Judicial Council Set to Rule on Issues of Inclusiveness

The UM News Service reported this week on the slate of issues to be discussed at the upcoming fall session of the Judicial Council. At the top of the list are a host of cases dealing with issues of inclusion, including two rulings on the eligibility of transgender pastors for ordination and appointment.

The ruling of Bishop Schol of the Baltimore Washington Annual Conference on the eligibility of transgender pastors has been sent to the Judicial Council. Bishop Schol's ruling is in fact a correct interpretation of the Book of Discipline. There is nothing in our denominational polity that prohibits transgender persons from ordained ministry. Of course, the Book of Discipline has never been an impediment to the current Judicial Council. They most notably strayed from the Discipline in 2005 when they affirmed the right of a local pastor to deny membership to a gay man even when it was clear that this ruling violated both Article IV of the Constitution and Paragraph 214 of the Discipline. That ruling, Decision 1032, set off a chain of protest across the denomination, including a unanimous pastoral letter sent from the Council of Bishops.

Our denomination has been clear since 1956 when women were granted full rights as ordained clergy that gender is not an impediment to ordination. As one parishioner so eloquently stated, it would be tragic for our Church to turn back the clock of social and ecclesial progress by fifty years to re-instate prohibitions based on gender identity.

In addition to the rulings on issues of transgender persons, the Judicial Council will also rule on a series of questions pertaining to the rights of gay and lesbian persons in the Church. It is interesting to note that the Judicial Council will take up two matters on which they have previously ruled.

The first "do-over" comes on the question of whether or not "status" as it appears in Article IV of the Constitution includes "heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and transgender status of single persons and persons who avow they are in committed, loving relationships." This was first ruled on in Decision 102o in which the Council affirmed that "status" in the Constition did indeed include heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and transgender status.

The second "do-over" comes on the question of whether or not conferences can extend domestic partnership benefits for lay conference employees. Again, this was previously decided in a case brought by the West Michigan Annual Conference (Decision 1030) in which the Judicial Council stated that each conference has the responsibility to make sure no church funds are being used to promote homosexuality as stated in Paragraph 612.19 of the Book of Disicpline. It is hard to imagine that providing just and equal benefits to employees for health care and pension could be construed as "promoting the acceptance of homosexuality." If, however, the Council reverses their previous decision or expands upon it to prohbit such benefits, we must as a denomination consider what it means for us as the Body of Christ to deny persons adequate health care based on their sexual orientation. Of course, any ruling to prohibit benefits to lay employees would also violate Paragraph 162H of the Book of Discipline which clearly affirms the civil rights of all persons regardless of sexual orientation.

The question in both of these cases will be whether the Judicial Council prudently follows precedent and the Constitution or whether they use these as opportunities to further scale back the inclusiveness provisions in our current church law. Given their track record on these issues and the current penchant to allow ideology to trump church law, we have good reason to be concerned.

The 2008 General Conference will no doubt continue the debate as the Church wrestles how it will incarnate the Body of Christ for the world. Will we choose inclusion, love and grace or will we be bullied by fear and misunderstanding choosing instead exclusion, judgment and discrimination?