but were put off until May on their one big thing. Three, what would happen if we changed to casting lots to elect delegates to General Conference? Four, Local Pastors are extremely vulnerable, perhaps in violation of our constitution.
First, the case load for the fall sessions of the Council have tended in recent years to average two dozen docket items. This year there were about a third of that number. And of that nine, one was a reconsideration (JCM 1299), one was a carry-over from the past (JCD 1302), two were related to the concern about “appointive cabinets” (JCDs 1301 and 1307), two were related to electing delegates by casting lots (JCMs 1305 and 1306), two showed ways the Council could refuse jurisdiction (JCDs 1304 and 1308), and one of some consequence was put off until May 2016 (JCM 1303). Almost half were deferred (JCMs 1301, 1303, 1305, and 1306), requiring no hammering out of a decision.
This lighter load allowed for some rationale to be presented on all but the request for reconsideration (JCM 1299). That gave the Council a chance to offer us more insight into their way of thinking. Too often, the Council has had little time to explain themselves on cases where they could not take jurisdiction.
Second, while the bishops were put off on their request for possible support of the Council on “Plan UMC Revised,” they won on everything else directly or indirectly. JCM 1299 changed nothing with respect to holding bishops accountable. JCM 1300 has postponed testing a bishop for unmaking an appointment of an Elder without fixing another first. Bishops may stack a non-Disciplinary body (“appointive Cabinet”) which undercuts the consultation process (JCD 1301 and 1307). The separation of powers over the issues of accountability of certain conference officers (JCD 1304) and of removing Local Pastors from ministry (JCD 1308) were left unchanged by legal technicalities. And the ladder to success in the denomination has not been disrupted (JCM 1305 and 1306). The merger plan (JCD 1302) may even have allowed some subtle additions to the authority of the bishop (most such plans do, as the Council itself has pointed out in the past). In short, nothing decided really make bishops change their behavior and some add to their power.
Third, casting lots has become the mode of election for delegates to General and Central Conferences of some annual conferences in the Philippines. When that process is used openly and respectfully, it appears to be very difficult to influence the selection of delegates. The current system used in the United States and many other places of politicking and vote swapping really works well for the ambitious and assertive. It puts their names into position for nomination to boards and agencies on all levels of the denomination and ultimately to episcopacy. With charisma and political skill, pastors can rise above their competence to high office in order to reach the prize of prestige, privilege, and a golden parachute upon retirement (note that some bishops are retiring early).
If by chance the charismatic, politically skilled, and ambitious did not happen to be selected by lot, they might not find being a United Methodist to their liking . . . . Ever wonder why casting of lots was considered viable by our Hebrew ancestors? They’d had over two million years of experience in human community by the time the Bible was written. It will be interesting to see if the Council gives any credence to using casting of lots when they meet in October of 2016.
Fourth, church law does not protect Local Pastors the way it protects Elders and Deacons. Local Pastors often are dropped without explanation and have no recourse. The powerful intentional movement of the 1980s to use Local Pastors because of their enthusiasm as a counter to the “professionalism” of seminary trained Elders was not accompanied by changes in the loopholes which made Local Pastors vulnerable to arbitrary firing. Local Pastors were required to become trained and sometimes came in as seminary-trained. And they had to be approved by vote of the clergy session in order to get in the door. But they are still “at-will hires” of the Church and all the more devastated when they are cast aside. JCD 1308 barely scratches the surface of that pain and does nothing to alleviate it.
I understand that flexibility is needed in a closed appointive system like ours and I understand the need for expediency when circumstances may require simplicity of options and timing. But those are best handled with forewarning and with respectful dialogue among the involved parties and the Local Pastor. This is a church, for God’s sake (literally), and not somebody’s sandbox.
Finally, I think I have respected the limitations under which the Council operates by explanations in the commentaries above. The Council has its legal boundaries and can only do so much in the name of justice. I cannot speak to intentions of the Council and hope I do not imply any biases. I can only point out results.
That leaves us, dear reader, to learn how better to work in our judicial system to help the Council any way we can to counter challenges to balance of powers and separation of powers. So far, it is clear that we have a lot to learn.
The Rev. Jerry Eckert, a retired clergy member of the Wisconsin Annual Conference, lives in Port Charlotte, Fla. He volunteers with Associates in Advocacy, a non-profit organization whose members assist pastors in personnel proceedings.