Seven portions of the legislation were declared, thankfully and expectedly, unconstitutional. We are spared a spiritual KGB and worldwide Magisterium.
However, several pieces were upheld, meaning they will be become church law as of January 1, 2020. With the "center of power and influence" shifting away from North America and Europe, these changes (to my limited way of thinking) are unlikely to be changed by the next regularly scheduled General Conference (May, 2020, in Minneapolis), though certain matters may again be referred to Judicial Council for further rulings.
Among the matters declared legal, the rulings supporting The Traditional Plan:
1. Expand The Book of Discipline's "chargeable offenses" against clergy (already a long list in Par. 304.3) to include "living in same-sex marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or public declaration of being gay." (Petition 90032)
2. Affirm an explicit ban on gay bishops, and the prohibition of other bishops consecrating a gay bishop, even if the bishop were elected by a Jurisdictional Conference. (Petition 90036)
3. Mandate that when charges are brought against clergy for matters related to #1 above, or for performing same-sex weddings, the charges cannot be dismissed unless they are unfactual, and strict enforcements are mandated (first offense: a year's suspension without pay; second offense: removal of ministerial credentials). Additionally, candidates for ministry must state their commitment to upholding all the provisions of the Discipline, and must agree that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot be certified as candidates for ministry, ordained or appointed. (Petitions 90042, 90043 and 90044). Presumably, if they cannot or will not so agree, the candidates, too, will not be certified, ordained or appointed.
4. Allows appeals to past trial verdicts if the verdict demonstrated "egregious errors of church law or administration.”
Thus, there has been a tightening of church laws and the policing of said laws. Among many other collaterals (and the loss of young clergy could be significant), this ruling will further distance the UMC, as it is as of January 1, from our historic UM schools, colleges and universities--and other of our institutions which are pledged to full-inclusion. The institutional turmoil is only beginning.
While this ruling was not unexpected, it is still disappointing. And, of course, all of it will be challenged again in 2020 by more moderating voices...even as other voices will advocate for yet more tightening of language and consequence. That to say, the next General Conference will in all likelihood see more of the same rancor we saw in St. Louis, more fighting and posturing and self-righteous pontification... unless...
One (or more) "side/s" or the other "disaffiliates." Another of the Judicial Council decisions relates to ways congregations can pull-out.
From the UM News article (the link is below):
In Decision 1379, the Judicial Council reviewed an amended version of Petition 90066, one of the petitions designed to provide “a gracious exit” for local churches that want to leave the denomination... such an exit must meet three minimum requirements:
- Approval of the disaffiliation resolution by a two-thirds majority of the professing members of the local church present and voting at the church conference.
- Establishment of the terms and conditions, including the effective date, of the agreement between the annual conference and the exiting local church by the conference board of trustees in accordance with applicable church law and civil laws.
- Ratification of the disaffiliation agreement by a simple majority of the members of the annual conference present and voting.
There is talk of a one-to-two division (the two being: support/non-support for same sex marriage and ordination). But there is also talk of a one-to-three division, with the awareness that many current UMs may not be comfortable on either "wing" of advocacy, and want a place in the middle where everyone is welcome, where love and embrace is crucial, but where Christians can find their raison d'etre in other matters related to Jesus and mission.
At Hawthorne Lane, we will soon need to meet to process what we have heard this week. Of course, we will have to be patient, too. Again, the discussions are just beginning. The terms are clearer now than they were previously. This series of rulings will cause more pain, of course, but at least we know the terms of the discussion.
We have lost a family in recent days that feels HLUMC is too open: they had planned to join, but have realized the UMC as a whole is too far to the "left" of their theological and social convictions (I told them that HLUMC is to the UMC, but they need to be where they need to be). Conversely, and ironically, I know of other families already in our church who are struggling with whether to stay because they feel our Church is too far to the "right," and our congregation playing it too safe: is not engaged enough in "resistance" to the decisions of General Conference. Pity the preachers who are trying to keep their people talking to and not just at/about each other!
And pity the many UMC congregations that have no idea AT ALL what is going on or what it is to come.
In any case, as Dumbledore said to Harry, "The time is coming when we may have to choose between what is right and what is easy." I am both thankful, and sorry, to have to lead us through these next months and years as we determine what is right for us when it comes to living-out "church" in the ways we believe Jesus calls us to at Hawthorne Lane.
For the UM News report... https://www.umnews.org/en/news/court-oks-part-of-traditional-plan-exit-plan
