Jonathan LeMaster-Smith

Judicial Council Decision 1498 lets us know Bishops retirement age is not attached to elder retirement age. Bishop’s mandatory retirement age (At the time of the request and decision) was 68, elder retirement age is 72.

Bishop’s must follow a retirement age, if it set for them.

Thus, form the decision: A bishop in a central conference shall be retired at a date no later than one year following the adjournment of General Conference, if the bishop’s sixty-eighth birthday is reached on or before the opening day of his or her scheduled conference effective on January 1, 2016.

***NOTE: We later passed Calendar item 408 which moves the mandatory retirement age of bishops to 72, but this does not render the item moot, as elder retirement age and bishop retirement age could change.***

With the passing of calendar item 554, Deacons in The United Methodist Church are granted sacramental authority. The phrase: “the deacon is authorized to preside at the celebration of the sacraments” is what does it.

I know many deacons have longed for this day as they seek to more fully live into their vocation. It also provides a level of authority and respect to deacons, as many looked down up deacons as not equal to elders, and this is one of the reasons. It also reminds bishops who may not be friendly to the order of the deacon, that they are clergy and on equal footing with elders.

Not all deacons will have a need or desire to preside because of their ministry setting, but for those who feel it is necessary for their setting it is a relief.

With the passing of Calendar Item 535, we have completed our work on revising The Social Principles to be more reflective of our global denomination and more rooted in historical and biblical tradition.

This item includes the revision of the definition of marriage and human sexuality. We now have two different definitions of marriage to be interpreted in context. The new ¶161.D. reads: Within the church, we affirm marriage as a sacred lifelong covenant that brings two people of faith, an adult man and woman of consenting age or two adult persons of consenting age into union with one another…

This “double barreled” definition was brought forth by a non-US delegate to create a space for people with differing beliefs and different local and federal laws. Therefore, we now allow for different expressions of marriage for the diverse contexts in which we all live.

Again, no one is forcing a pastor to perform a marriage they do not want to perform, no one is forcing a church to hold a wedding it does not agree with, and no one is forcing you to agree with either definition (as this is not church law).

This feels right because because of our global nature, our willingness to be creative and connecting.

With the passing of Calendar Item 422, the *already expired* disaffiliation related ¶ 2553 has been removed from The Book of Discipline.

And, as far as I can tell, no petitions related to alternate disaffiliation process are viable.

Therefore, we no longer have a way for a local church to leave The United Methodist Church.

With the passing of the Consent Calendar (A05), we have deleted paragraph ¶ 304.3

This includes the phrase: “Homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and the ban on queer folks being candidates, licensed, commissioned, or ordained in ministry.

With the passing of Calendar Item 547 we have changed the formula and rationale for the number of bishops we elect in The United States (and elsewhere, but the US is the focus of the post).

It used to be that The Jurisdictions received bishops based on numbers and land area. We determined that this was no longer a helpful metric.
Therefore, we decided that each of the five jurisdictions would receive five bishops each. If a jurisdiction wants more bishops, they can request them, but the jurisdiction, not General Church, will have to pay for them.
This goes to my suggestion that we are fading out bishops, slowly.

But, one thing that we note here, is that we are giving a different reason for electing additional bishops. It is no longer based on population and land area, but on missional needs and priorities.

We will begin to elect bishops beyond the minimum because we have a missional and formational need in our regions. We get to use context to determine our needs, not “we need to fill a space.”

I am fine with several conferences sharing bishops. I am fine with merging conferences when it make sense. But, I am overjoyed with the idea that we can now add bishops based on our missional needs and hopes for the future of the church.

What is a minority report?

A minority report is when a committee votes one petition and there is a large enough portion of a minority to present a substitution to this.

In the first 2020 General Conference Minority Report, the financial Administration committee voted to amend a petition to increase the apportionments to annual conferences that would cover the cost of the General boards and Agencies.

A minority report came forward to substitute this amended petition with the original petition. This comes as a substitution, and we must first discuss whether we want to allow the minority report to become the main motion and delete the main petition (the amended amount). Minority reports allow people who disagree passionately with the main legislation to attempt to overturn it in the plenary.

In this case, the minority report prevailed, but we then have to do debate and vote on this.

With the passing of the Consent Calendar today (April 30th), several LGBTQIA+ petitions passed.

Petition 20191 – Paragraph 806.9, GCFA Responsibility, strikes the language banning UMC funds from going to LGTBQ causes and replaces it with making sure that UMC fund don’t go towards causes that reject LGTBQIA+. This provision takes effect immediately upon General Conference adjournment.

Petition 20176 – Paragraph 304.5, Qualifications for Ordination, strikes the language added by the Traditional Plan barring district committees on ordained ministry and conference boards of ordained ministry from recommending clergy candidates that don’t meet the requirements in Paragraph 304.1-3.

Petition 20304 – Paragraph 415.6 strikes language prohibiting bishops from consecrating “self-avowed and practicing homosexuals” and requiring annual conference boards of ordained to examine candidates regarding their sexuality.

Petition 20709 – Paragraph 425, Local Discernment of Clergy Candidates, adds an option for elders who are LGTBQ+ to be appointed across annual conferences lines, when they cannot be guaranteed a safe appointment in their home conferences.

Petition 20387 – Paragraph 2711.3, Next Generation UMC #22 – Penalties, strikes language requiring specific minimum punishments for performing same-gender weddings.

Petition 20363 – Paragraph 2701, Building a Fully Inclusive Church, adds “persons with disabilities, economic conditions” to the list of items that should receive special attention regarding judicial proceedings.

Petitions 20360 and 20368 – Paragraphs 2701 and 2702, Moratorium on Judicial Proceedings, sets up a moratorium on all judicial proceedings concerning human sexuality by adding a new subparagraph to 2701 and adding references to 2702. These provisions go into effect immediately upon adjournment.

The Report (Which my hero David Livingston requested) from the Credentialling Committee related to why so many African Delegates were not present.

My notes:

+Some Central Conference Annual Conferences did not provide correct contacts for conference secretaries (or had multiple names)

+Some Central Conference Annual Conferences elected incorrect numbers of delegates as assigned by the General Commission.

+Some Central Conference Annual Conferences had fake certificates of invitation to General Conference

+Some Central Conference Annual Conferences provide an incorrect number of categories as part of their delegate list with repeats of people on various lists.

+Some Central Conference Annual Conference Delegates did not secure visas

+Some Central Conference Annual Conference Delegates are dealing with personal crises.

+Some Central Conference Annual Conference Delegates are just not responding/have had no communication.

My opinion follows:

What I am understanding here is that the General Commission in the General Conference mostly did its due diligence, but due to some bad record keeping, confusion around numbers, and potential bad actors, things happened.

What is wild though is that this was a 5 year process, and the General Commission had a huge undertaking, but it feels like more could have been done to connect, correct, and update. Much of this General Conference feels so last minute and thrown together. That could include the Council of Bishops, the Standing Committee, the Connectional Table, or other groups. But, I don’t know all the ends and outs. I feel like there truly was a good faith effort, but in our efforts to be more global, we might be more diligent and supportive in the future.

Also, hopefully, any bad actors will be held accountable.

Judicial Council Decision 1497 – RE Youth Representation on General Commission on General Conference

From the Decision:
If there is no youth representation then the General Conference is required to identify, nominate, and elect one youth.

While ¶ 511.1.b) says nominees to the General Commission on General Conference must be seated delegates, it appears ¶ 511.1.a) supersedes this. It states: The voting members of the commission shall be elected quadrennially by the General Conference and shall consist of twenty-five members as follows: one person from each US jurisdiction, one person from each of the seven central conferences, one young adult, one youth.

And thus the Judicial Council notes: The Discipline requires youth representation on the Commission under ¶ 511.1a. The General Conference is required to find, nominate, and elect at least one youth to the Commission.

Therefore a youth nominee must be brought forward. (I hear they are working on it).