Decision Number 1120

The bishops decision of law initially determined that the resolution before the annual conference was not out of order. Questions of order are parliamentary in nature. The Judicial Council has no jurisdiction to review parliamentary rulings made by a presiding bishop in an annual conference session. However, the request for a decision of law must be read in its entire context and how the context of the question supplies meaning to the answer embodied in the bishops response. The clear import of the question sought the bishops determination as to whether the resolution as adopted violated the Discipline. Additionally, the scope of the bishops decision of law referred only to a single paragraph of the resolution. There is no clear indication that the bishop conducted a thorough review of the resolution as a whole document. Although the record supplied is less than clear in those respects, we will assume jurisdiction and err on the side of conducting a thorough review of the bishops decision of law.

The resolution as finally adopted by the Annual Conference relied heavily upon and was patterned after proposed legislation that was considered by the Human Sexuality Subcommittee of the Church & Society II Legislative Committee at the 2008 General Conference. The legislative history of the General Conference action reveals that the Church and Society II Legislative Committee sent majority and minority reports to the General Conference plenary session. The Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference resolution contained language that borrowed heavily from the majority report of the Church and Society II Legislative Committee. After perfection and debate of both reports in the plenary session, the 2008 General Conference adopted the minority report as the main motion. (Daily Christian Advocate, May 3, 2008, Vol.4. No 11 pp 2578-2579) The language of the minority report is now embodied in the language of ¶ 161G of the Discipline.

The Discipline is the law of the church that regulates every phase of the life and work of the church. Decision 96 made clear the principle that the Discipline is the only authoritative book of law of the church. All entities of the church are bound by its provisions. All actions of an annual conference must be faithful to and consistent with the Discipline. An annual conference may express disagreement with other bodies of The United Methodist Church, but is still subject to the Constitution, the Discipline and the decisions of the Judicial Council. In Decision 886 the Judicial Council announced the principle that annual conferences may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based on conscientious objections to those provisions.

Judicial review of an annual conference resolution requires an intensive fact specific examination of the text of the annual conference resolution, and a clear understanding of the context of the annual conference debate. The context of the debate is normally supplied by a complete and comprehensive record of annual conference proceedings. The Judicial Council has reviewed numerous resolutions adopted by annual conferences concerning the issue of human sexuality. Judicial Council jurisprudence on this issue is not a model of clarity. Nevertheless, the current state appears to be that a resolution may express disagreement with the current language of the Discipline and may express its aspirational hopes, but an annual conference may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the Discipline, even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objection to those provisions.

In Decision 913 the Judicial Council affirmed a bishops decision of law that was requested after the Desert Southwest Annual Conference adopted a resolution entitled We will not be silent. The resolution was determined by the Judicial Council to be permissible because it did not contain language that negated, ignored or violated the Discipline. In Decision 1021, the Judicial Council affirmed a bishops decision of law regarding a resolution in the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference that pledged to engage in respectful dialogue regarding differences of opinion. The decision was based on the fact that the resolution was an historical statement, was without prescriptive force and that it did not negate, ignore or violate the Discipline. In Decision 1044, the Judicial Council affirmed a bishops decision of law regarding a previous resolution adopted by the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference that pledged to model inclusive behavior in the acceptance of members into local congregations. The Baltimore-Washington resolution in that case was determined to be aspirational in nature and did not violate the Discipline. In Decision 1111, the Judicial Council considered a resolution from the California-Nevada Annual Conference that commended retired clergy who were willing to make themselves available to perform ceremonies that celebrate same sex unions and directed the Annual Conference to distribute the list of clergy to all local churches in the Annual Conference. Such a resolution was determined to be impermissible because it constituted an endorsement of actions that are prohibited and that constitute liability for a chargeable offense under the Discipline. We affirmed the bishops decision of law that determined the resolution to be void and of no effect. In Decision 1115, we reversed a bishops decision of law and determined that a resolution adopted by the California-Pacific Annual Conference was impermissible because it supported the need for pastors to offer ministry of marriage for same gender couples in ways that violate ¶ 341.6 of the Discipline.

Applying these guiding principles, the Baltimore-Washington resolution is impermissible because it purports to communicate a more authentic and truthful representation of The United Methodist Church. For the Annual Conference to state that its resolution is a more authentic and truthful representation of The United Methodist Church implies that it believes the present language of the Discipline is a less authentic and truthful representation of The United Methodist Church. In that respect, the resolution goes beyond a permissible statement of mere disagreement. The effect of the Baltimore-Washington resolution is to negate the church's clearly stated position as reflected in current disciplinary language. Moreover, the Baltimore-Washington resolution attempts to articulate a new and different standard of church belief using language that has been specifically rejected by the General Conference. The Baltimore “ Washington Annual Conference resolution is a statement that not only expresses disagreement with the action of the General Conference, but attempts by revision to articulate a new and different standard of belief that negates, ignores and violates the Discipline. The bishops decision of law is reversed, and the Annual Conference resolution is held void and of no effect.