Decision Number 1330

Review of a bishop's Decision of Law in the New York Annual Conference concerning if the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry is required to ascertain whether a candidate meets the qualifications for candidacy and ordained ministry, including whether or not she or he is exhibiting "fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness" or is a "self-avowed practicing homosexual."

Digest

The bishop's Decision of Law is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The first two questions of law are proper to rule upon, and the bishop cannot refuse to answer the questions. We affirm the refusal to rule on questions three and four. The request for a Decision of Law is remanded to the bishop for a ruling on questions one and two, and shall be reported back to the Judicial Council before December 31, 2016.

SUBJECT TO FURTHER CORRECTION AND REVISION.

Statement of Facts

On June 7, 2016, at the Clergy Session of the 2016 New York Annual Conference, the session had voted in a single vote to approve the 13 candidates for provisional membership. The Clergy Session also voted in a single vote to approve the 14 candidates for full membership as an ordained elder.  Both votes passed by more than 2/3 vote as shown in the minutes. The candidates voted upon in both votes were all the candidates put forth by the Board of Ordained Ministry. After the voting, an associate member without vote, requested a Decision of Law on whether certain proceedings and procedures of the Board of Ordained Ministry were in accordance with the stipulations of The Book of Discipline 2012 [hereinafter The Discipline]. The formal request for a Decision of Law also refers to a statement from the New York Annual Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, published on March 1, 2016, stating that the boards policy will be: "We publicly affirm that lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, questioning, intersexed, and straight candidates will be given equal consideration and protection in the candidacy process." The statement further outlined the board's interpretation of the standard for ministry it would use in evaluating candidates, "These standards are based upon the disciplinary guidelines for the role of clergy (Book of Discipline ¶¶ 329, 340), but are also intentionally augmented through the discernment of the nuances and challenges of each annual conferences [sic] ministry setting(s)"

Four specific questions were presented:

1) Is the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry required to ascertain whether a candidate meets the qualifications for candidacy and ordained ministry, including whether or not she or he is exhibiting fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness" or is a "self-avowed practicing homosexual?"

2) Can the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry legally recommend to the clergy session a candidate whom they believe to be a self-avowed practicing homosexual or otherwise in violation of the fidelity and celibacy standard?

3) Are the candidates in question in fact eligible for candidacy, commissioning as a provisional member, ordination as a full elder, and appointment as a United Methodist clergy as defined by the Book of Discipline?

4) Is an act of commissioning and/or ordaining an ineligible candidate by a United Methodist Bishop a valid act of ministry according to the Book of Discipline, even if the candidate is approved by the clergy session?

Bishop Jane Allen Middleton's ruling was:

The request for a decision of law regarding certain proceedings and procedures of the Board of Ordained Ministry is denied inasmuch as such proceedings and procedures of an independent Conference board is not a subject upon which a decision of law can be made, and also in part because certain questions are hypothetical and out of order.

Jurisdiction

The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under ¶¶ 51 and  56.3 of the Constitution and ¶ 2609.6 of The Discipline as modified by Judicial Council Decision [hereinafter JCD] 1244. 

Analysis and Rationale

Bishop Jane A. Middleton refused to decide on the four questions presented. In her rationale she concludes that on questions 1 and 2

It is improper for the Bishop to issue a substantive decision on the questions presented on which she as Bishop have no power or authority due to the doctrine of separation of powers and thus it is improper for her to make a substantive response, and, as to questions 3 and 4, they are hypothetical, moot and were properly ruled out of order.

The question before the Judicial Council is if the bishop had the right to deny answering questions 1 and 2. Her arguments for denying are primarily based upon ¶ 33 of the Constitution, and JCD 872, and in her brief she states that

it is unconstitutional and violates the principle of separation of powers for a bishop (or the Judicial Council) to interfere in the ordination process of the district or conference boards of ministry or the vote of the clergy session.

The questions raised before the bishop asking for a Decision of Law, are based on The Discipline’s requirements set forth in ¶¶ 16, 161B, 304.2-3, 310.2d, 322.1, 324.9o), 330.5c)(3), 335c)(3), and 604.1, on whether the board’s policy and procedures are legal, and is not asking the bishop to interfere in the ordination process of the district or conference boards of ministry or the vote of the clergy session. The question addresses the policies and procedures of the board, ensuring that they are in accord with the requirements of The Discipline.

The Discipline gives specific oversight responsibilities to the Council of Bishops related to agencies of the general church and jurisdictional and annual conferences. Paragraph 47, Article III of the Constitution states:

The council shall meet at least once a year and plan for the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church and for carrying into effect the rules, regulations, and responsibilities prescribed and enjoined by the General Conference and in accord with the provisions set forth in this Plan of Union.

Paragraph 415.2 elaborates on this responsibility under the presidential duties of bishops,

To provide general oversight for the fiscal and program operations of the annual conference(s). This may include special inquiry into the work of agencies to ensure that the annual conference and general church policies and procedures are followed.

In her ruling the bishop describes the Board of Ordained Ministry as an “independent Conference board.” This is not correct. According to the Discipline, the board is directly amenable to the annual conference (¶ 635.1b) and is nominated by the bishop (¶ 635.1a) and elected by the annual conference. It operates on behalf of the clergy members in full connection, who “have sole responsibility for all matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy” (¶ 602.1a). As an agency of the annual conference, the board “may not legally negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objections to those provisions” (JCD 886).

The Judicial Council concludes that the first two questions of law asked at the New York Annual Conference Clergy Session are proper for a bishop to rule upon, and that the said two questions are remanded to the bishop for a ruling. See JCD 799 and 1244.

Decision

The bishop's Decision of Law is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The first two questions of law are proper to rule upon, and the bishop cannot refuse to answer the questions. We affirm the refusal to rule on questions three and four. The request for a Decision of Law is remanded to the bishop for a ruling on questions one and two, and shall be reported back to the Judicial Council before December 31, 2016.

Beth Capen recused herself.

Dennis Blackwell was absent.

First lay alternate Warren Plowden participated in this decision.

First clergy alternate Tim Bruster participated in this decision.