Decision Number 1404
SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING
Decision 1404 — IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Ruling on a Question of Law in the Michigan Annual Conference Regarding the Legality of the Clergy Session’s Statement Affirming Various Efforts and Expressing Support for their Board of Ordained Ministry
Digest
The ruling of the Bishop is affirmed as to the legality of the resolution; however, he erred in asserting episcopal authority in the evaluation process of ministry candidates. The Discipline clearly delineates the role of the Bishop from that of the clergy under ¶ 33 of the Constitution. Therefore, that portion of the Bishop’s decision is null and void and hereby reversed.
Statement of Facts
On May 30, 2019, during the clergy session of the Michigan Annual Conference, a clergy member introduced a resolution, which in its amended form read:
We, a majority of the voting members of the 2019 Clergy Session of the Michigan Conference of The United Methodist Church, stand in solidarity with our Board of Ordained Ministry in their lament regarding the decisions of the 2019 Special Session of General Conference. We affirm their intention to do their sacred work of examining and ultimately recommending candidates to commissioning and ordination who demonstrate gifts and graces for vital ministry, without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity. With our Board, we affirm and honor that God call all to healthy human relationships and that these relationships are critical to effective ministry. [emphasis added]
This resolution was based on a statement issued by the Board of Ordained Ministry on March 13, 2019, the text of which follows:
In honor of the ministry we share and in lament regarding the decisions of the 2019 Special Session of General Conference of The United Methodist Church, we, the Michigan Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, are compelled to reaffirm how we fulfill our discernment responsibilities since our inception as a Conference board. It is the central call of the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry to credential persons to licensed and ordained ministry within the denomination. As that gathered body within the Michigan Conference, we take seriously our call to listen for the movement of the Holy Spirit in calling and equipping people for ministry. We affirm that the Spirit moves in the lives of all people, calling some to professional ministry, including LGBTQIA+ individuals. As such, we reaffirm our Spirit-led intention to hear the call, readiness, and effectiveness of candidates for ministry without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. We will continue to recommend candidates for commissioning and ordination who demonstrate gifts and graces for vital ministry, trusting that the clergy session will recognize the integrity of the Board’s work and approve them for ministry. Likewise, we affirm the Bishop's authority to consecrate, commission, and ordain all qualified candidates for ministry, celebrating with the Conference the gifts they bring and the ways in which God has called them to be in ministry with us.
We honor that God calls all to healthy human relationships. Such vital relationships are critical to effective ministry. It is the Board’s work to assess the wholeness and holiness of those relationships. Because we are called to love God and each other fully, we will not engage in or tolerate the harassment of others by asking questions not directly related to the practice of effective ministry.
As the Michigan Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, our compass has been, and will continue to be, the indicators given by the Holy Spirit of authentic call, of evidenced readiness, and well-demonstrated effectiveness in the work of ministry. We offer this public statement in the certain hope that our siblings in professional ministry will celebrate with us the task we share.
The resolution was passed 298 to 125. Subsequently, another clergy person asked for a ruling of law on the following question: “Is the resolution affirmed at our clergy session and the Board of Ordained Ministry statement upon which it is based, in direct violation of Judicial Council rulings, particularly ruling 1344?”
On July 23, 2019, Bishop David Bard issued his Decision of Law, which reads in full:
Judicial Council decision 1344 clearly states that “The Board of Ordained Ministry is mandated…to examine all applicants as to their fitness for the ordained ministry, and make full inquiry as to the fitness of the candidate…..The Board’s examination must include all paragraphs relevant to the election of pastoral ministry, including those provisions set forth in paragraphs that deal with issues of race, gender, sexuality, integrity, indebtedness, etc.” The challenge in ruling on the statement approved at clergy session is to ascertain both its intent and its effect. This is made more difficult by the ambiguity in the language. When the resolution affirms examining and recommending candidates “without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity” does it intend that issues of behavior and practice will not be addressed? This resolution could be read that way. Its intent, therefore, would be to circumvent the Disciplinary requirements and its effect would be to encourage an incomplete examination of candidates. On the other hand, the resolution begins with a lament. Its intent could be primarily an expression of disappointment and a resolution to treat persons fairly, particularly LGBTQ persons. In this case its precise effects cannot be determined hypothetically, but only in the subsequent actions of the Board over which the clergy session retains rights and obligations to inquire about the depth and breadth of the Board’s examination.
A bishop is to “uphold the discipline and order of the Church,” and simultaneously “be the shepherd of the whole flock” (¶403.1e and f). Particularly in this time of heightened emotion, anxiety and tension within The United Methodist Church, there is something to be said for leaning into the pastoral while upholding discipline and order, offering some space for expressiveness while being clear about the parameters imposed by The Book of Discipline.
Therefore, I rule that the resolution approved at the clergy session, based on the statement issued by the Board of Ordained Ministry, is not a direct violation of Judicial Council decisions. However, this in no way gives permission to the Board of Ordained Ministry to ignore its “duty to conduct a careful and thorough examination and investigation, not only in terms of depth but also of breadth of scope” (JCD 1344), nor absolves the clergy session of its right and obligation to inquire of the Board whether or not it has, in point of fact, engaged its work thoroughly. The bishop also must ascertain and discern whether or not persons recommended by the Board and approved by the clergy session are duly eligible for commissioning and ordination.
Jurisdiction
The Judicial Council has jurisdiction pursuant to ¶ 2609.6 of the 2016 Discipline.
Analysis and Rationale
General Conference has continually distinguished between the practice of homosexuality, that is to say, acts, not the state of being a homosexual person. Unless it rises to the level of conduct, sexual orientation does not constitute grounds for disqualifying or subjecting a ministerial candidate to review under ¶ 362. See JCD 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 837, 844, 920. The resolution is thus a permissible expression of support for the Board of Ordained Ministry.
The balance of the Bishop’s ruling is likewise affirmed except for the very last sentence wherein the Bishop erred in asserting that: “The bishop also must ascertain and discern whether or not persons recommended by the Board and approved by the clergy session are duly eligible for commissioning and ordination.” This assertion is in direct violation of ¶ 33 of the Constitution which specifies that: “The annual conference is the basic body in the Church and as such shall have reserved to it the right to vote . . . on all matters relating to the character and conference relations of its clergy members, and on the ordination of clergy. . .” [2016 Discipline]. The bishop’s final sentence thus violates the Constitutional authority which is vested exclusively in the annual conference clergy.
Decision
The ruling of the Bishop is affirmed as to the legality of the resolution; however, he erred in asserting episcopal authority in the evaluation process of ministry candidates. The Discipline clearly delineates the role of the Bishop from that of the clergy under ¶ 33 of the Constitution. Therefore, that portion of the Bishop’s decision is null and void and hereby reversed.
Concurring Opinion
Concurring Opinion
While we support the conclusion reached by the majority, we also note the similarity between the bishop’s statement declared to be unconstitutional and the language of a provision in the Traditional Plan that was passed by the General Conference in 2019, Petition 90043 (codified as ¶ 304.5 in the Addendum to The Discipline), which reads in relevant part: “The bishop presiding in the clergy session shall rule any such unqualified candidate out of order and not eligible to be acted upon.”
The entire ¶ 304.5 reads:
5. In all votes regarding license, ordination, or conference membership, the requirements set forth herein are minimum requirements. Each person voting is expected to vote prayerfully based on personal judgment of the applicant’s gifts, evidence of God’s grace, and promise of future usefulness for the mission of the Church. The district committee on ordained ministry and the Board of Ordained Ministry shall not approve or recommend any person for candidacy, licensing, commissioning, or ordination who does not meet the qualifications of ¶ 304.1-3, based on the full examination and thorough inquiry into the person’s fitness by the committee and board (see Judicial Council Decisions 1343 and 1344). The bishop presiding in the clergy session shall rule any such unqualified candidate out of order and not eligible to be acted upon. [emphasis added]
Intended or not, the resemblance raises concerns about the constitutionality of ¶ 304.5 as applied, which cannot be addressed here. In the proper case, a future constitutional challenge to the legislative enactment of this language by the General Conference remains possible.
Luan-Vu Tran
Deanell Reece Tacha
Øyvind Helliesen
Concurring Opinion
I concur with the majority. I write separately to emphasize that ¶ 304.5, as amended by the 2019 General Conference, contains a grant of authority to bishops which is in direct violation of the Constitution and cannot stand (see e.g., Decision 872). I believe that it is the duty and responsibility of the Judicial Council to correct this error, even if it is on the Council’s own motion (see e.g., JCD 961 and 1244).
Beth Capen