| Search | News | Archives | Donate! | Spiritual Resources | Affirmation | General Conference |
December 10, 1998
The United Methodist Judicial Council, which functions like a supreme court for the church, delivered two disappointing decisions following its meeting in late October.
Affirmation spokesperson Jeanne Knepper had argued on behalf of the Oregon-Idaho annual conference that the ban against same sex covenant services contained in ¶ 65C of the United Methodist Discipline violates the United Methodist Church Constitution because it discriminates against a class of persons based on their status. The California-Nevada annual conference had also requested a declaratory decision on the same issue, and the Judicial Council responded to both requests with one decision.
Based on a narrow reading of the constitutional language, the Council said "nothing has been presented" in the cases before it to demonstrate that the ban unconstitutionally:
Therefore the ban is ruled to be constitutional. Furthermore, on the basis of its analysis, the Council said it was unnecessary to determine whether homosexuality constitutes a constitutionally protected "status." Nevertheless, it urged the General Conference to define "status" when it meets in 2000.
The Council's approach to this case was consistent with two of its usual practices: interpreting the church's governing documents rather literally and avoiding questions that it need not answer to decide the case. Interestingly, the decision appears to leave open the possibility of a different decision if evidence showed that the ban on covenant services has any of the results indicated above. However, it is unclear what evidence would be persuasive. Likewise, the Council's urging for a definition of "status" suggests the need to consider whether this is a route by which the church might be forced to come to itself on the question of inclusiveness.
In another decision this Fall, the Judicial Council seemed uncharacteristically responsive to the politics of the denomination. It ruled that an annual conference or other official entity "…may not identify or label itself as an unofficial body or movement (such as, but not limited to, a 'Confessing Conference,' 'Reconciling Conference,' or 'Transforming Conference')." The Council reversed previous rulings that had allowed the designations by an annual conference and the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns of themselves as "Reconciling" bodies.
The decision overturned a ruling by the bishop in the Northwest Texas Annual Conference that the conference could designate itself a "Confessing Conference" by passing a resolution entitled "A Call to Doctrinal Integrity." "Confessing" bodies are those that call for an essentially literal interpretation of the Bible in determining church polity and doctrine.
This Judicial Council ruling is disturbing because it stifles dissent by official bodies in the denomination--including local churches--against actions of the General Conference. It appears to support an increasingly authoritarian style by denominational leadership by seeking to avoid what the Council called the "divisive" action of official bodies "being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of The United Methodist Church." One interpretation of the action is that the Judicial Council has succumbed to the "unity at any price" philosophy that also seems to silence most of our progressive bishops at a time when courageous and prophetic leadership is most needed.
The decision invests the church's current official opinion about homosexuality and a variety of other matters as expressed in the Discipline with the same level of authority as the historic Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. Thus it abandons John Wesley's own distinction between core teachings of the faith (about which agreement is necessary) and other less weighty concerns that may be subject to differences and changes of opinion as more light is shed on them. Ironically, this new dogmatism is more likely to undermine unity than to foster it.
Affirmation's brief concludes, "We find that the meaning of status in Paragraphs IV and 15.14 of the constitution protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We find that the effect of the language of ¶ 65.C, 'Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches,' violates the constitutional provisions of Paragraphs IV and 15.14."
External Links
As an independent voice of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people, Affirmation radically reclaims the compassionate and transforming gospel of Jesus Christ by relentlessly pursuing full inclusion in the Church as we journey with the Spirit in creating God's beloved community. We affirm a Gospel of respect, love, justice and mercy for all. Affirmation is an activist, all-volunteer, not-for-profit organization with no official ties to The United Methodist Church.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns.