Committee ruling may raise doctrinal standards issues
May 3, 2005
A UMNS Report
By Linda Green*
The recent decision by an appeals committee to reinstate the clergy
credentials of a lesbian pastor does not affect the denomination’s
proscriptions against the practice of homosexuality, church officials
say.
But it may raise questions about the establishment of United Methodist Church doctrine.
The executive committee of the United Methodist Council of Bishops said the ruling does not change church law.
"The decision of the Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals does not in any way reverse the standards in our Book of Discipline. In fact, the appeal process is an important part of our Book of Discipline," the committee said in a May 1 statement.
Irene Elizabeth "Beth" Stroud had appealed a Dec. 2 church trial
court’s decision finding her guilty of violating church law by being a
practicing lesbian and revoked her clergy credentials. A committee on
appeals from the denomination’s Northeastern Jurisdiction reversed part
of the decision on April 29.
The appeals court upheld part of the trial court’s finding but
overturned the verdict in an 8-1 vote, citing legal errors. The Eastern
Pennsylvania Annual (regional) Conference, which conducted Stroud’s
trial, has 30 days to appeal the committee’s decision to Judicial
Council, the denomination’s top court.
While the appeals committee reversed the trial court’s verdict and
penalty, its written ruling said, "The evidence in support of the charge
was overwhelming and would be sustained in the absence of legal error."
The committee noted two legal errors. It first cited a ruling by
Judicial Council regarding the rights of ordained elders—"members in
full connection"—to an appointment or ministry in the church.
Second, the committee wrote that "legal error was committed by trying
and convicting (Stroud) on the basis of Paragraph 304.3 because that
provision constitutes a ‘new standard or rule of doctrine’ which has not
been declared by the General Conference to be ‘not contrary’ to the
present standards, in violation of the First Restrictive Rule and
Paragraph 102 of the Discipline."
The First Restrictive Rule, found in the church’s constitution,
states that the General Conference shall not establish any new standards
or rules of doctrine contrary to the church’s existing standards of
doctrine.
|
James Allen
|
According to retired Bishop Jack Tuell, a former practicing attorney,
the decision of the appeal’s committee as based on provisions set forth
in the Book of
Discipline, "are final, subject to appeal." He
said that church law "still stands," although the Judicial Council would
have to make a decision on the First Restrictive Rule and the
Discipline if an appeal is filed.
"The appellate court has found that there was an error made of law in
the trial court when the presiding officer ruled out of order any
bringing in of constitutional matters," Tuell explained. "On that basis,
this jurisdictional committee on appeals has determined that the
legislation under which she (Stroud) is being tried is unconstitutional,
because it violates the constitution."
When asked if the committee’s finding nullifies the denomination’s
prohibition against "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" participating
in ordained ministry, Tuell said, "while the Discipline says the
decision of the committee is final, subject to appeal of the Judicial
Council, it is not clear whether this decision in the interim, before a
hearing by the Judicial Council, changes the whole law of the church or
rather simply applies to this case."
The committee’s decision was based on church law, not facts of the case, he added.
James Allen, the church’s general counsel, said the appeals committee
concluded that the presiding officer of the Eastern Pennsylvania trial
had the power and authority to rule on questions of church law,
including constitutional challenges, and that it "was error to preclude
appellant from presenting legal argument on those points."
Comparing the church’s legal process to that of a civil court, Allen
said in a civil process, such a ruling would ordinarily have resulted in
a "remand" of the matter back to the trial court, with instructions to
the judge to rule on those matters. In this case, rather than
remand the matter for a new trial, the appellate court simply "reversed" and set aside the verdict.
"I think that is problematic, and the question of remand to the trial
court will have to be considered by the Judicial Council should an
appeal be made, in addition to the appeal of the reversal," he said. "I
think there are grounds for the Judicial Council to also remand, in
addition to the possibilities that it might either reverse or affirm the
jurisdictional court of appeals."
Allen says the appeal committee’s decision "is binding only on the
verdict out of the trial on appeal." The decision by the committee "has
no effect whatsoever on general church law, except as it has been
applied to the specific facts and questions presented by the trial of
Rev. Stroud," he said.
Bishop Marcus Matthews, who leads the Eastern Pennsylvania
Conference, said the conference would consider whether to appeal the
committee’s decision.
"We will now take time to thoroughly and thoughtfully digest the
Committee on Appeals decision and will take into consideration United
Methodist Church law and Judicial Council rulings as we consider our
options and make a decision on how to proceed," he wrote in an April 29
statement.
If the conference appeals to the Judicial Council, the council will
either affirm or reverse the decision by the Court of Appeals as
outlined in paragraph 2609.8 and paragraph 2715.1 of the
Book of Discipline, Allen said. "Only a decision by the Judicial Council can affect church law," he said.
The Rev. William "Scott" Campbell, chairman of the Northeastern
Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals, said committee members would not
comment on their verdict or their process of deliberation as long as the
possibility of an appeal of their decision remains.
According to the Rev. Larry Pickens, top executive of the
denomination’s ecumenical agency, "the issues raised by the appeals
committee will probably be challenged in the Judicial Council. There may
be some question as to whether the appeals court went beyond its
mandate or its charge."
Pickens, a former member of the Judicial Council, now leads the
churchwide Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns. He
said the decision by the appeals committee will call for serious
reflection but he expressed gratitude for the "important tone" set by
the Council of Bishops in their urging United Methodists to allow the
deliberative process of the church to work.
Acknowledging polarizing and negative reaction about the decision
from across the church, Pickens "hopes the decision will not set the
context for the way in which we approach the 2008 General Conference,
particularly as we deal with intra-Methodist relations in our church."
The ecumenical agency has conducted dialogues and studies on
homosexuality. Pickens said the agency continues working "to find ways
to dialogue or structure our church in ways that it would be inclusive
of the various points of views with respect to homosexuality."
It is the commission’s goal to develop avenues where those
conversations will continue to happen, he said. "As we look at our
church, we don’t see our church as being one that is only suitable to a
particular point of view, but we see it inclusive to many points of
views with respect to homosexuality." He said the objective of the
commission is to find ways "we can live together."
*Green is a United Methodist News Service news writer based in Nashville, Tenn.
News media contact: Linda Green, (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.