• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Mainstream UMC

Donate | Contact | Newsletter Sign Up

  • Team
    • Advisory Board
  • Scriptures
    • Articles on Scripture
    • Additional Study Tools
    • History of Interpretation
  • Resources
    • 2019 Annual Conference Petitions
    • Maps & General Information
    • GC 2019
    • July 2019 Survey Results
    • Resources for Local Churches
    • 2019 Moratorium Letter to Bishops
    • Negotiated Protocol
    • GC 2020 Town Hall
  • Events
  • Forum
  • Blog
You are here: Home / Archives / Additional Data / Analysis of Judicial Council Briefs on Way Forward Proposals

Analysis of Judicial Council Briefs on Way Forward Proposals

October 13, 2018 By Mark Holland

Author:  Lonnie Brooks

Beginning on 23Oct18 the United Methodist Judicial Council will convene its regular session in Zurich, Switzerland, and the meeting will last for four days.  There are 14 docket items before the Council at this meeting, and Docket 1018-12 is a request from the UM Council of Bishops for a decision on the constitutionality of the three plans for a way forward that have been generated as a result of the call of the General Conference of 2016 for the creation of the Commission on a Way Forward (CWF).

Twenty-six (26) briefs have been submitted to the Council by various people and groups, which is an unusually high number, having been exceeded only by the number of briefs submitted in the Jimmy Creech matter.  These briefs have all been posted on the Internet and may be accessed using this link:

Judicial Council Briefs

 

Briefs are in two broad categories.  Any person is permitted to submit an Opening Brief in which he/she makes his/her arguments afresh.  Following the round of Opening Briefs, any person is permitted to submit a Reply Brief in which he/she responds to the arguments presented in an Opening Brief.

 

A summary of the thrust of the arguments in each brief follows:

 

OPENING BRIEFS

 

Bill Lawrence on the One Church Plan (OCP)

Petition 4 contains an unconstitutional provision that inserts the bishop into decisions on ordination.

Petition 8 unconstitutionally authorizes an appointee to decline his/her appointment.

Petition 9 unconstitutionally gives a church conference authority that is properly reserved to a charge conference.

Petition 10 unconstitutionally relegates the power of an annual conference to decide matters of clergy character, conference relations, and ordination to the status of a recommendation.

Petition 13 unconstitutionally authorizes the bishop to limit the voting authority of an annual conference on clergy issues.

 

Bill Waddell for the Council of Bishops on the Traditional Plan (TP)

Petitions 8 and 9 unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to GCFA

Petition 10 may also unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority

Petitions 11 and 14 unconstitutionally establish a minimum penalty in Church trials.

 

Jay Brim for Brim, Caterson, and Holland on the TP

The TP is not in harmony with the purpose stated in the call for the Special Session because it is not the work of the CWF.

 

Lonnie Brooks on the OCP

Petition 4 unconstitutionally puts the bishop into the ordination decision process.

Petition 8 unconstitutionally authorizes an appointee to decline his/her appointment.

 

Lonnie Brooks on the TP

Petition 10           –unconstitutionally requires an annual conference to vote to affirm or refute provisions of the Discipline

–unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to GCFA

–unconstitutionally allows annual conferences to withdraw from the Church

–unconstitutionally authorizes GCFA to expel annual conferences

 

John Lomperis on the OCP

Petitions 3 and 14 Unconstitutionally violate the Restrictive Rule (RR) in ¶17 by establishing a new standard of doctrine.

Petitions 4, 10, 13, and 14 unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to annual conferences to establish ordination standards.

Petitions 4, 10, 13, and 14 unconstitutionally violate the RR in ¶9 and destroy the plan of superintendency.

Petitions 13 and 14 unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers principle by transferring corporate power to individual bishops.

Petitions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 unconstitutionally delegate authority to define marriage.

 

Keith Boyette on the OCP

OCP unconstitutionally undermines connectionalism by General Conference authority to annual conferences.

Unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to annual conferences.

Petitions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 unconstitutionally permit non-uniform standards of ordination.

Petitions 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 unconstitutionally permit implementation of a ritual not approved by General Conference.

 

Keith McIlwain on the OCP

Petitions 4 and 6-13 unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority.

 

Tom Lambrecht on the TP

The TP is constitutional in its entirety.

 

Lonnie Chafin for Uniting Methodists on the OCP

The OCP is constitutional in its entirety

 

Nathanael Fugate on the OCP

The OCP unconstitutionally delegates legislative functions

Petition 8 unconstitutionally authorizes an appointee to decline his/her appointment.

 

Paul Fleck on the TP

The TP is unconstitutionally vague

The TP unconstitutionally establishes minimum penalties in trial processes

The TP unconstitutionally calls for a respondent to commit not to repeat an alleged offense.

Petition 16 unconstitutionally violates RR in ¶20 by, in effect, denying right to trial.

 

Robert Zilhaver on the OCP

Unconstitutionally violates RR in ¶17 by establishing a new standard of doctrine.

Unconstitutionally distributes authority for determining UMC ritual to entities other than General Conference.

 

Ryan Kiblinger on the OCP

Unconstitutionally establishes a new standard of doctrine in violation of doctrine established in Wesley’s “The Explanatory Notes on the New Testament.”

 

Tom Starnes for a Group of UM Chancellors on the OCP and the TP

The OCP is constitutional

The TP is not in harmony with the call for a Special Session since it does not call for Church unity

The TP in not in harmony since is did not come from the CWF.

The TP unconstitutionally authorizes the General Conference legislative to intrude into doctrinal matters.

The TP unconstitutionally authorizes GCFA under the authority of GC to evict an annual conference from the Church which violates the right to trial of the laity of the evicted conferences.

 

Tim McClendon on the OCP

Petitions 4 and 6-13 all unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority

The whole thrust of the OCP is to destroy connectionalism.

 

Tom Berlin on the OCP

The OCP is constitutional in its entirety.

 

REPLY BRIEFS

 

Neil Alexander et al for Uniting Methodists on the OCP

The Articles of Religion specifically permit and encourage (XXII) regional and temporal variations.

The Constitution itself guards against an imperial General Conference that tramples on the rights of other Church entities.

 

Lonnie Brooks reply to Lomperis on the OCP

OCP does not prescribe that annual conferences establish ordination standards but recognizes that the Constitution grants such authority to annual conferences.

Episcopal itenerancy is not destroyed or even threatened.

There is no establishment of new doctrine.

 

John Lomperis in reply to various Opening Briefs on the TP and the OCP

TP is part of CWF report

TP is not vague

TP in no way denies a jury trial to anybody

TP does not deny a constitutional right to a just resolution process because there is no such right.

TP provision for withdrawal of an annual conference is constitutional as established by the precedents of Puerto Rico and Sweden and the vote in the Philippines.

OCP unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority

 

Keith Boyette on OCP

OCP delegates distinctively legislative matters to annual conferences.

The authority given to annual conferences in ¶33 on the clergy matters is purely administrative.

 

Ken Carter for the COB on the OCP

Nothing in the Constitution directly addresses the matter of the practice of homosexuality

 

Tom Lambrecht on the TP

The TP is in harmony and arguments to the contrary are attempts to re-litigate issues decided in JCD1360.

The TP is not out of harmony on the call for unity, since the description of the charge to the CWF included exploring new forms of unity.

The TP does not offer new doctrine but perpetuates exiting standards of doctrine.

The TP does not authorize any entity to evict an annual conference.

The TP’s granting of authority to GCFA to withhold funds is the grant of administrative, not legislative, authority.

The TP’s authorization of annual conference withdrawal is constitutional.

 

Patricia Miller on the Connectional Conferences Plan (CCP)

The CCP is constitutional in its entirety.

 

Paul Fleck on the TP

A repetition of the Fleck arguments in the Opening Brief

 

Tom Berlin on the OCP

The OCP does not delegate legislative authority.

The Annual Conference, as the basis body of the Church, is authorized in ¶33 of the Constitution to make decisions on character, conference relations, and ordination of clergy that go well beyond administration.

Filed Under: Additional Data

Primary Sidebar

Scripture

An Audacious Christmas

Author:  Rev. Bill McCartney We often describe God as AMAZING.  At Christmas we come face to face … [Read More...] about An Audacious Christmas

Footer

Mainstream UMC

c/o Grace United Methodist Church
11485 S. Ridgeview Road
Olathe, Kansas 66061
contact

Find Us on What’s  App

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2023 MainstreamUMC · All Rights Reserved

· · ·

Log in

Web Design by The Crouch Group