Hand-carved UMC bishop's crozier |
2. The resident bishop picks the presiding officer. (BOD
¶2713.2) The presiding officer must be a
bishop but does not need to be a white, male, retired bishop from one of the
more conservative jurisdictions of the denomination. He or she does not even
need to be a retired bishop and could be a younger bishop more attuned to a
younger demographic. The presiding officer makes a lot of crucial decisions
about who will be and will not be allowed to testify and what topics can be
discussed during the trial. The presiding bishop determines the questions to
ask to remove people from the jury. Because the resident bishop selects the
presiding officer, he or she should be held responsible for the decisions the
presiding officer makes.
3. The resident
bishop selects the district superintendents who select the jury pool. (BOD
¶2713.3.a) The bishop can ask the cabinet to select people who are mainstream
and thoughtful. Clergy who are rigid or fundamentalist do not need to be
included in the pool.
4. Even before the trial, at the conclusion of the
supervisory response, the resident bishop determines, with the consent of the
cabinet, whether or not to dismiss the complaint. (BOD ¶363.1.e) At the very
least, any complaint based on a personal grudge or vendetta should be
dismissed. The same expectations the United Methodist Church has of civil
authority should apply, at a minimum, to church authority: "We reject all
misuse of these mechanisms, including their use for the purpose of revenge or
for persecution or intimidating those whose race, appearance, lifestyle,
economic condition, or beliefs differs from those in authority." (BOD
¶164.H) In fact, the Book of Discipline does not specify the reasons needed for
the bishop to dismiss the complaint. [BOD ¶363.1.e(1)] The only requirement is
that the bishop have the consent of the cabinet and give the reasons for her or
his decision in writing. The complainant having no personal involvement in the
activity being complained about or not personally being harmed by it may be
adequate reason to dismiss a complaint.
5. Even before the trial, the resident bishop has the option
of including "persons with qualifications and experience in assessment,
intervention, or healing" in the supervisory response process in order to
avoid a trial. (BOD ¶363.1.b) The bishop has the unilateral authority to choose
who these persons will be. Nothing in the Book
of Discipline prevents the bishop from informing a complainant that her or
his requirements to reach a just resolution are unreasonable. If a complainant
refuses to sign "a written statement of resolution"(BOD ¶363.1.c),
nothing prevents the bishop from dismissing the complaint with the consent of
the cabinet. (BOD ¶363.1.e)
6. Even before a complaint is filed, the resident bishop can
shape the continuing education of clergy in the conference. (BOD ¶414 3,5) The
bishop can promote education and learning about restorative rather than
retributive justice as advocated in the Book
of Disciple. (BOD ¶164.H) According to ¶164.H, "Through God's
transforming power, restorative justice seeks to repair the damage, right the
wrong, and bring healing to all involved, including the victim, the offender,
the families, and the community." The bishop can make sure that her or his
conference is educated about the principles of restorative justice long before
a complaint is filed or a trial is held.
7. Bishops can help advocate for and work for changes in the
Book of Discipline so that pastors
are not tried for being in full ministry with LGBTQ persons. In fact, this
would seem to be part of the mandate given bishops by the Book of Discipline to "interpret the faith evangelically and
prophetically" (BOD ¶414.3) and to
lead through "a prophetic commitment to the transformation of the Church
and the world. (BOD ¶403.1.d)
8. Finally, bishops can stop saying there is nothing bishops
can do.
God bless you Rev. Snyder! Thank you for your prophetic witness.
ReplyDeleteAmen. About 25 years ago, a UM pastor of my acquaintance (and yours) was moved out of his church after one (1) year of ministry because one (1) parishioner voiced a complaint to his DS. (It seemed he wore clerical collars more often than the parishioner would have liked.) At that time, I remarked that we now lived in a world where a UM pastor had to figure out how to minister in an environment where a single disgruntled parishioner can, in effect, discharge a pastor from his or her appointment at will.
ReplyDeleteNow we have learned that UM pastors have to minister in an environment where a single disgruntled parishioner can cause a UM pastor to lose his or her orders. One wonders how any rational person can think this is a good way to run a denomination. One wonders how much loyalty one can ask of a UM clergyperson when so little loyalty is given in return.
What is this scary thing that bishops are afraid will happen to them if they take a controversial stand? What is the worst thing that can happen to a bishop? And when was the last time anyone ever actually sanctioned a UM bishop for making a controversial or unpopular decision? About anything?
Thank you for this article. Time for our leaders to stand up to the prejudice and spiritual bullying.
ReplyDeletespiritual bullying?
DeleteThank you Dean. Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteFinally, someone, you Dean, who can let us know what the Bishops can do, not hedging and supporting that they have no power. Thanks so much.
ReplyDeleteClever. Creative. Bitting at times. Hopefully read.
ReplyDeleteThank you Dean!
ReplyDelete