December 2024 Current

JUDICIAL COUNCIL NEWS

Church court: Season of church exits is over BY HEATHER HAHN

COURT RULES AGAINST BISHOP ASSIGNMENTS ACROSS JURISDICTION

regarding Paragraph 2549. The conference specifically asked about changes that this year’s General Conference approved that allowed a local church’s council to petition its conference to close that local church. The changes go on to say that such a motion at the annual conference may be made by a lay member, who is a member of that congregation or another church in the same charge. The Judicial Council said this expansion of Paragraph 2549.2(b) and the addition of Paragraph 2549.3 usurp the constitutional power of the charge conference. In the words of the Discipline, a charge conference “is the connecting link between the local church and the general Church and shall have general oversight of the church council(s).” A charge conference directs the work of the church, reviews its mission and ministry of the church and gives general oversight to church leadership. A pastoral charge can consist of more than one congregation and thus the charge conference can serve more than one church. “The Church Council can make a recommendation to the Charge Conference, but the Church Council cannot bypass the Charge Conference,” Decision 1507 said. “The usurpation of the Charge Conference’s connection to the general church and delegating it to the Church Council of a local church is a Constitutional violation.” When considering the constitutionality of a General Conference action, the Judicial Council must have a full roster of nine present. At least six must agree the action is unconstitutional to strike it down. The ruling in Decision 1507 was unanimous. 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 1507. The Judicial Council also faced other questions dealing with the ramifications of disaffiliations and the rise of the Global Methodist Church, a theologically conservative breakaway denomination that has drawn much of its membership from disaffiliated churches. In Memorandum 1508, the Judicial Council said it did not have jurisdiction to address a question from the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference about the eligibility of delegates who serve in a denomination not in full communion with The United Methodist Church. The issue for the Judicial Council was that the record did not show any evidence that the question was germane to the jurisdiction’s regular business or discussion. The request also failed to address a specific Disciplinary paragraph. In Decision 1514, the Judicial Council affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of law by Bishop LaTrelle Easterling dealing with retired clergy serving in disaffiliated churches. The Judicial Council said the bishop ruled correctly that a question about whether such service constitutes a chargeable offence is moot and hypothetical. The church court agreed the question was not germane to the regular business of the Peninsula-Delaware Conference’s clergy session and did not state a connection to a specific action taken or to be taken by the conference. However, the Judicial Council said the bishop should have also answered “moot and hypothetical” to a question about whether a retired clergy member serving a disaffiliated church constitutes a voluntary withdrawal. The church court said the question also “did not state a connection to a specific action taken or to be taken by the conference.” In a concurrence to Decision 1514, four Judicial Council members wrote separately to address two concerns.

LOS ANGELES (UMNews) – A church law designed for handling church closures cannot be used as a way for congregations to leave The United Methodist Church with property, the denomination’s top court ruled. “With the expiration and deletion of ¶ 2553, the postponed 2020 General Conference effectively removed from The Book of Discipline, 2016, ... the only pathway for the disaffiliation of local churches,” the Judicial Council said in Decision 1512. In a separate ruling, the Judicial Council also struck down changes to the Discipline’s church-closure provision, Paragraph 2549, that would empower a church council to initiate a congregation’s closure. These changes violate the denomination’s constitution, the church court said in Decision 1507, because “they deny and circumvent the authority given to the Charge Conference” — which has general oversight over a church council. The decisions were among five rulings the denomination’s high court released Oct. 29 that address questions related to church withdrawals and closures. In the words of Decision 1512, The United Methodist Church is now “in a new season” after five years of congregations leaving under the auspices of church law. The special General Conference in 2019 instituted the Discipline’s Paragraph 2553 amid intensifying debate and defiance over bans on same-sex weddings and gay clergy. Under the provision, congregations could leave with property for “reasons of conscience” related to homosexuality if they met certain financial and procedural requirements. In essence, Paragraph 2553 provided a temporary and limited release from The United Methodist Church’s centuries-old trust clause, which states that church property is held in trust for the benefit of the entire denomination. Over the next four years, the paragraph opened the door for more than 7,600 U.S. churches — about a quarter of the denomination’s U.S. congregations — to exit with property. Paragraph 2553 set its own expiration date at the end of last year. The COVID-postponed General Conference that met earlier this year took the additional step of eliminating the provision entirely from the Discipline. That same gathering of the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly also ended the denomination-wide bans related to LGBTQ people. In General Conference’s aftermath, some conferences — regional bodies consisting of multiple congregations — have looked to the church-closure provision, Paragraph 2549, as an alternative disaffiliation method. Essentially, these conferences sought to use the provision to close a church and then transfer the assets to the closed congregation under the same parameters outlined in Paragraph 2553. The South Carolina, South Georgia and Rio Texas conferences already have used Paragraph 2549 to approve the exit of more than 200 U.S. congregations this year. In Decision 1512, the Judicial Council was responding to a question from the Alabama-West Florida Conference about the meaning, application and effect of Paragraph 2549 as it relates to such separations going forward. The Judicial Council said that using Paragraph 2549 for disaffiliations contradicts its clear intent. The provision specifically states that a closed church’s remaining congregants are to be connected with other United Methodist congregations in the area. Paragraph 2549 also says a closed church’s assets are to be vested with the annual conference’s board of trustees, “who shall hold said property in trust for the benefit of the annual conference.”

Interjurisdictional Committee exceeded its authority in assignment

Northeastern.

BY HEATHER HAHN LOS ANGELES (UMNews) – 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:

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. 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

Using Paragraph 2549 for denominational separations “is another failed attempt to circumvent the trust clause, a hallmark of United Methodist polity,” the Judicial Council said. If Paragraph 2549 could be used for church disaffiliations, the church court goes on to say, there would not have been a need for General Conference to pass Paragraph 2553. Now, General Conference has voted not to extend that disaffiliation policy. The Judicial Council previously determined in a 2022 decision that absent General Conference action, annual conferences do not have the authority to withdraw en masse from The United Methodist Church. In Decision 1512, the church court applies the same principle to individual congregations. “Except for the General Conference, no body or entity in the Church has the power to reinstate or replicate ¶ 2553 or adopt legislation, policies, guidelines, rules, or regulations authorizing the departure of local churches,” the church court said. “Any such action, plan, or attempt to do so intrudes upon the exclusive prerogative of the General Conference and is unconstitutional, null, and void.” The Judicial Council’s ruling comes just days after the Alabama Supreme Court denied a request for a rehearing of its ruling against United Methodist churches that sued the Alabama-West Florida Conference to leave the denomination and take property with them. The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the churches must pursue the matter through the denomination’s own judicial system. In Memorandum 1511, the Judicial Council said it could not address the Kentucky Conference’s similar but more broadly worded question about Paragraph 2549. The conference asked whether it could use the paragraph or some other provision of the Discipline as a pathway for the exit of local churches from The United Methodist Church. The Judicial Council said it lacked jurisdiction “to determine whether a given paragraph of the Discipline can be utilized in a certain way or to determine which Discipline paragraph might be used to accomplish a specific goal.” The memorandum then pointed the conference to Decision 1512. Judicial Council member Bill Waddell recused himself from deliberations on both Memorandum 1511 and Decision 1512 because of his previous role as chancellor of the Council of Bishops. In Decision 1507, the Judicial Council addressed another question from the Alabama-West Florida Conference Photo by Linda Bloom, UM News Members of the 2024-2028 Judicial Council are (front row, from left) the Rev. Jonathan Ulanday; the Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe, president; the Rev. Angela Brown, secretary; and Molly Hlekani Mwayera; (back row, from left) Bill Waddell; Andrew Vorbrich; the Rev. Øyvind Helliesen; the Rev. Luan-Vu Tran; and Harriett Olson. The Judicial Council released decisions Oct. 29.

Map of U.S. jurisdictions, episcopal areas and annual conferences by United Methodist Communications

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. (Hahn is assistant news editor for UM News.)

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

CHURCH COURT CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

8 | DECEMBER 2024 | THE CURRENT

THE CURRENT | DECEMBER 2024 | 9