I'm not an expert on the judicial system - either in the UMC or in the secular courts. I found six areas in section 8 of the GMC's new Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD) that concern me. There could also be easy explanations. As I've said before, that's the why the series is called "Buyer Beware" instead of "Don't Buy!". Take a look and let me know if you see something I'm missing.
Judicial Process
1. Double Jeopardy: Paragraph 805.8 doesn't allow for double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is when a person is charged a second time for the same offense. My reading of our current Book of Discipline (BOD) is that we have a blanket protection from double jeopardy. The BDD changes that. It adds a condition. "This means, barring new compelling information or facts..." This seems to me to be significant to me for two reasons. First, it largely negates what double jeopardy is about. Second, without a definition of "compelling information or facts" virtually anything could be construed as worthy of a second charge.
2. A Non-Disciplinary Discipline: Beginning with paragraph 806.1 extensive mention is made of the Judicial Practices and Procedures (JPP). You can find the current draft of this document here. I have skimmed it, but not reviewed in full. It is referenced 27 times in the BDD. I appreciate that this is public. In the UMC today the bishops have guidelines they follow which are not easily and publicly available. However, the BDD gives great deference to the JPP. There appear to be several pieces of the judicial process that are governed only by this document. Further, and most significantly, the Transitional Leadership Council appears to have the right to approve and modify the JPP at any time. Unless the GMC's convening conference changes this authority, the TLC could change the rules governing trials at any time including between sessions of General Conference.
3. Chargeable Offenses: Paragraph 808.1 lists the chargeable offenses for clergy and laity. They are largely identical to our current lists, but with one notable difference. The clergy offenses include, "Engaging in sexual activities outside the bonds of a loving and monogamous marriage..." including same sex relationships, abuse, infidelity, pornography, etc. This is not an offense for the laity. It strikes me as odd that a denomination formed largely on the basis of one issue, human sexuality, would omit laity from any official responsibility for their behavior.
4. More Power for the Bishop: I could have listed this in my post on bishops' power, too. Paragraph 809.2 covers the possibility of a pastor being suspended pending an investigation. Currently, as a protection for the clergy, a pastor can be suspended from an appointment only at the request of the bishop and with the approval of the Board of Ordained Ministry's executive committee. I'm aware of at least one instance when a board refused to go along with the bishop. The bishop was not happy. So now that's resolved. The only check on the bishops' power is that the cabinet (who the bishop appointed) has to agree to the suspension.
5. Council of No Appeal: The Council of Appeals replaces our judicial council. Note that in paragraph 821.5, the Council has the right to not make records public. The language is phrased to suggest that all records should be public, but it says they are public unless the Council, "decides otherwise on a case by case basis..." There is no appeal of this decision. And I'm not talking about their deliberations. Those are always private. All the documents that they are relying on for a decision could be kept completely confidential and there is no equivalent to a Freedom of Information Act to override their decision.
6. The One I Like: Finally, paragraph 822. This paragraph delineates who has jurisdiction to file various claims with the Council. If you don't have jurisdiction, you can't submit a claim. 822.3 relates to a claim against the action of a regional (jurisdictional) or annual conference like, say, the election of an openly gay bishop. In the BDD, only the jurisdiction or conference itself (or the bishops of that region) can appeal a decision. In 2016 the Southcentral Jurisdiction appealed the decision of the Western Jurisdiction to elect Bishop Karen Oliveto. Although from a practical standpoint it didn't matter, the Judicial Council ruled in favor of the appeal. In the BDD that appeal, the one that set off a firestorm, would not have been allowed. Traditionalists often complain about the Western Jurisdiction. There will be less accountability for jurisdictions under the BDD than under the current BOD.
This last point leads to a reminder about the purpose of these posts. I will not be in the GMC. At the end of the day, as someone on social media complained to me, this book will have no impact on me. The purpose of this series is so that those who are considering joining the GMC can go in with their eyes wide open and so that those who definitely will be joining the GMC might consider some changes. If you find this approach helpful, you're welcome. If it's not helpful, you're under no obligation to read the last three parts. Next: Part 5 will be the shortest. Four points related to inclusiveness and representation. This is intentional. We all know the overall position of the GMC on LGBT+ rights. Even with that, there are a few things you should be aware of.
No comments:
Post a Comment