| United Methodist News Service Weekly Digest for Friday, 31 October 2014 NOTE: This is a digest of news features provided by United Methodist Communications for Oct. 27-31. It includes summaries of United Methodist News Service stories and additional briefs from around the United Methodist connection. Full versions of the stories with photographs and related features can be found at umc.org/news.Top Stories Top court affirms Schaefer's reinstatement as clergy MEMPHIS, Tenn. (UMNS) — The Rev. Frank Schaefer will remain a clergyman in The United Methodist Church, the denomination's top court has ruled. The Judicial Council decision affirmed a June decision by a regional appeals committee to reinstate Schaefer's ministerial credentials, modifying the penalty imposed upon the Pennsylvania pastor after he was found guilty last November of violating church law by performing a same-sex wedding for his son in 2007. In its decision, the Judicial Council also recognized the fact that "some within the church do not support this outcome today." Linda Bloom reports. Top court affirms Schaefer’s reinstatement as clergy
The Rev. Frank Schaefer will remain a clergyman in The United Methodist Church.
In a ruling made public Oct. 27, the denomination’s top court upheld a June decision by a regional appeals committee to reinstate Schaefer’s ministerial credentials, modifying the penalty imposed upon the Pennsylvania pastor after he was found guilty last November of violating church law by performing a same-sex wedding for his son in 2007.
“The Judicial Council upon careful review of the decision of the Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals in the matter of the Rev. Frank Schaefer and the questions of law presented by the counsel for the church finds there are no errors in the application of the church law and judicial decisions,” said Decision 1270. “The penalty as modified by the Committee on Appeals stands.”
In its decision, Judicial Council also recognized the fact that “some within the church do not support this outcome today.”
The ruling came during the Judicial Council’s Oct. 22-25 fall meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, and followed an oral hearing on the case. The Rev. Christopher Fisher, who served as counsel for the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference during Schaefer’s trial, appealed the decision of the committee on appeals to Judicial Council.
Penalty imposed by trial court
Fisher raised a question before the council on whether Schaefer lost the right to appeal his case by disobeying the penalty imposed on him.
During the Nov. 19, 2013, penalty phase of the trial, the full penalty imposed was an immediate 30-day suspension, followed by a written report to and interview with the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference Board of Ordained Ministry “regarding his call and his willingness to uphold the Book of Discipline in its entirety.” Not being able to do so would evoke a call to surrender his credentials to the annual conference.
Schaefer’s written report concluded with his commitment “to working together with my clergy colleagues, providing a ministry to all people under my care, continuing to advocate for our LGBT community within the UM Church while using proper channels toward changing the discriminatory language and provisions in our Book of Discipline.”
When asked, Schaefer told the board of ordained ministry he could not uphold the Discipline in its entirety and would not voluntarily surrender his credentials. The board’s chair then said Schaefer’s ministerial credentials would be taken from him.
The trial court did not describe a voluntary surrender of credentials as a requirement, the Judicial Council found, nor is there any record that Schaefer “engaged in any sort of flagrant disobedience to the trial court penalty.”
‘Mixing and matching’ penalties
The Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals used two previous Judicial Council decisions — Decision 240 and Decision 725 — as a basis for its June 24 decision that the trial court’s “compound penalty” improperly involved the “mixing and matching of penalties that are designed to be distinct.” One of those was a penalty based on a future possibility rather than a past or present act.
In general, a trial court “may stipulate conditions” for ending a suspension as part of the penalty of suspension, Judicial Council said.
In this case, however, the council said “the trial court combined aspects of two discrete and distinct alternatives, suspending the Rev. Schaefer for 30 days and then crafting a subsequent proceeding, in which another body, namely the Board of Ordained Ministry, was given the power to change the suspension to termination by the surrendering of his credentials, depending on what assurances the Rev. Schaefer was able to provide regarding his future conduct.”
That action violated church law and was “the primary basis for changing the penalty of the trial court,” the council said. The Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals is granted the authority to do so by the Discipline if the penalty “is not higher than that affixed at the hearing or trial.”
The decision acknowledges the tensions within The United Methodist Church on issues related to homosexuality.
The ruling notes that some may see the appellate committee’s decision as “a flagrant disregard for parts of the Discipline” and some “may have wished the trial court’s penalty had been differently constructed so as to meet the requirements of the Discipline and impose a harsher penalty.”
However, the Judicial Council pointed out, its task is to “review the process and decisions of the trial court and the appellate process in order to determine if any parts of the Book of Discipline were violated or were interpreted in error.”
The Rev. Kabamba Kiboko, a council member, was not at the Memphis meeting. The Rev. Timothy K. Bruster, first clergy alternate, took part in the decision.
Bloom is a United Methodist News Service multimedia reporter based in New York. Follow her athttp://twitter.com/umcscribe or contact her at (646) 369-3759 or newsdesk@umcom.org
Judicial Council Decision 1270 Re: Frank Schaefer
SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING
DECISION 1270
IN RE: Appeal by the Counsel for the Church of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference of the Decision of the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals in the Matter of Frank Schaefer
DIGEST
The Judicial Council upon careful review of the Decision of the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals in the matter of
The Rev. Frank Schaefer and the questions of law presented by the Counsel for the Church finds there are no errors in the application of the church law and judicial decisions. The penalty as modified by the Committee on Appeals stands.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Following the decision of the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals on June 24, 2014, to modify the penalty imposed by the Trial Court on The Rev. Frank Schaefer for performing the legal marriage of his son to another man in 2007, the Counsel for the Church of Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference properly filed notification of appeal to the Judicial Council on July 17, 2014.
The Rev. Frank Schaefer became an ordained deacon in The United Methodist Church in 1996 and was ordained an elder in 1998. A member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference, The Rev. Schaefer was appointed to Zion of Iona United Methodist Church in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, in 2002, where he served until November 19, 2013, the date the Trial Court determined the penalty to impose on The Rev. Schaefer for violating the Discipline. At that time he was suspended from his ministerial duties.
On April 28, 2007, The Rev. Schaefer officiated at the wedding. The wedding was a small, private affair held in a restaurant in Massachusetts, a jurisdiction where same sex marriage was legal.
On April 2, 2013, a complaint was filed against Rev. Schaefer charging him with violating ¶¶ 2702.1(b) and 2702.1(d) of the 2012 Book of Discipline (2004 Book of Discipline) by performing a same-sex marriage ceremony. After the parties were unable to reach an agreed-upon just resolution of the charges, the Resident Bishop of the Philadelphia Area appointed the Rev. Dr. Christopher Fisher as Counsel for the Church and referred the matter to him for investigation and, if warranted, to prepare a judicial complaint.
Dr. Fisher presented a formal judicial complaint to Presiding Officer Bishop Warner Brown, Jr., on July 1, 2013. After Bishop Brown recused himself from the case, Bishop Johnson appointed Bishop Alfred W. Gwinn, Jr., as the Presiding Officer. Dr. Fisher presented the Judicial Complaint to Bishop Gwinn on July 15, 2013. Another attempt at just resolution between the parties failed. The Presiding Officer set a trial date of November 18-19, 2013.
The trial began on November 18, 2013, whereupon a Trial Court was selected and testimony was heard. The Presiding Officer limited testimony in this phase of the trial to witnesses whose testimony was deemed to show that the facts in the specifications underlying each charge were “more or less likely” to be true. The Trial Court found The Rev. Schaefer guilty of both charges: 2702.1(b) conducting a same sex marriage and 2702.1 (d) disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church.
The penalty phase of the trial began on November 19, 2013. This phase of the trial involved a number of lay and expert witnesses for both parties. After hearing this testimony and arguments from counsel, the Trial Court announced the following penalty, inscribed on a pre-printed form supplied by the Presiding Officer:
Suspend Rev. Frank Schaefer from all ministerial duties effective immediately for 30 days. If there are any violations of the Discipline during the 30 days, his credentials will be surrendered to the annual conference.
During these 30 days, Rev. Schaefer must take the opportunity to discern his newly discovered calling for the LGBT community. If at the end of the 30 days Rev. Schaefer has determined he cannot uphold the Discipline in its entirely, he must surrender his credentials.
After reviewing the Trial Court’s initial formulation of the penalty, the Presiding Officer returned the form to the Trial Court with instructions to clarify how the second stage of the penalty – the steps that were to be taken in the 30 days following the trial – was to be implemented. In response, the Trial Court added the following provision to the penalty:
The District Superintendent of record shall monitor the progress. Rev. Frank Schaefer will provide a written report to and interview with the Board of Ordained Ministry within 30 days regarding his call and his willingness to uphold the Book of Discipline in its entirety.
On December 19, 2013, The Rev. Schaefer met with the Board of Ordained Ministry and provided the written report requested by the Trial Court. In response to the specific questions posed by the Trial Court, The Rev. Schaefer’s report stated:
I have been directed to report to you on whether I can uphold the Book of Discipline in its entirety. My honest answer has to be: No, I cannot.
In fact, I don’t believe anybody can. It’s impossible to uphold the Discipline in its entirety because it is filled with competing and contradictory statements. It reflects the diversity of convictions we hold as United Methodists. In the words of Prof. Thomas Frank: “The UMC is a big tent!” And that’s reflected in the Discipline.
With regard to surrendering his credentials, The Rev. Schaefer’s December 19, 2013, written report to the Board stated, “I also cannot in good conscience surrender my credentials voluntarily….” Indicating that he had “received hundreds of petitions from LGBT members, colleagues, and even bishops, not to surrender my credentials,” The Rev. Schaefer’s written report stated, “By surrendering my credentials, I feel as though I would abandon those under my spiritual care and especially those I feel called to advocate for.”
The Rev. Schaefer’s written report concluded with the statement, “I look forward to continuing as a clergy person in the United Methodist Church, committed to working together with my clergy colleagues, providing a ministry to all people under my care, continuing to advocate for our LGBT community within the UM Church while using proper channels toward changing the discriminatory language and provisions in our Book of Discipline.”
After The Rev. Schaefer read the entire written statement to the Board, the Chair asked whether he agreed to uphold the Discipline in its entirety, to which he responded “I cannot, unfortunately.” The Chair then asked The Rev. Schaefer to surrender his credentials. The December 19, 2013, Board of Ordained Ministry minutes reflect that The Rev. Schaefer replied that he would not voluntarily surrender his credentials. The Board’s Chair then replied that The Rev. Schaefer’s credentials “will be taken from him and he will no longer be deemed as clergy in The United Methodist Church.”
The Rev. Schaefer filed his Notice of Appeal of the penalty with the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court in a timely manner. This Notice was forwarded to the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals on January 22, 2014. The Committee on Appeals met on February 20, 2014, at which time the Committee set the date and time for the hearing and so notified the parties (Discipline, ¶ 2716.3). Both parties filed timely briefs, and on June 20, 2014, the Committee heard arguments from the parties.
The Questions asked on Appeal were as follows:
1. Whether the penalty imposed was illegal because Church law prohibits trial courts from conditioning reinstatement of a suspended elder on his proof of good conduct.
2. Whether the penalty imposed was illegal because Church law prohibits trial courts from imposing a penalty based on what a pastor may intend to do in the future.
3. Whether the penalty is illegal because, even if it were legal to make a penalty dependent in some respect on what a pastor intends to do in the future, this penalty was framed in language that was impossibly vague, overly broad, and disconnected from the offense for which the Appellant was convicted.
The Committee on Appeals is only authorized to answer two questions: a) Does the weight of the evidence sustain the charge or charges? (b) Were there such errors of Church law as to vitiate the verdict and/or the penalty? (Discipline, ¶ 2715.7) As The Rev. Schaefer did not appeal the Trial Court’s verdict, the only decision the Committee was authorized to review was whether there were “such errors of Church law as to vitiate . . . the penalty” the Trial Court imposed on The Rev. Schaefer (¶ 2715.7). The Committee’s resolution of that question was to be based on “the records of the trial and the argument of counsel.”
The Committee made the decision to include the above cited material from the Board of Ordained Ministry meeting on December 19, 2013 as part of the “records of the trial” based on the disciplinary statement that the “trial court shall be a continuing body until the final disposition of the charge.”Discipline ¶ 2711.1 By extending the penalty phase to December 19, 2013, the Trial Court instructed the Board of Ordained Ministry to complete its role on that date.
The stated decision of the Committee on Appeals was to modify the penalty of the Trial Court. The Committee based its conclusion that the penalty fashioned by the trial court was illegal based on the clear directives for a distinct penalty provided by ¶ 2711.3 of the Disipline regarding penalties following a conviction in a trial and on prior Judicial Council decisions.
See Decisions 204 and 725. The Committee on Appeals set aside the penalty imposed by the Trial Court and exercised its power under ¶ 2715.8 of the Discipline to “determine what penalty, not higher than that affixed at the hearing or trial may be imposed.” The decision of the Committee on Appeals, dated June 24, 2014, stated:
The compound penalty the Trial Court fashioned for purposes of this judicial proceeding – a 30-day suspension, to be followed by a mandatory surrender of credentials if the Respondent failed to satisfy the Board of Ordained Ministry that he would henceforth uphold the Book of Discipline “in its entirety” – is not within the range of penalties authorized by ¶ 2711.3 of the Discipline. Trial Courts have ample latitude to select an appropriate penalty from among the alternatives listed in ¶ 2711.3, but those penalty provisions are to be strictly construed and do not allow the mixing and matching of penalties that are designed to be distinct. Judicial Council Decision No. 240. Nor may the imposition of any penalty, let alone the enhanced penalty of a withdrawal of credentials, be predicated on “a future possibility, which may or may not occur, rather than a past or present act.” Decision No. 725.
Consequently, errors of Church law vitiate the penalty imposed by the Trial Court and the penalty imposed on Respondent shall be modified as follows: The Respondent is suspended, without compensation, from the exercise of all duties and functions of a pastor, and from the enjoyment of all privileges of a member in full connection of the Annual Conference, for a period of 30 days, which suspension shall be deemed to have commenced on November 19, 2013 and ended December 18, 2013. Pursuant to ¶ 2711.3 of the Discipline, the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference shall restore Respondent’s credentials and compensate Respondent for all lost salary and benefits dating from December 19, 2013.
On July 17, 2014, the Secretary of the Judicial Council received a Notice of Appeal from the Counsel for the Church of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of The United Methodist Church appealing the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals Decision of June 24, 2014.
The grounds for appeal centered on five issues as presented by Counsel for the Church:
1. The Respondent voided his right to appeal, pursuant to ¶ 2715.3 of the 2012 Book of Discipline.
2. The Appeal Decision misapplied and is at variance with the Discipline and Judicial Council Decisions related to the penalty.
3. The Appeal Decision is at variance with the North Central Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals’ Decision in the case of Rev. Gregory Dell on September 17, 1999.
4. The Committee on Appeals wrongly crafted its own penalty rather than remanding it back to the trial court to determine the penalty.
5. It was error for the Committee on Appeals to accept an amicus brief which was based on issues not raised on appeal.
The Counsel for the Church, Eastern Pennsylvania Conference, submitted a Brief in Chief in a timely fashion. The specific questions of law asked and argued by the Counsel for the Church are as follows:
Question 1: Based on the Respondent-Appellant’s actions that disobeyed the directions of the Trial Court, did he void the right to appeal by misconduct, namely by disobeying the penalty, pursuant to the provisions of ¶ 2715.3?
Question 2: Does the 2012 Book of Discipline and relevant Judicial Council and Appellate Court Decisions forbid the imposition of a conditional penalty of termination of orders upon a clergy person following a time for discernment of ministry? The Trial Court imposed a penalty requiring Rev. Schaefer to re-affirm his willingness to uphold the Discipline after 30-days of discernment. The penalty did not ask if he intended to commit violations in the future.
Did the Appellate Court Decision rule in error that the Trial Court's penalty was based on the possibility of a future action?
Question 3: Can a Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals substitute its own penalty for the penalty created by a duly constituted Trial Court that was present to see and hear the respondent’s testimony and the Presiding Officer’s rulings, thus usurping the disciplinary role of the Trial Court by overreaching its powers?
Question 4: Was it error for the NEJ Committee on Appeals to accept an amicus brief which was based on issues not raised on appeal?
Question 5: Can a jurisdictional Committee on Appeals undo in its revised penalty the vote of Annual Conference in its official Clergy Session which affirms a clergy member’s conference membership has been terminated?
A brief was submitted by the Respondent, The Rev. Frank Schaefer, as was a second brief in reply to the original brief submitted by the Counsel for the Church. The Counsel for the Church also submitted a Church Reply Brief to those two briefs submitted by The Rev. Schaefer and to twoamicus curiae briefs. A further amicus curiae rebuttal to the Brief in Chief was received.
An oral hearing was held on October 22, 2014. The Rev. Dr. Christopher L. Fisher spoke on behalf of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference and The Rev. Scott Campbell represented The Rev. Frank Schaefer.
JURISDICTION
The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under ¶¶ 51 and 56.3 of the Constitution and ¶ 2609 of the 2012 Discipline as modified by Decision 1244.
ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE
Under ¶ 2609.8 of the 2012 Discipline, this matter is properly before the Judicial Council, since the law of the Church provides that the Judicial Council has
…power to review an opinion or decision of a committee on appeals of a jurisdictional or central conference if it should appear that such opinion or decision is at variance with the Book of Discipline, a prior decision of the Judicial Council, or an opinion or decision of a committee on appeals of another jurisdictional or central conference on a question of church law.
Several of those elements are present in this case. Some details in the procedures used by the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals differ from those used by another jurisdictional committee. Although ¶ 2609.8(a) grants permission for any party the right to appeal, and thus appears to give an annual conference the right to appeal an action of the jurisdictional committee on appeals, it appears to be in conflict with Decision 595, which says “The Church does not have the right to initiate an appeal.” It is, therefore, within the power of the Judicial Council to review the action of the Committee on Appeals in this instant case.
The Judicial Council will review each of the questions of law raised by the Counsel for the Church. The authority to examine these questions of law also rests in ¶¶ 2715.9 and 2716.1. Only questions of law pertaining to the penalty phase are under consideration. The Judicial Council reviewed the transcripts of the trial, penalty phase, and the meeting of the Board of Ordained Ministry of The Rev. Frank Schaefer on November 18 – 19, 2013, and December 19, 2013, and the transcript of the appeal hearing of the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals, June 20, 2014, and the decision issued by that body on June 24, 2014. The Judicial Council abides by the admonition in ¶ 2715.6: “The records and documents of the trial, including the evidence, and these only, shall be used in the hearing of any appeal.” The Judicial Council agrees with the Committee on Appeals’ arguments that the minutes of the hearing before the Board of Ordained Ministry must be included in the record of the Trial Court. The prolonged penalty phase falls under ¶ 2711.1 in that the “trial court shall be a continuing body until final disposition of the charge”.
Question 1: Based on the Respondent-Appellant’s actions that disobeyed the directions of the Trial Court, did he void the right to appeal by misconduct, namely by disobeying the penalty, pursuant to the provisions of ¶ 2715.3?
The Counsel for the Church argues that The Rev. Schaefer engaged in misconduct by stating he could not uphold the Discipline in its entirety and by not “voluntarily” surrendering his credentials on December 19, 2013, after the 30-day discernment period prescribed by the Trial Court. Counsel stated The Rev. Frank Schaefer disobeyed the findings of the Trial Court thus nullifying his right to appeal under ¶ 2715.3. Paragraph 2715.3 states in part:
Appeals shall be heard by the proper appellate body unless it shall appear to the said body that the appellant has forfeited the right to appeal by misconduct, such as refusal to abide by the findings of the trial court.
A careful reading of the penalty imposed by the Trial Court requires that The Rev. Schaefer surrender his credentials only if he cannot uphold the Discipline in its entirety.
Suspend Rev. Frank Schaefer from all ministerial duties effective immediately for 30 days. If there are any violations of the Discipline during the 30 days, his credentials will be surrendered to the annual conference.
During these 30 days, Rev. Schaefer must take the opportunity to discern his newly discovered calling for the LGBT community. If at the end of the 30 days Rev. Schaefer has determined he cannot uphold the Discipline in its entirety, he must surrender his credentials.
The District Superintendent of record shall monitor the progress. Rev. Frank Schaefer will provide a written report to and interview with the Board of Ordained Ministry within 30 days regarding his call and his willingness to uphold the Book of Discipline in its entirety.
The Rev. Schaefer’s answer to the process of discernment is not misconduct or disobedience to the penalty. The use of the word “voluntary” does not appear as a requirement in the decision of the Trial Court. The respondent stated (emphasis added) in his required report to the Board of Ordained Ministry that he would not “voluntarily” surrender his credentials, but there is no place in the record that indicated that he did or did not surrender his credentials. They were taken from him; his withdrawal from the ordained ministry was not a voluntary withdrawal. Nor is there anywhere in the trial or appeal record that indicated that he engaged in any sort of flagrant disobedience to the trial court penalty.
There is no evidence to support the claim of misconduct by The Rev. Frank Schaefer by disobeying the penalty of the Trial Court.
Question 2: Does the 2012 Book of Discipline and relevant Judicial Council and Appellate Court Decisions forbid the imposition of a conditional penalty of termination of orders upon a clergy person following a time for discernment of ministry? The Trial Court imposed a penalty requiring Rev. Schaefer to re-affirm his willingness to uphold the Discipline after 30-days of discernment. The penalty did not ask if he intended to commit violations in the future.
Did the Appellate Court Decision rule in error that the Trial Court's penalty was based on the possibility of a future action?
The Counsel for the Church presented five distinct arguments to support his position on this question of law. The Judicial Council reviewed the Decision of Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals and the arguments presented in the Brief in Chief and the Reply Brief submitted by the Counsel for the Church and the Brief and Reply Brief of Counsel for The Rev. Frank Schaefer.
The Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals Decision stated that it found the penalty fashioned by the Trial Court to be unlawful based on the specific directives provided to the Trial Court by the Discipline in ¶ 2711.3.
Penalties — If the Trial Results in Conviction. Further testimony may be heard and arguments by counsel presented regarding what the penalty should be. The trial court shall determine the penalty, which shall require a vote of at least seven members. The trial court shall have the power to remove the respondent from professing membership, terminate the conference membership, and revoke the credentials of conference membership, commissioning, ordination, or consecration of the respondent, suspend the respondent from the exercise of the functions of office, or to fix a lesser penalty. The penalty fixed by the trial court shall take effect immediately unless otherwise indicated by the trial court. Should any penalty fixed by a trial court be altered or reduced as a result of the appellate process, the respondent shall be restored and/or compensated as appropriate.
Specifically, the Committee noted that Decision 240 stated that the delineations of penalties in ¶ 2711.3 must be “strictly construed”. Citing Decision 1201, the Committee found that although the Trial Court “has the authority to set a penalty… it must do so within the range of options specified by the Discipline (Emphasis added by the Committee.) (¶ 2711.3).” They noted that Decision 240 emphasized the discrete nature of the penalties – with each of the “alternative penalties” having a “different severity.” Decision 240 was clear that it was improper to mix and match or meld the penalties. This decision stated “when punishment is imposed under one of the alternative procedures, that particular punishment should be applied justly without added penalty or onerous condition borrowed from the other alternatives which were not invoked.” Based on an extensive written analysis of these decisions as the grounds for their decision, the Committee found that there was “not a materially different situation” between Decision 240 and the present case. As stated in the rationale for the decision:
Rev. Schaefer was suspended for 30 days, and his ability to resume his ministry – or, more precisely, his ability to avoid having his credentials removed entirely – was expressly conditioned on his presenting himself to the Board of Ordained Ministry at the end of that 30 days, delivering a written report and submitting to an interview, all with the objective of assuring the Board that, going forward, (emphasis added) Rev. Schaeffer would uphold the Discipline in its entirety. Based on the plain terms of ¶ 2711.3 of the Discipline, and consistent with the Judicial Council’s longstanding and appropriately strict construction of those provisions, a penalty of that nature is simply not among the options the General Conference has authorized a Trial Court to impose on a clergy member convicted of a chargeable offense.
The Counsel for the Church argues differently, stating that the clergy in question in Decision 240 was willing to submit to the Annual Conference through procedures set by the Discipline as opposed to The Rev. Schaefer’s “unwillingness to uphold the Discipline in its entirety,” a condition that was set not by the procedures of the Discipline as in Decision 240, but by the Trial Court itself.
The Counsel for the Church also argued that the penalty by the Trial Court “should be regarded as one seamless single penalty: a termination which could be avoided, depending on his willingness to submit to the Discipline. He was simply given a 30-day opportunity to keep his orders if he changed his mind.”
This interpretation is not supported by the actual words in the penalty statement. The Trial Court made no reference to termination in calling for a 30-day suspension. The first paragraph of the penalty reads:
Suspend Rev. Frank Schaefer from all ministerial duties effective immediately for 30 days. If there are any violations of the Discipline during the 30 days, his credentials will be surrendered to the annual conference.
As noted above the second paragraph asks The Rev. Schaefer to enter into a time of discernment about his changing call to ministry. The record in the penalty phase in the provided transcript did not indicate that the Trial Court actually terminated the credentials of The Rev. Schaefer on November 19, or offered him a way to earn them back as argued by the Counsel for the Church.
The Counsel for the Church provides support for his position by noting that The Rev. Schaefer was paid during the 30-day period of “discernment” and that this was not a punishment for the conviction by the Trial Court. The trial record clearly indicates that the Trial Court did not specify in the penalty statement that the suspension would be paid. The decision for payment was made in a sidebar conversation after the Trial Court had announced the penalty. Neither was there any indication of restoration of credentials if some condition or conditions were met. The Judicial Council must depend on the actual words of the Trial Court and not some interpretation of their intention.
However one construes the understanding of submission to the “conditions” to the penalty, the point of the finding of the Committee on Appeals is that the penalty of the Trial Court was not among the options offered in ¶ 2711.3.
The Committee on Appeals offered a second reason for considering the penalty “unlawful” for what they termed an “additional and independent reason.” They stated that by revoking The Rev. Schaeffer’s credentials in the manner stipulated, the Trial Court violated the principle that clergy can only be “punished for what they have been convicted of doing in the past, not for what they may or may not do in the future.” Citing Decision 725, where a bishop’s decision of law was overturned regarding a statement that contained a definition of “self-avowed practicing homosexual” which included the phraseology “engages in or intends to engage in physical sexual behavior with a person of the same gender.” The Judicial Council held in this decision that the underlined phrase is a future possibility which may or may not occur, rather than a present act. The Committee concluded that “any punishment imposed on a clergy person convicted of a chargeable offense for which he or she was actually tried and convicted” must not be based on something that might or might not happen in the future.
The Counsel for the Church argues that Decision 725 is not applicable in this case as the penalty refers to a present reality, not a future possibility. The counsel for The Rev. Frank Schaefer argued that the stipulation by the Trial Court in the second paragraph of the penalty stipulates a process of discernment. This process of discernment involves a future orientation. The Trial Court, in providing for the discernment time, may have been worried about any future behavior of the respondent. This position is supported by Decision 725.
The Counsel for the Church raises in his brief the decision by the North Central Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals issued on September 17, 1999.
The Discipline gives the Judicial Council power:
To review an opinion or decision of a committee on appeals of a jurisdictional or central conference if it should appear that such opinion or decision is at variance with the Book of Discipline, a prior decision of the Judicial Council, or an opinion or decision of a committee on appeals of another jurisdictional or central conference on a question of Church law. In the event the committee on appeals decision appears to be at variance with the decision of another committee on appeals, then the following procedure should be followed:
The Judicial Council has reviewed that decision and finds the argument in the Brief in Chief does not reflect a variance of opinion given the facts of this instant case. Indeed, the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals acknowledged the same in its decision statement. “The Committee notes that, in another case involving different facts, a majority of its members might well have concluded that a different penalty better serves the cause of achieving a just resolution.”
There appear to be no differences in church law between the decisions of the two committees on appeals.
The Judicial Council, after reviewing the material presented determines that, in general, a trial court may stipulate conditions for ending the suspension as part of the discrete penalty of suspension. SeeDecision 240. However, in this instant case, the Trial Court combined aspects of two discrete and distinct alternatives, suspending The Rev. Schaefer for 30 days and then crafting a subsequent proceeding, in which the another body, namely the Board of Ordained Ministry, was given the power to change the suspension to termination by the surrendering of his credentials, depending on what assurances The Rev. Schaefer was able to provide regarding his future conduct. This resulted in a violation of ¶ 2711.3 of the Discipline This is the primary basis for changing the penalty of the Trial Court.
Question 3: Can a Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals substitute its own penalty for the penalty created by a duly constituted Trial Court that was present to see and hear the respondent’s testimony and the Presiding Officer’s rulings, thus usurping the disciplinary role of the Trial Court by overreaching its powers?
The Counsel for the Church argues that the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals overreached its authority by crafting its own penalty and did not pay full attention to the material presented in the penalty phase of the trial because they were not present for the trial. Counsel for the Church argues at this point that the Committee on Appeals should have remanded the penalty back to the Trial Court for remedy.
Counsel for the Church cites Decision 1201 as the basis for his argument that it is only the role of the trial court to set the penalty.
The clear meaning of the Discipline is that only a trial court has the power to set a penalty in a Church trial which results in a conviction and that the full legislated range of options must be available to a trial court in its penalty phase.
However, this decision was based on a resolution passed in the Northern Illinois Annual Conference that attempted to dictate a maximum penalty to be imposed in the situation in which a clergy person was convicted of performing a same-sex wedding or union. It dealt only with an annual conference’s lack of power to set or influence a trial court’s discretion in setting a penalty for a conviction. This decision has no relevance to this instant case other than as noted “that the full legislated range of options must be available to a trial court in its penalty phase” (emphasis added).
The Constitution of The United Methodist Church provides for the privileges of clergy for a trial and appeal as found in the Restrictive Rules, ¶ 20. Article 20. In arguing against the decision the Committee on Appeals chose in this case, the Counsel for the Church is in error. The Discipline ¶ 2715.8 gives the specific authority to the Committee on Appeals to make such a decision to modify the penalty imposed by the Trial Court. This paragraph states:
In all cases where an appeal is made and admitted by the appellate committee, after the charges, findings, and evidence have been read and the arguments conclude, the parties shall withdraw, and the appellate committee shall consider and decide the case. It may reverse in whole or in part the findings of the committee on investigation or the trial court, or it may remand the case for a new trial to determine verdict and/or penalty. It may determine what penalty, not higher than that affixed at the hearing or trial, may be imposed. (Emphasis added.)
The Committee on Appeals has been granted the authority by the Discipline to modify or change the penalty of the Trial Court. Based on its careful study of the trial and testimony presented around the specific situation that resulted in the conviction of The Rev. Schaefer and their findings regarding ¶ 2711.3 of the Discipline, the Committee on Appeals modified the penalty of the Trial Court.
The Counsel for the Church also argues that there was inherent bias and prejudice on the part of the Committee on Appeals. This argument, as developed specifically in the Counsel for the Church’s reply brief, adds material to the case that is not part of the trial and appeal record upon which the Judicial Council must base its decision. The Committee on Appeals decision document was clear in articulating its process of decision-making including the acknowledgement that the members of the Committee held diverse views related to human sexuality. They stated:
Having determined that the Discipline precludes the penalty imposed by the Trial Court, the Committee has two options: (1) it may “remand the case for a new trial” to establish a new penalty; or (2) the Committee itself “may determine what penalty, not higher than that affixed at the hearing or trial, may be imposed.” Discipline, ¶ 2715.8 . . .
The Committee believes that the objective of securing a just resolution of these already protracted judicial proceedings will be better served if the Committee retains jurisdiction and modifies the penalty, rather than remanding the case and re-convening the Trial Court to determine a new penalty. The Committee has reviewed the ample record already developed at the trial court level and believes it to be more than adequate to ascertain all the facts needed to identify an appropriate penalty. The Committee is not aware of, nor has any party identified, any advantage that might be gained or any good purpose served by sending the case back, rather than finishing the job now, based on a fully developed record.
The Committee has also determined that it is important to name for the
Church the factors that have informed the Committee’s choice of an appropriate penalty, as well as the considerations the Committee members have done their best to put to the side. The factors that informed the Committee’s decision are simply these and no others: (1) the provisions in the Disciplinethat animate and govern the Church’s judicial process and the responsibility given to the Committee on Appeals in particular; and (2) the particular facts of this case. The corollary is that the Committee dedicated itself to the principle that deciding upon an appropriate penalty should not be informed by the Committee members’ personal viewpoints on whether the Discipline should or should not countenance same-sex marriages.
It should come as no surprise (not to any United Methodist, at any rate) that this Committee’s members have diverse views on issues related to human sexuality, and for many those views are evolving. Regardless – and even while knowing that our bishops have taught that we should “not see the Discipline as sacrosanct or infallible” – every member of this Committee appreciates and takes seriously that the Discipline represents the “current statement of how United Methodists agree to live their lives together,” and that it “defines what is expected of its laity and clergy as they seek to be effective witnesses in the world as a part of the whole body of Christ.” Discipline, Episcopal Greetings at v (emphasis added)
Most importantly, the Committee is profoundly united in the belief that the objective this Committee has been charged to pursue in this case is nothing less than a resolution that is just. Discipline, ¶2701. As a result, and being mindful of our differing perspectives, the Committee understood that reaching consensus on an appropriate penalty in this challenging context required that, with all humility and seeking God’s grace at all times, we keep our focus on the Discipline’s core teaching that a “just resolution is one that focuses on repairing any harm to people and communities, achieving real accountability by making things right in so far as possible and bringing healing to all the parties.” Id., ¶ 2701.5
The Judicial Council views these statements by the Committee on Appeals as an indication of the serious intention to focus without bias or prejudice on the instant case and circumstances.
The Committee on Appeals is fully authorized by the Discipline to amend or modify the penalty of the trial court as long as the penalty is “not higher than that affixed at the hearing or trial.” The Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals modified penalty does not violate the Discipline.There is no violation of any question of law involved in this question.
Question 4: Was it error for the NEJ Committee on Appeals to accept an amicus brief which was based on issues not raised on appeal?
The Discipline in ¶ 2715.7 is clear that the record on appeal is confined to the record developed at the trial court level.
The appellate body shall determine two questions only: (a) Does the weight of the evidence sustain the charge or charges? (b) Were there such errors of Church law as to vitiate the verdict and/or the penalty? These questions shall be determined by the records of the trial and the argument of counsel for the Church and for the respondent. The appellate body shall in no case hear witnesses. It may have legal counsel present, who shall not be the conference chancellor for the conference from which the appeal is taken, for the sole purpose of providing advice to the appellate body.
The directives to the appellate body do not name the ability to receive amici curiae briefs. In this instant case, an amicus curiae brief was filed with the Committee on Appeals by someone with no standing in the case. The Respondent asked specifically that the “Committee confine its review to the issues presented by the parties alone, which the Committee has determined provide a sufficient basis for its disposition of the appeal.” (Footnote 1, page 5 in the Appeal Decision) Counsel for the Church did not present evidence that the brief influenced the Committee or was used in the fashioning the decision. The Discipline is silent regarding the receiving of amici curiae briefs at the appeal level. Any document that is submitted at the appeal level shall pertain to matters raised during the trial procedure only (¶ 2715.6). Any other directives on amici curiae briefs await General Conference legislation.
The question of law raised here had no significant effect on the decision of the Committee of Appeals. The Counsel for the Church did not present any concrete evidence that the submission of an amicus brief had any impact upon the decision of the Committee on Appeals. Paragraph 2715.8 of the Discipline specifies that the Committee on Appeals “shall not reverse judgment nor remand the case for a new hearing or trial on account of errors plainly not affecting the result.” The question of law is moot.
Question 5: Can a Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals undo in its revised penalty the vote of Annual Conference in its official Clergy Session which affirms a clergy member’s conference membership has been terminated?
Question 5 is improperly before the Judicial Council as it was not included in the notice of appeal submitted by the Counsel for the Church. Paragraph 2715.1 states the following:
In all cases of appeal, the appellant shall within thirty days give written notice of appeal and at the same time shall furnish to the officer receiving such notice and to the counsel a written statement of the grounds of the appeal, and the hearing in the appellate body shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such statement.
Memorandum 826 supports this particular rule:
The disciplinary requirement that within thirty days of the close of a trial the presiding officer of the Trial Court must be notified of the intention to appeal together with grounds for appeal was not met. There can be no deviation from this requirement.
This question is improperly presented for consideration and will not be answered.
Although the Judicial Council affirms the judicial process and reasoning of the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals and its right to modify the penalty of the Trial Court, it recognizes that some within the Church do not support this outcome today. Some may see a flagrant disregard for parts of the Discipline as reflected in the Decision of the Committee on Appeals. Some may have wished the trial court’s penalty had been differently constructed so as to meet the requirements of the Discipline and impose a harsher penalty. Others support the decision. We are mindful of the divisions within the Church. Our task is review the process and decisions of the trial court and the appellate process in order to determine if any parts of the Discipline were violated or were interpreted in error.
DECISION
The Judicial Council upon careful review of the Decision of the Northeastern Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals in the matter of
The Rev. Frank Schaefer and the questions of law presented by the Counsel for the Church finds there are no errors in the application of the church law and judicial decisions. The penalty as modified by the Committee on Appeals stands.
Kabamba Kiboko was absent.
Timothy K. Bruster, first clergy alternate, took part in this decision.
October 25, 2014
CONCURRING OPINION
We fully concur with the decision of the Judicial Council in Decision 1270, including the response to Question 5 asked by the Counsel for the Church. However, as the Counsel for the Appellee points out in the brief to the Judicial Council and referred to in oral argument, the claim in this question requires a careful understanding of church polity and church and precedential law. Much of this concurring opinion comes directly from that brief.
Clergy sessions do not vote on Question 46(e). This question is simply a part of the full Board of Ordained Ministry’s report presented during the Clergy Session of Annual Conference. The clergy session receives the response as information. The response by the clergy session to Question 46, dealing with the termination of conference membership, is no different than the response to Question 48 that addresses those who have died during the past year. The clergy session does not vote on who died. The names are simply reported for the record. This stands in contrast to Question 18, which requires actual votes on candidates for various forms of membership. Thus, no vote takes place to terminate anyone listed in Question 46(e). The names are received as the action taken by the clergy session.
The argument cites the Annual Conference’s constitutional authority over all matters relating to the character and conference relations of its clergy members, enshrined in Article II, ¶ 33. What this argument does not do, however, is to recognize that the Annual Conference’s powers under ¶ 33 are not all-encompassing; they must be exercised in accordance with other constitutional provisions.
Specifically, clergy sessions, exercising their authority pursuant to ¶ 33, have long been known to run afoul of the Fourth Restrictive Rule, found in ¶ 20, which enshrines a member’s right to a trial and appeal. In 1972 the Judicial Council issued a ruling, Decision 351, affirming the bedrock principle of the right of clergy to fair treatment, pursuant to the Fourth Restrictive Rule. In particular, this principle applies when the clergy session is exercising its powers under ¶ 33 to vote on the conference relations of its members. In the situation of a clergy session wishing to vote to terminate a clergy member’s membership—outside of a trial—the decision required that the administrative fair process procedures be followed first.
In support of the argument that the imagined vote on Question 46(e) would have had the effect of terminating, or affirming the termination of, The Rev. Schaefer’s membership, the Appellant cited a concurring opinion in Decision 534. In this Decision, the concurring opinion asserts that the trial and appeal process, enshrined as noted above in the Fourth Restrictive Rule, is secondary to what the Annual Conference does when exercising its powers to vote on conference relations of its clergy members pursuant to ¶ 33. This opinion specifically references an instance where a clergy member is listed as being on suspension in the Board of Ordained Ministry report to the 1983 clergy session of the Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference and asserts that the vote to receive that report had the effect of placing that clergy member on suspension, superseding any act by the appeals process that the clergy member was then engaged in.
That concurring opinion stands in direct conflict with Decision 351 and countless decisions since, including the more recent Decision 1226 which reaffirmed security of appointment and the right to trial and appeal when a clergy session votes on conference relations. The part of the premise that relates to the power to vote on conference relations enshrined in ¶ 33 superseding, and thus not being limited or controlled by, the right to trial and appeal enshrined in the Fourth Restrictive Rule, ¶ 20, was invalid the moment it was written, which is probably why the rest of the Council declined to sign on to it and include it in the main Decision. Furthermore, the second part of the premise, that a vote to ratify the original decision of the trial court (in the case of Decision 534 to affirm a clergy person’s suspension, and in the case of The Rev. Schaefer, to affirm the termination of his membership) superseded any action by the appeals committee, was explicitly repudiated in Decision 799. This Decision stated in part, “It is improper and unconstitutional to allow the executive session to ratify or not ratify a decision arrived at in the trial process…” (Emphasis added.) Language in theDiscipline added by the 1996 General Conference to the contrary, stating that penalties could be ratified by the clergy session, was struck down as unconstitutional.
Further, if the clergy session could take a vote to “ratify” a trial court decision in this way, as a final disposition of the case, then the appeals process would become worthless. Or, to state that another way, exercising the powers invested in the clergy session pursuant to ¶ 33 in such a way would render meaningless General Conference’s exercise of its power to legislate over all matters distinctively connectional under ¶16 when it established the provisions of the appeals process. Such a position stands in conflict with foundational principles about how such constitutional powers must be exercised consistently with General Conference’s legislative actions that go all the way back to Decision 96 in 1953 and have been affirmed repeatedly in Decisions 313, 318, and 823, among others, in cases that relate to other instances of voting on conference relations of clergy members.
Katherine Austin Mahle
Timothy K. Bruster
F. Belton Joyner, Jr.
Beth Capen
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMNS) — After a year of frocking, defrocking and refrocking, The United Methodist Church's top court has upheld an appellate committee's earlier ruling to reinstate the Rev. Frank Schaefer's clergy credentials. The series of church rulings was prompted by a complaint filed against him for violating church law when he officiated at his son's same-sex wedding. Kathy Gilbert has the story. Judicial Council looks at 'aspirational' declarations MEMPHIS, Tenn. (UMNS) — When is language about The United Methodist Church's positions on issues of sexuality considered "aspirational" and when could it condone a violation of church law? Rulings by bishops on several statements by conferences were among the 21 docket items considered by the United Methodist Judicial Council during its Oct. 22-25 meeting in Memphis, Tennessee. Judicial Council looks at ‘aspirational’ declarations
When is language about The United Methodist Church’s positions on issues of sexuality considered “aspirational” and when could it condone a violation of church law?
That question relates to several statements adopted in 2014 by the denomination’s conferences. Rulings by bishops on the statements were among the 21 docket items considered by the United Methodist Judicial Council during its Oct. 22-25 meeting in Memphis, Tennessee.
The denomination’s top court affirmed the ruling of Bishop Marcus Matthews that a statement entitled "Agree to Disagree on Issues Pertaining to Gender and Sexual Minorities," one of five human sexuality resolutions passed by the Baltimore-Washington Conference, was lawful and did not violate the Book of Discipline or other council decisions.
In a separate decision, the council “affirmed in part and modified in part” the ruling by Matthews that the small-group “circle process” and written ballot used to vote on the five resolutions was lawful.
“The Judicial Council does not have jurisdiction in parliamentary matters,” the decision said. “Annual conference rules that make no distinctions because of race, color, national origin, status or economic conditions and apply to all members are not discriminatory.”
The council declared “null and of no effect” the ruling by Bishop Sally Dyck that a 2014 Northern Illinois Annual Conference resolution on marriage equality is “an historical and aspirational statement without prescriptive force which does not specifically negate, ignore or violate provisions of the Discipline.”
While noting that Dyck’s response was “a thorough explanation and analysis,” the court said the questions presented to her were hypothetical and did not require a ruling.
Also considered an improper request by the council was a request submitted by a clergy member during the May 15, 2014, session of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference.
The questioner asked whether it was “legal” for members or advisers of the Board of Ordained Ministry to remain on the board when they had made public statements “that they cannot and will not uphold the Discipline.” The request referred in particular to “those who participated in the Arch Street same-gender wedding” and cited Judicial Council Decision 980, “which held that persons who would not uphold the Discipline were ineligible to serve on the Committee on Investigation or a jury pool.”
Bishop Peggy Johnson issued a decision of law that Decision 980 does not apply to the nominations process by the conference’s committee on nominations. The Judicial Council reversed her decision, saying the request was moot and hypothetical.
“It is not a potential unwillingness by a clergy member to adhere to the Discipline, but a specified act of misconduct or a chargeable offense specified in the Discipline that can lead to ecclesiastical sanctions,” the decision said. “It is not permissible for some moot or hypothetical matter to become the basis of church law.”
The council deferred decisions on sexuality-related rulings by Bishop Deborah L. Kiesey regarding a2014 Detroit Annual Conference resolution and by Bishop Sudarshana Devadhar on a 2014 New England Annual Conference resolution until its April 2015 meeting.
Oral hearing on complaint process
The council held an oral hearing Oct. 22 on a petition filed by the Western Pennsylvania Conference asking for a “declaratory decision” about Book of Discipline guidelines regarding the process for the review and dismissal of a complaint against a bishop.
Although the questions raised in the petition applied to the church in general, the conference included details regarding its continued concerns about what it considered a lack of response from East Africa Bishop Daniel Wandabula over the handling of funds.
Two years ago, the Western Pennsylvania Conference, which raised about $100,000 for church projects in Uganda, asked the Judicial Council to rule whether funds given to the East Africa Conference were used in accordance with the intent of the donors as required by Paragraph 258.4 of the 2008 Book of Discipline.
During the oral hearing, Nancy DeNardo and the Rev. Robert Zilaver, representing the conference, addressed the council and responded to questions. Wandabula filed a statement but reported that he was unable to participate in the hearing.
The Judicial Council made two separate rulings related to the dispute during the Oct. 22-25 meeting.Decision 1275, addressing the general questions in the new petition, noted that the president or secretary of the College of Bishops has the power to refer a complaint and added, “If the matter is not referred, it is effectively dismissed.”
Other issues raised by the questions in the petition “require legislative resolution by the General Conference,” the decision said.
Decision 1281 addressed three issues raised earlier by the Western Pennsylvania Conference as part of Decisions 1238 and 1241.
The partnership between Western Pennsylvania and the East Africa Conference does not fall under the council’s jurisdiction, the ruling said, and the $3,000 the council agreed that Wandabula owed to the conference was received on May 27, 2014.
A complaint against Wandabula “was resolved when the College of Bishops of the Africa Central Conference verified that they had dismissed the charges against Bishop Wandabula,” the decision said. “The case has been resolved and the Judicial Council no longer has jurisdiction.”
Other rulings
In other rulings, the Judicial Council:
Bloom is a United Methodist News Service multimedia reporter based in New York. Follow her athttp://twitter.com/umcscribe or contact her at (646) 369-3759 or newsdesk@umcom.org
NEW YORK (UMNS) — Thomas Kemper, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Global Ministries, joined representatives of 15 faith-based organizations visiting the White House Oct. 29 to discuss the U.S. response to Ebola at a meeting with senior White House officials. He also attended a larger meeting in the East Room where President Barack Obama honored U.S. health care workers fighting the disease. Linda Unger reports. White House Discusses Ebola with Faith Groups
By Linda Unger*
 President Barack Obama greets faith leaders in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., during an event where delegates of 15 faith-based organizations, including General Secretary Thomas Kemper of Global Ministries, met with senior White House staff to discuss response to the Ebola epidemic. Photo: Thomas Kemper
October 30, 2014—United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries head, Thomas Kemper, attended an intimate meeting of representatives of faith-based organizations with senior White House staff in Washington yesterday to discuss response to the Ebola epidemic that is pounding West Africa.
Kemper and delegates of 15 faith-based organizations that are working with local networks to confront the disease—including the Salvation Army, Islamic Relief and World Vision—met in the Roosevelt Room with President Barack Obama’s Ebola-response coordinator, Ron Klain, and other senior officials.
The president afterward greeted the faith leaders in an event in the East Room in which he presented and praised U.S. medical workers and others who recently served or soon will serve with local health workers and authorities in West Africa to bring the Ebola epidemic under control and end its spread.
Halt Outbreak at Its Source
The current outbreak has produced 13,703 cases and 4,922 deaths, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Most heavily impacted are Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea; Nigeria and Senegal successfully isolated and defeated the disease and recently were declared “Ebola-free.”
In his remarks to the health professionals and faith leaders, President Obama stressed that the threat of Ebola cannot be erased “until we stop the outbreak at its source.”
In the meeting with Klain, Kemper offered the United Methodist experience in West Africa, where Global Ministries, through its United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) and Global Health units, is working closely with United Methodist annual conference health boards and hospitals.
“We need to link efforts to fight Ebola with efforts to strengthen local health systems,” he said. “We can only fight Ebola and support local efforts to protect all aspects of people’s health if we work together to strengthen the existing health systems.”
Kemper also underscored the contribution of Christian and Muslim leaders in Sierra Leone to containing the disease. Led by United Methodist Bishop John K. Yambasu, they have agreed to dedicate at least 15 minutes of their Friday and Sunday sermons to raising awareness among their congregants about Ebola.
“Religious leaders in West Africa are trusted in their communities and their words have weight,” he told the gathering. “They are a crucial resource for Ebola education and can be enlisted to help fight the stigma often associated with both Ebola patients and the health workers who tend to them.”
Fighting Stigma
When Ebola cases were identified in the United States, stigma and fear soon followed. Kemper, in remarks after the meeting, called on United Methodists to extend hospitality to those who accompany the sick, including itinerating missionaries who serve in West Africa.
“We United Methodists are all about ‘open hearts, open minds and open doors, ’ including—especially—at such a time as this,” he said, “when we are called to offer compassion to our sisters and brothers who are suffering, and support to those who walk with them.”
At the White House meeting, President Obama was adamant that stigma and fear have no place when health workers and others are putting their lives on the line to serve the afflicted and ensure the safety of all by seeking to contain the spread of disease.
“America has never been defined by fear,” he said. “We are defined by courage and passion and hope and selflessness and sacrifice…, and ordinary Americans who risk their own safety to help those in need… all in the constant pursuit of building a better world....”
Read more about how Global Ministries, through UMCOR and Global Health, is supporting local efforts to contain Ebola and how you can help.
*Linda Unger is senior writer for the General Board of Global Ministries.
- See more at: http://www.umcmission.org/learn-about-us/news-and-stories/2014/october/1030whitehousediscussesebola#sthash.nBJehWHE.dpufTake the Rice Bucket Challenge
We’ve all heard of the Ice Bucket Challenge – a fundraiser for the ALS association that has raised $115 million since July 29 of this year to fight Lou Gehrig’s disease.
The East Ohio Conference has been active in a relief effort to eradicate the deadly Ebola virus from West Africa. While thousands of people have been afflicted with Ebola, everyone in Liberia and Sierra Leone has been impacted by it.
Businesses and schools have been closed in an effort to keep individuals from potentially coming into contact with someone who may be sick. Because people aren’t working they aren’t getting paid, which means they don’t have money to purchase food and other items.
To make up for a lack of sales, businesses are charging more for their products. A 50-kilo bag of rice that cost $35 before the Ebola outbreak now sells for $70. Since people can’t always afford to pay that price, many have died from starvation.
You can help by accepting the East Ohio Rice Bucket Challenge.
Every $70 raised will buy one 50-kilo bag of rice.
Donate money, then challenge your friends, family, small group members, and congregation members to do the same.
Checks should be made payable to 3Cs Initiative Fund 9936 – with Rice Bucket Challenge on the memo line – and mailed to EOC, P.O. Box 76019 Cleveland, OH 44101.
Now available! Download Rice Bucket Challenge Bulletin Inserts Here PDF-(color and black & white inserts included)
Bishops meet in Oklahoma CityOKLAHOMA CITY (UMNS) — United Methodist bishops from Africa, Europe, Asia and the United States will gather in Oklahoma City for the Council of Bishops meeting, Nov. 2-7. The meeting will include an address by Bishop Warner H. Brown Jr., council president, that will be streamed live online at10:45 a.m. CT Monday, Nov. 3. Council of Bishops meets in Oklahoma City
Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church
100 Maryland Ave. NE Washington, D.C. 20002
Council of Bishops meets in Oklahoma City
President’s address to be broadcast online
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 27, 2014
Nashville, Tenn.: United Methodist bishops from Africa, Europe, Asia and the U.S. will gather in Oklahoma City at the Skirvin Hilton for the Council of Bishops meeting, November 2-7, 2014.
The meeting begins on Sunday, November 2, with a memorial service at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Oklahoma City at 4:00 p.m. to remember bishops and their spouses who have passed away during the last year.
Bishop Warner H. Brown, Jr.
Among the meeting highlights will be the traditional ceremonial “passing of the gavel” from former Council president Bishop Rosemarie Wenner to Bishop Warner H. Brown, Jr. of the San Francisco Episcopal Area on Monday at 10:45 a.m. CST. Bishop Brown assumed the presidency of the Council in May, but the full Council last met in November so the formal recognition will occur at the beginning of this meeting.
Immediately following the ceremony, Bishop Brown will present the annual presidential address to the Council — which will be live streamed for the first time. Viewers can watch the speech online while it is happening at umc.org/cobaddress, where it will also be archived for later viewing.
“Being in the position of leading the Council means helping us be effective as a leadership organization. Our job is to be the spiritual and temporal leaders for the church . . . we must speak as pastors to the church and to keep the Wesleyan spirit alive,” said Bishop Brown in an interview with United Methodist Communications. (Read the interview in its entirety.)
The Council will meet jointly with the Connectional Table beginning Wednesday afternoon through noon on Friday. Topics to be discussed include vital congregations, the Four Areas of Focus, and the worldwide nature of the church.
Bishop Robert Hayes
On November 6, an “act of repentance” service will be held at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church for members of the Council and special guests. Several governors of Indian nations have been invited, as well as three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices who are active in native affairs in Oklahoma: Justice Steven Taylor, Justice Noma Gurich, and Justice Yvonne Kauger. A reception will follow.
“For me and for the people of Oklahoma especially, this is the continuation of what we began in Tampa with the Act of Repentance at the 2012 General Conference,” said Bishop Robert Hayes of the Oklahoma Episcopal Area. “We continued that journey in Cherokee, N.C. where we remembered the start of the Trail of Tears, and now we continue to where that trail ended. Symbolically, we are in a very sacred place for Native Americans.”
Time for spiritual reflection is a part of the Council’s agenda, including daily worship and communion and small group meetings. Plenary business sessions, held Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday mornings, as well as each afternoon Monday-Friday, are open to the news media and the public. There will also be various committee and sub-group meetings throughout the week.
###
About the Council of Bishops
The Council of Bishops provides leadership and helps set the direction of the 12 million-member church and its mission throughout the world. The bishops are the top clergy leaders of The United Methodist Church, the second largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.
Contact: Diane Degnan
ddegnan@umcom.org (615) 742-5406 (office) (615) 483-1765 (cell) A conversation with Bishop Warner H. Brown, Jr.
Among the meeting highlights of the Council of Bishops' meeting in November 2014 will be the traditional ceremonial “passing of the gavel” from former Council president Bishop Rosemarie Wenner to Bishop Warner H. Brown, Jr. of the San Francisco Episcopal Area. Bishop Brown assumed the presidency of the Council in May, but the full Council last met in November, so the formal recognition will occur at the beginning of this meeting followed by the presidential address. United Methodist Communications sat down with Bishop Brown and asked him to share his thoughts.
As president of the Council, what issues do you see as a high priority?
Being in the position of leading the Council means helping us be effective as a leadership organization. Our job is to be the spiritual and temporal leaders for the church. The challenge for us is to come together on the matters we agree are most important and lead together in a cooperative, collaborative way. In other words, we must speak as pastors to the church and to keep the Wesleyan spirit alive.
I believe that we’re a church that has a heart for the poor, a heart for justice, and a deep commitment to a sincere spirituality that is grounded in scripture and in a faith that we live out intentionally. Those are things that we reflect … understanding the world as our parish and a commitment to the Wesleyan way of spirituality is key.
How do we bring hope to a hurting world amidst so much tragedy?
Hope occurs in the places where we meet people—where people live and work. In thousands of communities through local churches and campus ministries and chaplaincies and prison ministries and other ways, we are engaged in being the church and engaging people in the work of meeting Jesus. That is how we come to understand how God is at work in peoples’ lives. Those are the places where disciples are made and sanctified and transformation happens. I believe that work is happening in places across this globe because of United Methodist people trying to be faithful to our calling as a church.
As I talk to people from different continents—both United Methodists and our many partners—people are excited about what can happen when we work as a connectional church and share our resources, our talent, and come together to make a difference. That gets the attention of people who don’t think of God in the way we do and causes some to say, “Well, maybe there is something about this Jesus that they’re connected with.” And it has the power to hold us together.
Why is unity important to the future of the church?
Jesus calls us to be in unity. I believe that unity has the power to hold us together. And I believe that is where the majority of people in our church are. A recent survey by United Methodist Communications says overwhelmingly people don’t want to split. People may be tired of quarreling, but they don’t want to see us break up because we are stronger together than we would be split in any kind of way. Most of us want to stay together. Most of us want to stay on this journey. Most of us see the power and possibility that we have as a people.
And I believe that encouraging unity goes beyond our church doors. We are people who are grounded in a spirituality that understands the God of love seeks love from us above all—love that is not just love towards God, but love towards neighbor.
How can the denomination stay unified amid controversy?
There has been public disagreement in the church since year one of our existence. I don’t think we can expect people to be in agreement all the time. Even among the Council of Bishops, we will disagree on some things. Because we’re sincere about our commitment to faith, we’re passionate about what we believe. Sometimes we understand the scriptures we read differently or have different theological understandings; but we all attempt to do what we believe God wants of us.
We will agree on some things and disagree on other things. It’s important to recognize that it’s not about us; it’s about how we seek to be faithful and recognize other people doing that, too. There are many controversial issues where as a church we’ve taken strong positions—things like how we deal with immigration; how we view the poor; how we feel about the death penalty, birth control and other issues.
The church has taken positions that many people may disagree with, and we continue to have discussions because we are very diverse. If it’s done in a way that is civil and respectful of the fact that both opinions are coming from a place of faith rather than attempting to demonize others that don’t agree with you, it creates the possibility for everyone growing to a deeper understanding and living faithfully in a community together.
How do we live in community if we can’t all agree?
Leading a church with a diversity of perspective begins by letting folks know we hear them, and that we are listening both to those voices that are in the majority and those that are in the minority so that all know they’re heard. And we look to find the places where we can agree to work together and find common ground.
Our primary mission is making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. And that means disciple-making needs to be our first priority. Transforming the world is what we do when we are engaged in helping people respond to disaster or when we take on the challenge of trying to affect global health or when we reach out to the poor in ways that give people hope and possibility when they previously had little. That’s the core of our work -- and that must be first.
How do we become a more global church?
One of the things that’s key is genuinely valuing the contribution that the different segments of our church bring and contribute. In the past, our church was often thought of as primarily a U.S. church, and most of the decisions were made by people in the U.S. But we are moving to a place where we are genuinely seeking to find ways to broaden our wisdom and take the needs of all into consideration. One dimension of that is recognizing that in a worldwide church, there are many different world views and we come from very different experiences.
What does the future hold for The United Methodist Church?
I think that our church is doing a great many exciting things. Just in recent weeks, 42 young adult mission fellows were consecrated at the Global Young People’s Gathering for service around the world. We are engaging in healing ministries of various kinds, whether it’s Ebola in Africa or concern for young children coming unaccompanied across the U.S. border as they try to escape from the terrorism and gang violence at home. Volunteers are rallying to respond to disasters, large and small, and United Methodist missionaries are working for peace and justice in the midst of Palestine even as this war is raging. The list goes on. These kind of things are often never talked about or are taken for granted, but they are just examples of many ways that our church is making a constructive difference in the world.
Viewers can watch the speech online while it is happening at umc.org/cobaddress, where it will also be archived for later viewing.
Bishops returning to OKC after 36 years
10/31/2014
By HOLLY McCRAY
Three quarters would buy you a gallon of gasoline, and a first-class stamp cost 13 cents when the denomination’s Council of Bishops previously met in Oklahoma City. That was in Spring 1978.
The world’s first test-tube baby was born that year — and more than 900 members of a religious cult died in Jonestown, Guyana.
The TV drama "Dallas" made its debut, and "Grease" reigned in movie popularity.
The United Methodist Council of Bishops returns to downtown OKC on Nov. 2-7.
• The public is welcome to opening worship with the bishops at 4 p.m. that Sunday, in the sanctuary of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church.
• During an invitation-only event Thursday, also at St. Luke’s, the bishops will connect with members of Oklahoma’s Native American community. This Act of Repentance seeks to move the global Church toward reconciliation and healing relationships with indigenous people.
• Business sessions downtown are closed.
When this issue of Contact went to press, the bishops’ meeting agenda was not yet available. But some subjects they weighed 36 years ago surely remain relevant today.
In 1978, Oklahoma’s Bishop Paul Milhouse also served as the Council’s president.
In Oklahoma City, the bishops spent two days studying "The Family and Morality."
They heard Gov. David Boren express concern about a growing divisiveness among people who didn’t agree on issues.
"We have increased our technical ability, but have not come to grips with understanding one another," said the future president of the University of Oklahoma.
Family life. Technology. Polarization.
Those subjects dominate today, too.
But the bishops’ 1978 agenda — on file with the General Commission on Archives & History — and 1978 stories in Contact reveal nuances in the topics as well as issues specific to that time.
The seminar on family addressed divorce. "An accelerated rate of clergy family break-up" was of great concern, Bishop Dale White of New Jersey explained in a Contact interview.
"Until recent years many ministers were forced to hand in their credentials when the divorce took place," he noted. "Congregations are much more tolerant."
• The Council also reaffirmed the General Conference’s support of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the United States. A call was issued to all levels of the Church for "a more adequate ministry with and for the aged."
• Reports of human rights violations in Turkey and South Africa had spurred letters expressing concern to government officials. News of evangelistic zeal in Latin America encouraged the Council.
• An unprecedented consultation with representatives of the African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, and Christian Methodist Episcopal denominations prompted celebration.
• Restoration was almost complete for Wesley’s Chapel in London, dedicated in 1778 by the founder of Methodism. It was to be rededicated exactly 200 years later.
Opening worship in 1978 was in the Bishop Angie Smith Chapel at Oklahoma City University. The city’s Chamber of Commerce hosted a luncheon forum. At least one Council session was at the Myriad (now the Cox Convention Center).
A total of 58 bishops’ wives and widows also had traveled to Oklahoma City. They participated in the seminar about family life. (The first female bishop was elected in 1980.)
Contact reported on this special group of women. One always did the unexpected. If proceedings bored her, she exercised at the back of the room. She once climbed a tree to better view a parade.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMNS) — When it comes to what makes a pastor beloved, being funny ranks right up there with not judging others as the most appreciated traits. More than 650 people recently answered the question "What do you appreciate most about your pastor?" on the United Methodist Church's official Facebook page. Facebook fans tell traits they appreciate most in pastors
When it comes to what makes a pastor beloved, being funny ranks right up there with not judging others as the most appreciated traits.
Apparently, keeping sermons interesting and not dragging out the message endears itself to church members too.
More than 650 people recently answered the question “What do you appreciate most about your pastor?” on the United Methodist Church’s official Facebook page. The query was asked in recognition of Pastor Appreciation Month which is marked each October.
United Methodists like pastors who bring a sense of humor into the pulpit.
The Rev. Mark Benge at First United Methodist Church, Lafayette, La., inserts humor into his sermons, a trait his congregation finds endearing. He is pictured here, far left, with church members, as they perform for the service. Photo courtesy of Mark Benge.
Self-deprecating humor
“I appreciate my pastor, Mark Benge, because he can answer serious questions about the Bible one minute and have me belly laughing the next,” says Nancy Stimson Brennan, a member at First United Methodist Church, Lafayette, La.
Brennan says her pastor’s quick wit keeps the congregation on its toes.
“He will be preaching and then drop in a funny remark,” she says. “I think he’s making sure everyone is paying attention.”
Members at Newtown United Methodist Church in Newtown, Conn., appreciate that Pastor Mel Kawakami weaves funny stories into his sermons.
“Our pastor is hilarious and loves to laugh alongside us,” says Robbin Chaber Allen.
“We all think Mel is so funny,” Allen says. “With each sermon, he brings in a part of himself and makes it personal with a self-deprecating sense of humor.”
Kawakami’s sense of humor helped ease grieving hearts in the weeks and months following theDecember 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which is located in the same neighborhood as Newtown United Methodist Church. In fact, Kawakami was among the first clergy members who responded that day.
“After 12/14, Mel very gently found a way to bring humor back into a very grieving community just by relating things on a personal level and helping us laugh at his own human foibles.”
Compassionate and accepting
The humor, of course, does not occur at the expense of others’ feelings. Many members cited compassion and being nonjudgmental as favorite characteristics of clergy.
First United Methodist Church in Johnson City, Tenn., is located downtown in an area heavily populated by families and individuals in need. The doors at FUMC Johnson City are open to everyone, says Dedri Minutolo, who has been a member there for nine years.
“We have a place that welcomes everyone, and Pastor Jane Taylor doesn’t look down on anyone,” Minutolo says. “She wants everybody to be a part of our church.”
Michael Ryan, who attends First United Methodist Church in Ft. Worth, Texas, stumbled upon that church and its senior pastor, Dr. Tim Bruster, at the lowest point in his life, he says.
“At the age of 42 and for the first time in my life, I began to attend church services on a regular basis. I came to the church broken of spirit. I had tried many avenues to seek happiness. I was hopelessly lost in drug addiction with little belief in a better tomorrow,” Ryan says. “The sermon that Dr. Bruster delivered not only captured my attention, it delivered a desire to come again and hear more about Christ and the Good News for all who follow Him. Now, eight years later, I still attend on a regular basis.
“Pastor Bruster, along with the associate pastors, staff and congregation at First Church, never cease to amaze me in their ability to make each and every person feel welcome and of equal importance regardless of one’s personal standing in the community or prior personal failings,” says Ryan.
The Rev. Richard White of Quitman First United Methodist Church in Quitman, Texas, is well thought of because of his engaging sermons. Photo courtesy of the Texas Conference.
Engaging preaching
Along with a listing of characteristics one might expect to find in pastors – loving, selfless, kind, approachable, genuine – members also appreciate pastors who refrain from being long-winded and boring.
“Pastor Brad (Slaten) doesn’t preach so long that you don’t remember what he is talking about,” says member Terrilyn Taylor, who also plays piano for the church at First United Methodist Church, Coleman, Texas.
At Quitman First United Methodist Church in Quitman, Texas, Katie Freestone Hatcher often finds she isn’t ready for the sermon to end.
“Rev. Richard Preston White is one of the few pastors I’ve heard that can engage me to the point that I’ve thought ‘is church over already?’” Hatcher says. “It will get to be the end of the service, and I could still listen for another half hour. I’ve been to a lot of churches and heard a lot of different pastors and, believe, me, that doesn’t always happen.”
Now it's your turn. Be sure to tell us about your favorite pastor in the comments below.
*Caviness is a public relations specialist at United Methodist Communications in Nashville, Tenn. Media contact is Crystal Caviness, at 615-742-5138.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMNS) — It's bad enough that people call each other names on Internet message boards - the private, yet public, nature of the online community can lead to far more dangerous behavior. But the church can help address the problem of online harassment, writes Joey Butler of United Methodist Communications. Churches can help youth fight cyberbullies
I’m a classical guitarist who spends many hours down the rabbit hole that is YouTube, watching videos of the likes of Sérgio and Odair Assad and the Maestro, Andrés Segovia. And I’ve invented a game: Seeing how far I can scroll down the comments section before the conversation devolves into name-calling or outright abuse.
Name-calling on a video where a guy in a tux plays classical music. Seriously???
Whether it be sporting rivalries, political disputes, opposing religious views or debates on which of Bach’s French Suites are superior (No. 3 in B minor – duuuuh!), the ability to write whatever one pleases in anonymity from a remote distance leads people to say things they would never dare say to another person’s face. It’s bad enough for sports fans to call each other names on Internet message boards — the private, yet public, nature of the online community can lead to far more dangerous behavior.
Internet harassment has been in the U.S. spotlight for several years now, after several victims of “cyberbullying” were driven to commit suicide. The recent news surrounding Gamergate revealed a culture of misogyny and harassment toward women in the gaming community. The relatively small number of victims that makes the news doesn’t represent how widespread the problem is.
An October 2014 Pew Research Center study says that 40 percent of adult Internet users have personally experienced online harassment, and 73 percent have witnessed it occur to others. Young adults, specifically young women, experience more harassment than any other demographic.
The National Crime Prevention Council reported that almost half of teens they surveyed for a 2011 report experienced some form of cyberbullying in the previous year. Nearly half of teens said that cyberbullying happens because the offender doesn’t perceive any tangible consequences or feels he or she would not get caught due to the Internet’s anonymity.
Fortunately, the law is beginning to catch up with technology. The Cyberbullying Research Center reports that 49 states now have laws regarding bullying, and 48 of those included some mention of electronic forms of harassment.
Photo illustration by Ronny Perry, United Methodist Communications.
'Just set the phone down'
“Students have to understand anything you’ve ever posted to the Internet is still there,” said the Rev. Joseph McBrayer, Wesley Fellowship director and doctoral candidate at Emory University in Atlanta.
He said even college-age adults have trouble comprehending the “permanent” concept of Internet posting and described instances of students having messy breakups and posting inappropriate comments about each other on social media.
“I’ve had to meet with them and let them know it’s not helpful and not good for our community,” McBrayer said. “It doesn’t help them seek resolution and it doesn’t draw attention to them in a good way.”
The lack of opportunity to read a speaker’s body language or hear their tone of voice is a limitation of online communication.
“Texting really doesn't give people the real attitude of the person they are texting,” said Maddi, an eight-grader in Franklin, Tenn. “When you hit the send button you can never get it back.”
Maddi recently endured a series of angry and disturbing texts from a friend. After the correspondence escalated, Maddi consulted her youth pastor. She also blocked the person’s number from her phone and “defriended” that person from her Facebook account.
She was eventually able to make peace with the friend, but she sees how texting “can end a friendship just by pushing a button.”
Maddi’s advice for others who find themselves in a “texting war” is simple: “Just set the phone down. Don't text back. You can’t win. It will just get worse and worse.”
Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety. Photo courtesy Ms. Aftab.
Technology can do good
Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety, reports that only 5 percent of young people her organization has surveyed would tell their parents if they’re being bullied online, but one-third of them would confide in another trusted adult.
“A youth pastor could be the most likely person they will trust. So we have to prepare them to be the trusted adult,” Aftab said. “They need to understand cyberbullying and sexting. They need to understand how the technology works and how it’s abused. You have a precious few minutes to do it right, and if you do it wrong you’ll never hear from them again.”
Aftab said Internet issues are difficult for a number of parents to address with their children because it’s an area where the child likely knows more than the parent. But she implored parents not to let a lack of tech savvy become an excuse to ignore the subject. After all, she thinks there are many positive uses for technology. WiredSafety.org offers a Stop Cyberbullying Toolkit, available for free to schools, community organizations and faith-based organizations.
“We hear so often, ‘What would Christ do?’ The power of the Internet to spread good, to bring people together and to enlighten and acknowledge is something Christ would do,” she said.
'When we say something mean, we fail Christ'
Even the technologically challenged can influence young people’s online behavior and practices.
“A church can create an atmosphere where we let people know that kind of behavior is not what we should do as Christians,” said the Rev. Mark Bray, senior pastor of Summer Grove United Methodist Church in Shreveport, La.
Summer Grove held a 2010 event called “No Bully Zone,” after the rash of nationally reported suicides of teenage victims of bullying.
“From a United Methodist perspective, we have the Three Simple Rules, one of which is Do No Harm,” Bray said. “That includes social-media outlets we participate in. That’s something we need to practice.”
Aftab pointed out that advice shouldn’t only be directed at the youth.
“We need to model behavior and be that which we want kids to be. We can’t get catty about what people wear to church. We need to show them that it’s not OK to be unkind or target differences."
The Rev. Kristin Stoneking, a United Methodist pastor and executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, knows all about differences. While serving as a campus minister at the University of California-Davis, Stoneking was part of a team of faith leaders working with about 40 students living together in a multi-faith residence hall. Students who live in the CA House Multi-faith Living Community sign a covenant pledging to be open, compassionate and willing to grow. They also pledge to share their faith with the community but refrain from trying to convert others to their way of believing.
“One of the great things about multi-faith living is it engages students in how to deal with difference,” Stoneking said. “The daily interaction students have with each other helps them go beyond surface ways of understanding or ignoring difference. When students hear the breadth and depth of someone else’s faith journey, it brings them closer to understanding.”
Above all, Aftab, a United Methodist, said the best way churches and faith-based organizations can influence young people is to talk to them in a way they can relate.
“Christianity is very good at making it ‘real.’ The New Testament is written in parables to teach people through example. Faith-based organizations need to take real stories of real lives affected by bullying. We need to encourage the kids within the church to tell their own stories, so their peers can support them.
“They need to know every time we say something mean, we fail Christ,” Aftab said. “To be a Christian comes with an obligation to be good to others, to leave the world a better place than you found it.”
*Butler is a multimedia producer/editor for United Methodist Communications and one-half of Duo Sudeste, a Latin guitar duo.
Editor's Note: This article originally ran in 2010 and has been updated where appropriate.
News media contact: Joey Butler, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
Related VideoRelated ArticlesResourcesNASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMNS) — The season of Advent begins this year on Nov. 30. Various United Methodist-related groups are offering free resources to celebrate the start of the Christian year and prepare for Christ's birth. They include:
SAVANNAH, Ga. (UMNS) — Two African writers were named 2014 United Methodist Communicators of the Year for their coverage of the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history. The United Methodist Association of Communicators gave the association's top award to Phileas Jusu, communicator for The United Methodist Church in Sierra Leone, and Julu Swen, editor and publisher of West African Writers, an online publication about United Methodist happenings in West Africa. African communicators take top honors
Two African writers were named 2014 United Methodist Communicators of the Year for their coverage of the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history.
The United Methodist Association of Communicators gave the association’s top award to Phileas Jusu, communicator for The United Methodist Church in Sierra Leone, and Julu Swen, editor and publisher of West African Writers, an online publication about United Methodist happenings in West Africa. Swen also assists the denomination in Liberia with coverage for United Methodist Communications.
There was a standing ovation when the winners were announced.
Both Jusu and Swen expressed their thanks for the award via email. Jusu said he was “humbled by the award,” which he said was a reflection of the joint effort between writers in Africa and the team at United Methodist Communications that provides support and resources.
“I thank you all for putting us on the map of effective communicators,” he wrote.
Vicki Brown, news editor for United Methodist News Service, praised their coverage of the outbreak that has now claimed nearly 5,000 lives, mostly in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.
“Phileas and Julu are brave men,” Brown told UMAC members. “When they travel to cover the church’s anti-Ebola efforts, they increase their chances of being exposed to a virus that claims the lives of 7 out of 10 people who get it.”
“Their contributions have ensured that United Methodist News Service’s coverage has been centered on West Africa, where the real fight is occurring.”
2014 UMAC AWARD WINNERSNo strangers to crisis
Neither writer is a stranger to crisis.
Brown noted that Jusu’s writing career began in 1996 after rebel soldiers invaded the campus of Njala University College during the 1991-2002 civil war. Jusu, who had been writing for a tabloid, said he stayed on to report on the war, the economy and politics because, “practically speaking, I did not have many options.”
Swen worked for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia as an inquiry officer, conducting interviews with victims and perpetrators of Liberia’s civil war, which involved two conflicts that ended in 2003. He also researched issues related to the war, including controversial issues addressed by the commission.
Jusu worked as a referral and counseling officer for Sierra Leone’s National Committee for Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration, arranging training for ex-combatants to help them learn new trades. He joined the denomination’s Sierra Leone Conference staff in 2005.
Two of Jusu’s three children provided voices for the Ebola animation created by Chocolate Moose Media and mobile-health-education innovator iHeed in collaboration with United Methodist Communications.
“His planned Nov. 30 wedding to Jennifer had to be postponed because of Ebola. Large crowds cannot gather, so they are tentatively making plans for an April ceremony,” Brown said.
“I hope you will make a special place in your prayers for these two communicators and their families, as well as the many who are dealing with this deadly virus and the devastation of the economy in West Africa,” Brown asked of those gathered for the awards presentation.
Awards of Excellence
Neill Caldwell, president of UMAC, portrayed John Wesley at the awards banquet. Photo by Art McClanahan.
On a lighter note, John Wesley (played by UMAC President Neill Caldwell) welcomed the group to Savannah. “I hope you have better luck here than I did,” he said, referring to Wesley’s unsuccessful ministry of two years in Savannah.
In other awards, United Methodist Communications claimed five Awards of Excellence, including awards for print and digital publication, writing, photography and the new umc.org website.
Awards of Excellence also went to Discipleship Ministries and staffs of the Iowa, Michigan, Kentucky and Minnesota conferences.
Awards of Excellence winners:
Full list of United Methodist Association of Communicators 2014 award winners
2014 United Methodist Association of Communicators Awards
Categories with no winners were omitted from the list, and not every category had three winners. The Awards of Excellence winners are included in the story.
Print publications
Newsletter, local church/annual conference:
Newsletter, regional/general agency:
Newspaper, local church/annual conference:
Magazine, local church/annual conference:
Magazine, regional/general agency:
Special Publication, local church/annual conference:
Special publication, regional/general agency:
Digital publications
E-Newsletter, local church/annual conference:
E-newsletter, regional/general agency
Electronic Publication, local church/annual conference:
Electronic Special Publication, Section or Supplement, regional/general agency
Writing
Opinion–Editorial, local church/annual conference:
News Article, local church/annual conference:
News article, regional/general agency:
Feature article, local church/annual conference:
Article series, local church/annual conference:
Article series, regional/general agency:
Internet Communications
Blog, local church/annual conference:
Social media online content, local church/annual conference:
Mobile Website, regional/general agency
Mobile Apps, local church/annual conference
Video production
Video production, costing less than $500, regional/general agency:
Video production, costing $500-2,000, local church/annual conference
Video production, costing $500-$2,000, regional/general agency
Video Production, costing more than $2,000, local church/annual conference:
Video production, costing more than $2,000, regional/general agency:
|
|  |
No comments:
Post a Comment