| United Methodist News Service Weekly Digest for Friday, 23 January 2015 NOTE: This is a digest of news features provided by United Methodist Communications for Jan. 19-23. 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: Changes ahead for pension board investments GLENVIEW, Ill. (UMNS) - Changes ahead for pension board investments
Being good to the planet and its people ultimately will be good for United Methodist workers’ bottom line. That’s the principle behind two changes to the investment policy of the United Methodist Board of Pension and Health Benefits.
PENSION BOARD'S PRESS RELEASE
The General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of The United Methodist Church, and its Wespath investment management division, today announced the implementation of two new investment guidelines.
In November, the board’s directors voted to exclude certain investments in coal and avoid investing in companies meeting certain thresholds that operate in countries with “a prolonged and systematic pattern of human rights violations.” These changes are just starting to take effect.
The changes — part of an investment policy called the management of excessive sustainability risk — come with an eye toward both church values and the long-term financial returns of United Methodist beneficiaries, say board staff.
“What this means is that we feel that the companies that we identify (for possible exclusion) have policies and practices that are not sustainable and will ultimately result in losses in value for the companies,” said Dave Zellner, the board’s chief investment officer.
For example, Zellner and other board staff foresee only diminishing returns from companies that extract the thermal coal used to generate electricity. With the increased international focus on climate change and the attendant regulation, coal — the most carbon-intensive fuel — is losing steam as people turn to other energy sources.
Human rights violations pose a similar problem for investors, board staff say. A country that abuses its people isn’t just immoral — it’s bad for business.
The pension board manages retirement plans for more than 91,000 participants, including United Methodist clergy and lay employees. Through its Wespath Investment Management division, the board also manages the assets of United Methodist-affiliated endowments, foundations and other institutions.
Altogether, the board oversees $21 billion in assets, including the largest church pension fund in the United States.
What the new guidelines do
The board still does not know how many of its current investments the new criteria will affect.
SUSTAINABLE INVESTING
The pension board long has been a leader in what the financial industry calls socially responsible investing. In 2006, the United Methodist board was the only faith-based group to help develop the United Nations’ “Principles of Responsible Investment,” which now many other organizations use.
The Book of Discipline, the denomination's law book, requires that all church agencies and institutions, including hospitals and universities, “make a conscious effort” to invest in line with United Methodist Social Principles.
The book urges church institutions to “endeavor to avoid” businesses that engage in racial discrimination, violate human rights or use forced labor.
The book also specifically exhorts United Methodist entities to shun investments that support gambling, pornography, alcoholic beverages, tobacco or the production of nuclear armaments. As a rule, the United Methodist pension board and other church-related groups will not invest in a company that receives more than 10 percent of its revenue from the objectionable products.
In late 2011, at the urging of many United Methodist leaders, the pension board added private prisons to the stocks it excludes from its portfolio.
The board also looks at environmental, social and governance factors in determining whether an investment is sound. Sometimes the board decides to exclude a stock, but often staff will use shareholder engagement to get a company to modify its behavior.
Kirsty Jenkinson, the board’s managing director of sustainable investment strategies, said the board is working with the research firm Sustainalytics to determine which companies it will exclude from its funds.
Specifically, the new coal guideline may result in the board excluding:
In developing countries, the guideline will factor in the importance of access to energy in economic development.
The new human rights guidelines may exclude any company that provides significant financial services to or derives more than 10 percent of its revenues or raw materials from:
The board especially will scrutinize companies that operate in nations with the worst ranking in Freedom House's annual “Freedom in the World” report. In its 2014 report, the worst rankings went to the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
“We’re not planning to specifically release the (names of) companies that will be excluded from our portfolio,” Jenkinson said. “Successful engagement relies on a level of trust between ourselves and the companies we engage. Naming companies that we determine represent excessive sustainable investment risk would likely impair this trust and thus our ability to positively influence change.”
Instead, the board will continue to publicize the companies where it has investments. Lists of the board’s holdings are updated quarterly on its website.
Zellner added that the board’s new rules are highly unlikely to lead to the exclusion of Motorola, Hewlett-Packard or Caterpillar. Those companies have been the targets of widespread divestment campaigns because the Israeli military uses their products in the occupied Palestinian territories. General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body, in 2012 voted against a proposal to divest from the three companies.
Some companies may be excluded because of their connection to the settlements, Zellner said.
“But those three companies would not meet the criteria that would exclude them,” he added.
To exclude or not to exclude?
The pension board increasingly faces pressure to exclude other kinds of businesses as well. The Fossil Free UMC movement is urging that coal, petroleum and natural gas be added to the denomination’s investment exclusions.
The Baltimore-Washington, California-Nevada, Pacific Northwest, and Virginia conferences have approved resolutions to study the issue. The movement cites the Book of Discipline, which speaks of the dangers greenhouse gases pose to the overall climate and the economically vulnerable. The church’s Social Principles urge world governments and United Methodists to work toward the reduction of such emissions.
The Rev. Jenny Phillips is the coordinator of the Fossil Free Movement and minister for environmental stewardship and advocacy in the Pacific Northwest Conference.
“The task at hand isn’t like asking Nike to stop making shoes in sweatshops,” she told the board in November. “It’s like asking Nike to stop making shoes.”
But Zellner and others at the pension board are quick to point out the board can have more influence in encouraging sustainable corporate decisions if it has a seat at the table.
The Rev. Ed Tomlinson, a board director and pastor in the North Georgia Conference, puts it this way. If a parishioner decides to leave his congregation for good, “I am not going to listen to their opinions any further.” The church will likewise be ignored if it abandons some investments altogether, he said.
The pension board’s engagement has had some success in the fossil-fuel industry. The board recently led an investor coalition to get ConocoPhillips to set a public goal for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The company is aiming for a 3 to 5 percent reduction in emissions this year, said Anita Green, the board’s manager of sustainable investment strategies.
Even with the current volatility in the oil and gas markets, neither fossil fuel is going away anytime soon. The board has a fiduciary duty to its beneficiaries to stay involved, board staff say. It also helps that some oil and gas companies are working to develop more renewable sources of energy.
Timothy Smith, a pension board member, works as a senior vice president of Walden Asset Management where he spends a great deal of his time advocating on environmental issues. He said it’s a “moral mirage” to think that if the denomination abandoned all fossil fuel investments it would directly affect global energy consumption.
At the same time, he said divesting from coal can make a substantial difference in an investment portfolio’s climate picture. When Stanford University decided to purge its coal stocks last year, it discovered that the move would cut the carbon footprint of its investment portfolio by half.
Determining when it’s best to remain engaged and when it’s best simply to walk away will remain a challenge for the pension board and other church-related investors. But staff are hopeful the new guidelines will help.
“There is so much that goes on behind the scenes that the average United Methodist member or pastor has no idea,” said Missouri Area Bishop Robert Schnase, vice chair of the pension board. He joined the board in 2012, and as a clergy member, he is also a beneficiary of its investments.
“I’ve known all along that they make good decisions related to their fiduciary responsibilities. But the new door that has been opened for me is seeing how conscientious they are in working with companies around environmental, social and governance issues.”
Hahn is a multimedia news reporter for United Methodist News Service. Contact her at (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
Judicial Council sets docket for April meeting COLUMBUS, Ohio (UMNS) – The United Methodist Judicial Council, the denomination’s top court, has posted a seven-item docket for its April 15-18 spring meeting at the Hyatt Regency Columbus. The council’s meetings are closed except for oral hearings. No decisions have been announced yet regarding possible hearings in April. REVISED DOCKET FOR APRIL 2015 DOCKET 0415-1 IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law in the New England Annual Conference Regarding Whether Its Resolution RS-204 Conforms to Article XXII of the Methodist Articles of Religion RS – 204 – TO AFFIRM GOD'S CALL TO MINISTRY AND MARRIAGE As those who oppose, seek to change, and intend to live in disobedience to the United Methodist Disciplinary language that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" as a criteria for ordination and marriage and those policies that emanate from this language, we submit the following for adoption and implementation by the New England Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, WHEREAS our Conference, just as the general church, is not of one mind, RESOLVED: 1. We prayerfully support those clergy who have been brought to trial for solemnizing marriage vows for all properly prepared couples. 2. We strongly urge our Board of Ordained Ministry, Appointment Cabinet, and Resident Bishop to do all within their power to make the New England Annual Conference a place of welcome and refuge to those convicted by Church trial courts for presiding over same gender Christian weddings or faithfully responding to the call to ordained ministry. 3. We strongly urge the next General Conference of the United Methodist Church to remove all language that prohibits the ordination and marriage of persons based upon gender orientation or to allow Annual Conferences a “local option” to discern their own criteria in these matters. We strongly urge our New England Conference congregations and their clergy to open their "hearts, minds, and doors" to all couples regardless of gender seeking to sanctify their unions in holy matrimony. BISHOP’S RULING OF LAW Resolution 204 – by which the 2014 New England Annual Conference voted to: (1) prayerfully support clergy brought to trial for solemnizing same gender marriage vows; (2) strongly urge the Board of Ordained Ministry, the Cabinet and Bishop to do all within their power to make the Conference “a place of welcome and refuge for those convicted by church trial courts for presiding over same gender Christian weddings or faithfully responding to the call to ordained ministry”; (3) strongly urge that the next General Conference remove certain prohibitive language from the Book of Discipline or to allow Annual Conferences a “local option” to discern their own criteria in these matters; and (4) strongly urge the New England Annual Conference congregations and clergy to open their hearts, minds and doors to all couples regardless of gender seeking to sanctify their union in holy matrimony – is a resolution that is thoroughly aspirational in nature. None of the actions being urged in any way break the mandates of the church rites and ceremonies noted in Article XXII. If the wording of Resolution 204 is read as I read it, nothing contained within the four corners of Resolution 204 would serve to mandate, negate, ignore, or violate The Book of Discipline, nor is any of it in any way unlawfully prescriptive in nature, and I rule that it is upheld as lawful in its entirety. IV. REASONS SUPPORTING BISHOP DEVADHAR’S RULING OF LAW Resolution 204 calls for four things. First, it calls for the New England Annual Conference to “prayerfully support those clergy who have been brought to trial for solemnizing marriage vows for all properly prepared couples.” Secondly, it “strongly urges” the Board of Ordained Ministry, the Cabinet, and the Bishop to do “all within their power to make New England Annual Conference a place of welcome and refuge” for those convicted by church trial courts for presiding over same gender weddings. Third, Resolution 204 “strongly urges” the next General Conference to remove certain language that prohibits the ordination and marriage and persons based on gender or to allow Annual Conference a “local option” to discern their own criteria in these matters. Finally, it “strongly urges” New England Annual Conference congregations and clergy to open their “hearts, minds and doors” to all couples regardless of gender orientation, seeking to sanctify their unions in holy matrimony. All four of those components of Resolution 204, as expressly and intentionally worded by its makers, are aspirational, without prescriptive force, and do not serve to negate, ignore or violate a provision of the Discipline, or an act of the General Conference. The aspirational nature of the chosen language can be seen by reference to governing Judicial Council Decisions, as noted below. Words of aspiration, as identified by Judicial Council Decisions, are usually easy to identify. First, they are non-mandatory. Secondly, they are typically expressions of human hopes, dreams, goals or commitments, all directed towards affirming, supporting or seeking to change certain social policies, institutions or attitudes. For example, a resolution “affirming the sacred worth,” committing to continue to build inclusive communities, and inviting churches and individuals to adopt a statement, was upheld as aspirational. Calls to affirm, commit or invite are lawful according to the Judicial Council. Decision No. 1220 (2012). Similarly, a resolution “reaffirming a historic commitment,” declaring a passionate opposition to continued genderoriented distinctions, acknowledging a grave pastoral crisis facing the church, stating that while Bishops, boards, agencies and clergy “are bound by the Book of Discipline”, they are also “bound to exercise their consciences and are bound by Jesus’ call to stand with the marginalized and the oppressed”, and finally urging the annual conference to recognize that the individuals conducting certain actions do so “contrary to the historic expression of the annual conference at the risk of causing great harm to LGBT persons” was also all upheld as aspirational. Language declaring a passionate opposition, stating a belief, and urging recognition, has no prescriptive force and is lawful. Decision 1218 (2012). Similarly, an annual conference resolution calling for a “commendation” for those who have provided nurture to same sex couples, was upheld as “a historical recounting of actions by others, and is aspirational.” Decision 1255 (2013). By contrast, annual conference resolutions that cross the boundary of lawfulness tend to be far more forceful, prescriptive and commanding. A resolution to “renounce” a legislative act of General Conference was not legal, as it was plainly and openly disobedient to the Discipline (“We renounce the statement that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching...”) Decision 1220 (2012). A resolution informing annual conference of the names of clergy willing to perform same gender unions in violation of the Book of Discipline was also unlawful, again as attempting to negate, ignore, or violate the provisions of the Book of Discipline. Decision 1111 (2009). A resolution which proclaimed that its own stated principles were “a more authentic and truthful representation of the United Methodist Church” implied that it believed the present language of the Book of Discipline was less authentic, less truthful and presumably, therefore, less lawful than its own resolution; and that was considered by the Judicial Council to go beyond a permissible expression of a mere disagreement. Decision 1120 (2009). Another variety of an impermissible resolution is found in Decision 1250. In that Decision, the annual conference attempted to impose a suggested alternative penalty to a church trial court sanction in a manner that violated the trial court’s prerogatives under the Book of Discipline. Obviously, this resolution was by its nature a usurpation of powers not granted to annual conference, and therefore unlawful and unenforceable. Decision 1250 (2013). Turning now to each item in Resolution 204: Item #1 of Resolution 204 says that the Conference will keep clergy brought to trial in prayer. Absolutely nothing in Article XXII is violated by praying for someone. This is aspirational in nature. See, Decision 1255 (Commendation for those who have taken a stand for justice). Item #2 of Resolution 204 calls for the New England Conference to be a welcoming conference and a refuge for those whom the church has convicted. Absolutely nothing in Article XXII is violated by a conference being a welcoming refuge – to ANYONE, and it should be to ALL. This, too, is aspirational in nature. See, Decision 1255. Item #3 of Resolution 204 urges that actions be taken by General Conference 2016. This is totally appropriate and is part of the process by which General Conference discerns issues. It is anticipated that many petitions concerning this topic will be submitted. Absolutely nothing in Article XXII is violated by urging General Conference to adopt new laws. See, Decision 1255 (Commending) and 1218 (Reaffirming and Recognizing). Item #4 of Resolution 204 – and probably the main item being asked for a ruling of law, although not specifically stated as such, urges local United Methodist Churches to open their “hearts, minds and doors”. To open one’s heart is to care for people; to open one’s mind is to gather information, learn and discern; to open one’s doors is to let someone in to worship. Not one of these acts, actually announced as United Methodist ways of behaving, is a violation of Article XXII. Additionally, Item # 4 does not prevent nor override the provisions of Par.340.2(3)a of the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 2012, which gives the pastor the authority to determine whether or not to perform a marriage ceremony after due counsel of the parties involved and in accordance with the laws of the state and the rules of the United Methodist Church. This applies to all couples seeking to be married in the church and/or by the pastor. Additionally, the encouragement to welcome all couples...is keeping with par.161F which affirms our commitment to be in ministry with and for all persons. Finally, Item #4 does not urge the sanctification of same gender marriages that would negate, ignore or violate the Book of Discipline. See, Decision 1111 (Offering names of retired clergy who would perform same gender marriages did serve to negate, ignore, or violate Discipline). Rather, Item #4 as worded, merely urges clergy and congregations to open their hearts, minds, and doors to all couples “seeking to sanctify their unions in holy matrimony.” This is aspirational, and does not have the effect of negating, ignoring or violating the Discipline. However, the Judicial Council may view Item #4 of Resolution 204, like the person who requested the ruling of law, that the words really are urging local congregations to have samegender marriages in United Methodist churches and that the services be conducted by United Methodist clergy. If this is the interpretation to be given, then Item #4 is a violation of the Discipline as discussed above and should therefore be removed from Resolution 204 as null and void. V. CONCLUSION Resolution 204 - by which the 2014 New England Annual Conference voted to: (1) prayerfully support clergy brought to trial for solemnizing same gender marriage vows; (2) strongly urge the Board of Ordained Ministry, the Cabinet and Bishop to do all within their power to make the Conference “a place of welcome and refuge for those convicted by the church trial courts for presiding over same gender weddings”; (3) strongly urge that the next General Conference remove certain prohibitive language from the Book of Discipline; and (4) strongly urge the New England Annual Conference congregations and clergy to open their hearts, minds and doors to all couples regardless of gender orientation - is a resolution that is thoroughly aspirational in nature. None of the actions being urged in any way break the mandates of the church rites and ceremonies noted in Article XXII. Nothing contained within the four corners of Resolution 204 mandates negating, ignoring or violating the Book of Discipline, nor is any of it in any way unlawfully prescriptive in nature. Resolution 204 of the 2014 New England Annual Conference is upheld as lawful in its entirety.DOCKET 0415-2 IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law in the Detroit Annual Conference Regarding Whether Resolution #14 Complies with ¶¶ 2702.1b, 2704.2a, and 324.13, as well as Judicial Council Decisions 1111, 1115, 1120, and 1218 Pursuantto1151and1156.3ofthe 2012BookofDisciplineofTheUnited Methodist Church ("Discipline"), Ihereby submit forJudicial Councilreview my Decision of Law on the written and signed request made for such a decision by a lay member on May 18, 2014 from the floor of the plenary session of the Detroit Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church ("DACUMC") asto Resolution #14, adopted by the DACUMC on May 17, 2014. Resolution #14, as adopted, states: Therefore be it resolved the Detroit Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church in response to our common belief that God's grace and love is available to all persons and in keeping with the United Methodist tradition of diversity that each member, pastor, deacon, congregation, bishop, and committee be strongly encouraged to: 1. Support lesbian, gay, bisexual,and transgender lay members who marry and to refrain from filing complaints against pastors and deacons who perform marriages between gender and sexual minorities (also referred to as "same-sex marriages"); and 2. Refrain from using its resources to investigate or enforce a ban on marriages between lesbian, gay, bisexual,and transgender people, or for church trials, or for otherwise disciplining clergy that offer the ministry of marriage to all persons in their congregation or community; and 3. Refrain from using its resources to investigate the gender or sexual orientation of a minister or candidate for ministry, and not to use its resources to enforce a ban on the certification of a lesbian, gay bisexual, or transgender candidate for ministry, or the ban on ordination of a lesbian, gay, bisexual,or transgender minister. The request for a Decision of Law as presented states: I hereby requestthatBishopDeborahL.Kieseydeterminethefollowing astoResolution#14 adopted bythe 2014session oftheDetroitAnnual Conference onMay 17,2014. 1. Issection 1ofthe resolution incompliance with 2702.l(b) ofthe 2012 Book of Discipline of TheUnitedMethodist Church andJudicial Council Decisions 1111, 1115,1120,and 1218? 2. Issection 2 ofthe resolution in compliance with 2704.2(a) ofthe 2012 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church and Judicial Council Decisions 1111, 1115, 1120, and 1218? 3. Issection 3 of the resolution in compliance with 324.13 of the 2012 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church and Judicial Council Decisions 1111,1115, 1120, and 1218? Although the request for a Decision of Law on Resolution #14 references only specific provisions ofthe Discipline and certain Judicial Council Decisions, my analysis and rulingof necessity haveconsidered any relevant provisions andDecisions. My Decision of Law is: 1. Although the three numbered sections ofthe Resolution are preceded by the phrase "resolved...that each member, pastor, deacon, congregation, bishop, and committee be strongly encouraged to" take or to refrain from taking specified actions, with no penalty for a failure to comply, which could arguably make the entire Resolution aspirational and non-binding in nature, and hence, valid and not in violation of the Discipline, prior decisions by the Judicial Councilsuggest that the full context of the Resolution and its debate, the substance of each numbered section, and their impact must be separately considered in determining whether the Resolution would negate, ignore or violate provisions ofthe Discipline. 2. In section #1, with regard to the phrase "support lesbian, gay, bisexual,and transgender lay members who marry",the Resolution is valid as an aspirational hope, and to the extent "support" is limited to actions that are not in violation of the Discipline (e.g. offering emotional support for lay people that have a same-sex marriage), consistent with Decision 1262 of the Judicial Council and the distinctions offered therein. 3. In section #1, with regard to the phrase "and to refrain from filing complaints against pastors and deacons who perform marriages between gender and sexualminorities (also referred to as "same-sex" marriages"), the Resolution is null and void as an intention, encouragement, or summons either to ignore or to violate Church Law, or to expressly discourage the enforcement of Church Law, since conducting samesex marriages by pastors is within the scope of the phrase "performing same-sex wedding ceremonies", a chargeable offense in the Discipline. See e.g. Discipline ¶¶ 2702; 2704. 4. Insection #2, with regard to the phrase "Refrain from using its resourcesto investigate or enforce a ban on marriages between lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, or for church trials, or for otherwise disciplining clergy that offer the ministry of marriage to all persons in their congregation or community", the Resolution is null and void as a summons to violate the provisions ofthe Discipline which require a Bishop and others in positions of supervision to use their time and other Church resources to investigate complaints alleging that chargeable offences have been committed, to participate in related trials, and to otherwise participate in the supervisory process and to provide due process when allegations of violations of the Discipline have occurred. See e.g. Discipline ¶¶ 2702, 2704 5. In section #3, with regard to the phrase: "Refrain from using itsresources to investigate the gender or sexual orientation of a minister or candidate for ministry, and not to use its resources to enforce a ban on the certification of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender candidate for ministry, or the ban on ordination of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender minister", the Resolution is null and void (a) as a summons to violate the provisions of the Discipline that require the Board of Ordained Ministry and others within the Church to use their time and other resources to determine whether a clergy person is inviolation of the provision of the Discipline or whether a candidate for ministry would be in violation of the provisions of the Discipline immediately upon becoming a clergy person, and (b) as a summons not to use resources to enforce any related Disciplinary ban on ordination which currently applies. See e.g. Discipline 1111 324.12; 324.13; 2702; 2704 DOCKET 0415-3 IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law in the Arkansas Conference Regarding Limitation of Years of Service of Cabinet Members Who Are Not District Superintendents in Light of ¶ 418During the June 21, 2014, session of the Arkansas Annual Conference, Rev. David Orr made the following request: I request a ruling of church law on the matter of limitations on years of service for those serving on the Appointive Cabinet. Specifically, does Par 418 of the 2012 Book of Discipline apply to non-district superintendents serving on the Appointive Cabinet? It might be appropriate to declare this request for a ruling of law as inappropriately moot and hypothetical because it relates to a term, “the Appointive Cabinet,” that does not exist in, and is not defined by, The Book of Discipline. Further, since the request relates to “non-district superintendents” and ¶418 applies only to district superintendents, it appears that the question does not concern an issue of law under The Book of Discipline and is therefore improper for that reason also. Finally, it might be inappropriate because it was not an item related to any business undertaken during the 2014 annual conference, but legislation addressed in a previous annual conference session. See Judicial Council decisions 1214, 1086, 799 and 33. Nevertheless, I will address the request in a substantive manner. ¶418 limits the tenure of a district superintendent and, therefore, limits his or her membership in the cabinet as a district superintendent. Neither this, nor any other paragraph in The Book of Discipline, states that those who serve in the cabinet and are not district superintendents are bound by ¶418. Therefore, I rule that ¶418 is not binding on non-district superintendents who serve in a consultative fashion in cabinet meetings that address the making of appointments. DOCKET 0415-4 IN RE: A Request from the North Georgia Annual Conference for a Declaratory Decision on the Constitutionality of the Deletion of ¶ 2703.2 of the 2008 Book of Discipline The Committee on Nominations hereby moves that the Annual Conference, as empowered by ¶2610.2.(j) of the 2012 Book of Discipline, request of the Judicial Council a declaratory decision on the constitutionality of the deletion of ¶2703.2 of the 2008 Book of Discipline, the text of which defining the annual conference Committee on Investigation does not appear in the 2012 Book of Discipline. Similarly, ¶2704.2 of the 2012 Book of Discipline does not contain the references to the Committee on Investigation that were in the same paragraph in the 2008 Book of Discipline, and that paragraph describes the process by which the annual conference conducts the investigation of charges brought against clergy members of the conference. Moreover, ¶2706, which describes the procedure of the Committee on Investigation, has all reference to clergy members of the annual conference that were in the 2008 Book of Discipline deleted there from, despite the fact that ¶2706.2 continues to describe the parties as "the respondent and the Church" without qualifying "respondent" not to include clergy members of the annual conference. This all must be interpreted in the light of ¶33 of the United Methodist Constitution which specifies that the lay and clergy members of the Committee on Investigation are empowered with vote on matters related to ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy, strongly and necessarily implying that those lay members, as well as clergy members of the annual conference, through their service on the Committee on Investigation, have a role in the investigation of charges against those clergy members. RATIONALE After many attempts over the years 2008 General Conference, subject to approval of a constitutional amendment in accordance with Judicial Council Decision Number 993, with the support of two-thirds vote of the membership of all annual conferences, changed the Constitution (¶33) to provide laity voting members in the clergy committee on investigation. The 2008 Book of Discipline ¶¶602.6 and 2703.2 were also appropriately changed by the 2008 General Conference to specify full laity and clergy involvement in the clergy committee on investigation and clergy were instituted as voting members of any laity committee on investigation. Prior to this time laity were excluded from full participation in clergy investigations. The changes in ¶¶33, 602.6 and 2703.2 were all proposed in one petition and enacted by General Conference 2008 as an integrated package, despite the fact that since ¶33 is part of the Constitution it had to be treated in a different manner. ¶¶602.6 and 2703.2 were amended as a manner of implementing the change effected by changing ¶33. The Council of Bishops certified passage of the Constitutional amendment and the 2008 Book of Discipline was changed by addendum. In an attempt to streamline the fair process of determining if a clergy person will be brought to trial after charges have been filed, the 2012 General Conference completely eliminated the clergy committee on investigation and gave that responsibility to one clergy person appointed by the bishop to decide whether a clergy is brought to trial. This means the important decision on bringing a clergy to trial is no longer made by a body of persons elected by the annual conference but is made by one person appointed by the bishop with no accountability whatsoever to peers or to the laity of the Church. However, the controlling constitutional paragraph 33 was not changed. The long standing similarity to secular accountability of a district attorney reporting findings to citizen peers, with that Grand Jury deciding whether to indict, has now been lost in our Church and a process is now in place with no independent review before a clergy person is placed on trial. This is not the case for laity or bishops or diaconal ministers because those committees on investigation have been left in place. The Constitution of The United Methodist Church (¶33) still provides that a clergy committee on investigation made up of peer clergy and laity is to be part of the fair process when charges are brought against a clergy member of the annual conference. That is to say the Constitution was NOT amended even though the clergy committee on investigation was eliminated by legislation. The motion before the Annual Conference is needed to request that the Judicial Council review the elimination of the clergy committee on investigation as to its constitutionality to determine whether the disciplinary paragraphs that support the constitutional requirements for the clergy investigative function should be retained and reinstated. DOCKET 0415-5 IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law in the Arkansas Conference Regarding Nonappointive Members of the Cabinet Participating in Appointment-making in Light of ¶¶ 403.2, 419.2, 424,428, and 608.6 During the June 21, 2014, session of the Arkansas Annual Conference, Rev. David Orr made the following request: I request a ruling of church law regarding the Arkansas Conference practice of nondistrict superintendents participating in the making of appointments. Specifically, does the Structure of the Arkansas Conference as found in the 2013 Conference Journal defining the Appointive Cabinet (page 445, “PURPOSE: Working with the Bishop, the appointive cabinet facilitates and administers the appointive process. STRUCTURE: The membership of the Appointive Cabinet shall be determined by the presiding Bishop to address the missional needs of the Annual Conference”); and, the Arkansas Conference’s current practice of non-district superintendents participating in the making of clergy appointments comply with The 2012 Book of Discipline paragraphs 403.2, 424, 428, 419.2, and 608.6? It might be appropriate to declare this request for a ruling of law as inappropriately moot and hypothetical because it was not an item related to any business undertaken during the 2014 annual conference, but legislation addressed in a previous annual conference session. See Judicial Council decisions 1214, 1086, 799 and 33. Further, it might be inappropriate because it asks for a ruling of law about an entity, “the appointive cabinet,” that does not exist in, and is not defined by, The Book of Discipline. Nevertheless, I will address the request in a substantive manner.The Book of Discipline always takes precedence over annual conference standing rules. If there is a discrepancy between the two, annual conference standing rules must be changed. The bishop’s authority to compose the cabinet resides in The Book of Discipline and not the Arkansas Conference Standing Rules. In this instance the Arkansas Conference Standing Rules concerning the composition of the “appointive cabinet’ is consistent with the cited paragraphs in the request for the ruling of law. However, since The Discipline addresses this matter, this particular standing rule is redundant and unnecessary. The question of whether the Arkansas Conference “current practice” of including persons who are not district superintendents in providing consultation to the bishop in the making of appointments is not a conference practice. It is an act undertaken by the bishop based on the responsibilities given him by The Book of Discipline. ¶54 Article X makes it clear that district superintendents serve in a consultative role to the bishop, “The bishops shall appoint, after consultation with the district superintendents, ministers to the charges….” ¶419 states that the district superintendent is “an extension of the office of bishop.” See also ¶ 403.2. ¶425.1 states that it is the bishop who makes appointments: “Clergy shall be appointed by the bishop, who is empowered to make and fix all appointments in the episcopal area of which the annual conference is a part.” In sum, district superintendents do not make appointments but serve a consultative function to the bishop. As such, any actions they take concerning appointments while meeting as part of the cabinet are merely advisory in nature. ¶424 clearly indicates that all district superintendents are members of “the cabinet." ¶428 prescribes the role of the “cabinet as a whole” in considering all appointments, but it does not preclude the bishop from considering information obtained from other persons, including those with whom the bishop consults in determining the ministry settings that are most appropriate for particular clergy as a part of the bishop’s exercise of his or her appointment authority. Likewise, while ¶419.2 provides that the district superintendent “…shall work with the bishop and cabinet in the process of appointment and assignment for ordained and licensed clergy,” it does not preclude the bishop from consulting with others, including members of the extended cabinet. ¶619.2 mandates that the director of administrative services “…shall be present when the cabinet considers matters relating to conference administration related to the conference treasurer’s or conference treasure/director of administrative service’s responsibilities, or other matters as the cabinet and director may determine.” ¶608b states that the director of connectional ministries (or designated person) “…shall serve as an officer of the conference and shall sit with the cabinet when the cabinet considers matters relating to coordination, implementation or administration of the conference program, and other matters as the cabinet and director may determine.” ¶607.6 states, “The conference lay leader shall meet with the cabinet when matters relating to the coordination, implementation, or administration of the conference program, or other matters as the cabinet may determine are on the agenda.” ¶619.2 explicitly states that the director of administrative services shall not meet with the cabinet when it is considering appointments. However, ¶607.6 and ¶608b do not have such a restriction. While ¶424 is the section of The Discipline that addresses the role and function of the cabinet, it never defines its membership to exclude persons who are not district superintendents, particularly since the work of the cabinet is not limited to appointments. Further, the commonly used phrase “appointive cabinet” never appears in The Book of Discipline, and only ¶609b mentions the “extended cabinet” at all. While the district superintendents are always part of the cabinet - and while it is mandated that certain persons be present at particular times - The Book of Discipline, with one limited exception involving the director of administrative services, never states that bishops may not invite others to participate in the cabinet either during the making of appointments or any of its other work. In sum, the relevant sections of The Book of Discipline include the district superintendents as members of the cabinet and also describe the cabinet as a fluid entity purposely designed by The Discipline with maximum flexibility to help the bishop carry out her or his leadership duties in the annual conference, including appointments. Therefore, I rule that, within the limitations explicitly outlined by The Book of Discipline, including the tenure of district superintendents, ¶¶403.2, 424, 428, 419.2, and 608.6 give the bishop the right to include those who are not superintendents in a consultative fashion in cabinet meetings that address the making of appointments. The standing rule addressing the composition of the “appointive cabinet”, while substantively in compliance with The Book of Discipline, is not binding on the bishop and is unnecessary since it is addressed by The Book of Discipline.DOCKET 0415-6 IN RE: A Request for a Declaratory Decision Regarding Alleged Violations, Errors, Omissions, and Actions during the East Ohio Annual Conference Clergy Session THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH IN RE: A. WENDELL WHEADON, Retired Elder in Full Connection East Ohio Conference P.O. Box 20701 Cleveland, OH 44120 AND PATRICE ROCHELLE BREWER, Discontinued Provisional Elder East Ohio Conference 19661 Fairmount Blvd. Shaker Heights, OH 44118 PETITIONERS. PETITION FOR DECLARATORY DECISION NOW COME A. Wendell Wheadon, Retired Elder in Full Connection of the East Ohio Conference and Patrice Rochelle Brewer, Discontinued Provisional Elder of the East Ohio Conference and aver to the Judicial Council that: Conditions of the Petition (1) The contents of this petition identify, set forth and/or allege violations, errors, omissions and actions of the East Ohio Annual Conference which are matters that affect the Petitioners and (2) This petition involves the constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of some portions of The Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 2012.Complaint NOW ALSO COME A. Wendell Wheadon, Retired Elder in Full Connection of the East Ohio Conference and Patrice Rochelle Brewer, Discontinued Provisional Elder of the East Ohio Conference, Petitioners and aver to the Judicial Council that: (1) Monday Morning, June 16, 2014, during the Clergy Executive Session of the East Ohio Annual Conference the motion of A. Wendell Wheadon, retired elder in full connection, made while this matter was pending before the Clergy Session, was ruled out of order in error. (2) From June 19, 2012 through June 16, 2014, Patrice Brewer: (a) was not afforded the process of consultation;1 (b) was not afforded the opportunity to confer with her district superintendent about the specific possible appointment and its congruence with gifts, evidence of God’s grace, professional experience and expectations, and the family needs of the pastor;2 (c) was not provided preparations or specific training for a cross-cultural appointment;3 (d) was made subject to provisions outside the Book of Discipline in the performance of her duties;4 was not assigned an elder as mentor,5 but did recommend, Mrs. Kim Shockley, a Colorado pastor’s wife as a coach; was not supervised by her district superintendent under whom she was appointed;6 (e) did not have the Church of the Redeemer’s profile shared with her;7 1 ¶426.1 2 ¶428.5 a) 3 ¶425.4 4 ¶327.4 5 ¶¶327.4, 349.1 b), 349.2, 349.4 6 ¶327.4, 7 ¶427(f) was not notified that the Board of Ordained Ministry had instituted a de facto mentoring and supervision scheme of Patrice Brewer through its Clergy Review Team,8 that was “assigned …to continue the mentoring and evaluation process;”9 (g) was not informed of the basis of the change in appointment and the process used in making the new appointment;10 (h) was not informed that a complaint had been received by the bishop, or that the bishop or district superintendent had initiated a complaint;11 (i) was not afforded the process of a supervisory response;12 (j) was not fully relieved of pastoral responsibility for Church of the Redeemer during her maternity leave;13 (k) was not advised of the reason for the proposed procedures with sufficient detail to allow Patrice Brewer to prepare a response;14 (l) was not advised of her right to a fair profess hearing before an impartial15 committee on conference relations, prior to any final recommendation to discontinue16 her relationship; (m) was not afforded fairness at the purported “fair process hearing;”17 (n) was not provided a copy of the report of the review of the process by the Administrative Review Committee that included a finding that the process utilized by the Board of Ordained Ministries’ Clergy Review Team performed its primary purpose, of attempting to obtain a just resolution of any violations of 8 ¶635.2 See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 54 and 66 9 ¶¶349.2,, 350, 350.1, 419.6-9, 11. See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 44 10 ¶428.3 11 ¶¶363.1, and 2702 12 ¶363.1 b) 13 ¶356.5 14 ¶362.2 b) 15 The Chairperson of the committee on Conference Relations, Jean Forbes was the same Jean Forbes who moved for the inclusion of the requirement that Patrice Brewer agree to, pay for, and under undergo psychological treatments and surrender periodic reports of all treatments to the Board of Ordained Ministry. Petitioners’ Exhibits No. 67, 91 and 95. 16Recommendation to discontinue provisional membership is judicial, and therefore subject to an objective vote, requiring the recording of the circumstances relating to the discontinuance as a provisional member ¶327.6, whereas the recommendations not to renew ¶635.2.(v) (4) or not to proceed toward ordination ¶325 are administrative and subject to an subjective vote. The distinction being that a judicial process begins when a written and signed complaint is received by the bishop. ¶363, the administrative process has no such requirement. 17 ¶362 and See footnote 15the sacred trust that exist in the ordination and membership in the East Ohio Annual Conference;18 (o) the Board of Ordained Ministry did not review and evaluate, but instead investigated, deceived, planned and implemented a vindictive and undermining environment and process to defeat the purposes of the Book of Discipline not to do away with the privileges of clergy of the right to trial by committee and to an appeal, and the right to trial before the church, or by a committee, and of an appeal.19 Specifications (1) During the clergy executive session on Monday, June 16, 2014 of the East Ohio Annual Conference, concerning consideration of Disciplinary Question 42c, On motion of Nancy Hull [Chair, Board of Ordained Ministry, that], those persons listed were involuntarily discontinued (¶327.6). (Exhibit A)20 Nancy [Hull] explained the process through which a [this] pastor is [was] involuntarily discontinued. Motion by Wendell Wheadon, retired elder in full connection to recommit that portion of the Motion to Adopt the recommendation of the Board of Ordained Ministry to “discontinue” the provisional membership of Patrice Brewer; 1. To a committee of five, consisting of the following a. Dan Bryant, District Superintendent, as chairperson b. Robert Tolbert, retired and former District Superintendent c. Warren Freed, Jr., former District Superintendent d. Roger J. Skelley-Watts, pastor and former District Associate e. Rosa B. Clements-Milliner, retired member in full connection 18 ¶¶363, 363.1 b) 19 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 67 administrative and subject to an subjective vote. The distinction being that a judicial process begins when a written and signed complaint is received by the bishop. ¶363, the administrative process has no such process, but ends . 19 ¶362 and See footnote 15 20 Daily Proceedings, Clergy Executive Session, Monday Morning, June 16, 2014, pp 3-2and 3-3,and as alternates Orlando Chaffee, former District Superintendent Charles D. Yoost, former District Superintendent 2. That said committee be recommended to the 2014 East Ohio Annual Conference. a. To be constituted, commissioned, charged, enabled, directed to consider informally, and investigate by reviewing all written documents of record, utilized or not, relied upon or not, reviewing the contemporaneous notes of all verbal communications, and reach a determination that any and all such evidence was made known to the Respondent; and interview in person or by telephone at least three lay-members of Oberlin-Rust UMC, Church of the Redeemer UMC and St. Paul UMC, and all persons whose verbal statements were cited by members of the Board of Ordained Ministry. To determine [the basis of the decision to discontinue, specifically including the]21 “permanent record of the circumstances relating to this discontinuance’ and determine if the “fair procedural process provisions,” were followed in full compliance with the applicable provisions, requirements and limitations of Paragraphs 327.6, 362.2e, 636, 2701 (Preamble and Purpose) and 2701.6 of the 2012 Discipline of The United Methodist Church, as well as, Judicial Council Decisions No. 691 (Decision 4) and No. 974. b. To submit a preliminary written report of its processes, proceedings, findings and recommendations to the East Ohio Conference Board of Ordained Ministry for its review, consideration, response and/or action, by January 31, 2015. 21 These words of the original motion were omitted from the official minutes of the East Ohio Annual Conference - 2014, page 3-3, line 16.c. To submit a final written report to the Clerk of the 2015 Annual Conference by April 1, 2015 for review, consideration and action during the Clergy Session. d. To surrender its commission and charge to the 2015 Annual Conference. Motion seconded by Rev. Dr. Robert Tolbert, retired elder in full connection. Bishop Hopkins ruled the motion out of order.22 This ruling was in error, in that: (a) the motion was germane to Discipline Question 42c, a matter relating to the work of the East Ohio Conference (¶ 2610.2(j), and; (b) the subsidiary motion, to recommit was permitted by the Rules of the East Ohio Annual Conference ¶ 1.G.5; and (c) the motion was in conformity with and permitted pursuant to Rules of the East Ohio Annual Conference ¶2.K., that provides, in part, “All requests and/or motions which would expand the conference structure by establishing a new program or committee within the annual conference will be referred to the Conference Council on Ministries. . . . Any new committee proposed or established must include an estimation of how long the committee is to exist. It must also name the existing annual conference body to which it would be accountable;” and (d) the motion that sought continued review, with the “primary purpose” of reaching “a just resolution of any violation of” the “sacred trust” required for “ordination and membership in the annual conference of the East Ohio Conference of The United Methodist Church,” until the June 2015 East Ohio Annual Conference,23 was within the intent and meaning of 22 The East Ohio Conference minutes also omitted that the motion was in writing in the format specified and permitted by East Ohio Rules permission to attach a type copy and Bishop Hopkins’ verbal statement of the basis of his ruling which was interpreted by the Petitioners as being a question of law (in that the made a verbal reference as to what the Discipline did not allow) and not a question of parliamentary procedure. 23 At the September 17, 2013 Board of Ordained Ministry meeting, after receipt of the BOM’s Clergy Task Force report concerning Patrice Brewer, where each member recommended that her provisional membership be continued, with varying conditions, “testing the will of the BOM, Nancy asked for a motion to discontinue Patrice as a provisional member. . . . The motion failed unanimously with no one from the BOM in support of this option.” . . . Motion made to continue Patrice Brewer as a provisional member with requirements to be named by the BOM. Second. Motion was made to table “until we establish the requirements.” Approved. Motion was made “that Patrice must not apply for ordination until October 1, 2015.” Approved. Motion was made “that Patrice undergo a comprehensive psychological evaluation to address past issues and her current mental and emotional ¶360.1 which provides: “When an associate or full member clergyperson’s effectiveness is in question, the bishop shall complete the following procedure: 1) Identify the concerns . . . 2) Hold supervisory conversations with the associate . . . 3) Upon evaluation, determine that the plan of action has not been carried out or produced fruit that gives a realistic expectation of future effectiveness;” and ¶363 which provides, in part, “Whenever a person in any of the above categories, including those on leave of all types, honorable or administrative location, or retirement, is accused of violating this trust, the membership of his or her ministerial office shall be subject to review. This review shall have as its primary purpose a just resolution of any violation of this sacred trust, in the hope that God’s wrk of justice, reconciliation and healing may be realized in the body of Christ. 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. In appropriate situations, processes seeking a just resolution as defined in ¶ 363.1 c) may be pursued. Special attention should be given to ensuring that cultural, racial, ethnic and gender contexts are valued throughout the process in terms of their understandings of fairness, justice and restoration.” when the intent and meaning of these paragraphs are applied to the motion to recommit that portion of the Motion to Adopt the status. This evaluation is to be completed through the Office of Pastoral Care or by a professional recommended by the Office of Pastoral Care. The BOM must receive ongoing progress reports from the evaluator, the first to be submitted by February 14, 2014. The progress reports will outline the evaluator’s recommendations and his or her assessment of Patrice’s progress. Patrice must sign a release of information form so that the evaluator may communicate with the BOM, and Patrice must follow whatever recommendations are made in that report. . . . Motions was approved with two abstentions.” recommendation of the Board of Ordained Ministry to ‘discontinue’ the probationary membership of Patrice Brewer, was a denial of allowing the clergy session the opportunity to adopt or reject the option contained in the motion and had the effect of ruling that it was out of order to attempt a “process seeking a just resolution that may have begun at any time in the supervisory, complaint, or trial process.” ¶ 363.1 c). Further, it denied the clergy session and the Annual Conference of the confidence that its vote was based on all the “fair procedural process provisions,” and were followed in full compliance with the applicable provisions, requirements and limitations of ¶¶ 327.6, 362.2e, 636, 2701 (Preamble and Purpose) and 2701.6 of the 2012 Discipline of The United Methodist Church, as well as, Judicial Council Decisions No. 691 (Decision 4) and No. 974. Following discussion Bishop called for a paper ballot.24 There is a simple majority required to approve Disciplinary Question 42c. Cindy Patterson [Conference Secretary] explained the process to vote, and reaffirmed the voting eligibility. Bishop Hopkins led the members in prayer. Nancy Hull requested that we support that Motion of the Board of Ordained Ministry.25 A paper ballot was taken. Bishop Hopkins reported the results of voting – 75% voted in favor of the motion (308 for, 104 against, 4 abstentions). Motion carried.” 2. That during her 10-15 minute “explanation,” Nancy [Hull] did not disclose to the clergy session,26 that Patrice Brewer: a) was not afforded the process of consultation;27 In that Patrice Brewer had not been afforded the process of consultation prior to her appointment at Church of the Redeemer United Methodist Church, Cleveland Heights, Ohio, a self 24 In response to a question concerning the quantity of votes required for passage. Bishop Hopkins directed his administrative assistant, Rev. Dr. Gary George to search the Discipline for an answer. After a search, Rev. Dr. George reported the absence of a specific requirement, but reasoned that other involuntary changes in status require a two-thirds vote, i.e. ¶355.3. Lay member Jean Forbes, interjected that only a simple majority was required. Bishop Hopkins ruled that a simple majority would be the requirement to approve Disciplinary Question 42c. 25 Nancy Hull’s, (Chair of the Board of Ordained Ministry) full statement of request for support of the motion, after discussion, call for the ballot and prayer, was omitted from the minutes. 26 Ibid. 27 ¶426.1designated reconciling congregation; in that she was not presented the opportunities to engage in “the exchange of ideas between her District Superintendent and herself28 and to seek an exchange of opinions or discuss with her District Superintendent “the proposed Appointment and discuss any reasons why such Appointment should not be made.”29 b) was not afforded the opportunity to confer with her district superintendent about the specific possible appointment and its congruence with gifts, evidence of God’s grace, professional experience and expectations, and the family needs of the pastor; 30 in that, Rev. Dan Bryant, District Superintendent, Mahoning Valley District reflected, in part, during his interview with the Clergy Review Team that the “Pre-take-in interview for Patrice at Redeemer took place on April 2, 2012. Judy and Dan had breakfast with Patrice. Prior to this meeting Judy and Dan had met and Judy had identified some issues she saw in Patrice while serving as her DS on the Firelands District [Patrice Brewer was still a student at Ashland Seminary]. The issues that Judy identified were issues around control and rigidness, and so Dan worked to address these issues during their breakfast meeting. At this time Patrice did not know what church she was being considered for, and so it was time for Dan and Judy to assess as to whether or not Patrice would be a good ’fit’ for this church.”31 … They believed Patrice was a good preacher who had demonstrated an ability to [connect with] children and youth. They shared with her that pastoral care was critical to this church, and the church would need to know that they could depend on her to be there when there was a need. They encouraged her to continue growing in spiritual maturity, to claim her spiritual authority, but not to overuse it as it would be extremely critical to work with the church. Dan had no [sense] that Patrice was in any way conservative about GLBTQ issues. …”32 the July 1, 2012, (one month after M.Div. graduation and two weeks after commissioning as a provisional elder) joint appointment letter from Rev. John L. Hopkins, Bishop, The East Ohio Conference and Rev. Peggy Streiff, Superintendent, North Coast District, contained eleven “areas of challenge and opportunity that must be given your special attention,”33 no consultation sessions, no appointment of a mentor, no cross-cultural training or mentoring sessions, no review of church profile, no sharing of existing community demographic studies, no sharing of the identity of 28 Judicial Council Decision No. 501 29 Judicial Council Decision No. 1174 and 101 30 ¶428.5 a) 31 See Petitioners; Exhibit No.61 32 Ibid. 33 See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 9, 4, 5, 6, 8the “consultant” or the consultant’s previous work product, and most importantly, no sharing of the meaning, status, polity, and acceptance of Church of the Redeemer’s self designation as a reconciling church with the East Ohio Conference and the Discipline of The United Methodist Church. c) was not provided preparations or specific training for a cross-cultural appointment; 34 in that, no explanation was offered, as to the relationship of the statement, “Redeemer historically has a wonderful record of connectional support in regard to mission outreach and stewardship to the East Ohio Annual conference and general church”35 as to its praxis, and no resources were either offered, provided or referenced to assist in relating to “the theological, racial, sexual and economic diversity that brings varying perspectives that require a pastoral leader to exercise spiritual maturity”36 and to be ready to be “called upon to be a spokesperson for the church and their multi-layered diversity.”37 d) was made subject to provisions outside the Book of Discipline in the performance of her duties;38 was not assigned an elder as mentor,39 but did recommend, Mrs. Kim Shockley, a Colorado pastor’s wife as a coach; was not supervised by her district superintendent under whom she was appointed; 40 in that, although Patrice Brewer acknowledges that frequency of SPRC-Pastor meetings are not specified in the Discipline, the frequency of “monthly”41 was encouraged by Dan Bryant, Mahoning Valley District Superintendent (on behalf of Rev. Orlando Chaffee, North Coast District Superintendent), but was scheduled and attended by Patrice Brewer for 8/14/12 & 8/22/12, during her maturity leave and 11/3/12 & 11/6/12, after her maturity leave was over, which she also attended.42 A meeting for 11/26/12, the beginning of Advent Season, was cancelled by Rev. Brewer, stating that. “SPRC is to be on a ‘prayerful hiatus until 2013.” The meeting of 11/6/2012, as described by Carolyn P. Cacho Bowman, Chair, Staff Parish Relations Committee and Douglas S. Kerr, Vice Chair, Staff Parish Relations Committee in a letter to Rev. Dr. Margaret N. Streiff, East Ohio Conference Superintendent, assigned to the North Coast District,43 provided “an update on the [unidentified] situation at Church of the Redeemer. 34 ¶425.4, See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14, 21, 37, 38 35 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 9 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 ¶327.4, Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 45, 54, 68, 69, 39 ¶¶327.4, 349.1 b), 349.2, 349.4, Petitioners’ Exhibit 70, 78, 84, 40 ¶327.4, See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.15, 40, 56, 77 41 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 61 42 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 13 43 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 14The writers reminded the district superintendent of her presence at the 11/6/12 meeting when, “a number of [still unidentified] concerns were raised and it was evident that there are tensions between the lay leadership and Rev. Brewer.”44 The letter concluded, “we do not think this can be resolved by the SPRC and Rev. Brewer alone, and we are requesting that you intervene as soon as possible.”45 Rev. Brewer did in fact meet with the SPRC on 12/19/12 & 1/29/13, however, the next record of contact by Rev. Dr. Streiff, North Coast Superintendent was a email message dated Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, after the celebration of Reconciling Sunday, January 27, 2013 and the “Statement of Forgiveness to the Congregation of Sunday, February 3, 2013 and the related newspaper stories, wherein she wrote, “I have been in conversation with the Bishop who asked me to set up a PPR meeting this week. … Both Dan and Benita and I will be there to listen and try to help you to maintain a relationship with the PPR. The [still unidentified] issues you are dealing with rightly belong at the table with the PPR.”46 Prior to January 27, 2013, neither Bishop Hopkins, her District Superintendent Streiff (who is charged with the responsibility of supervision), District Superintendent Bryant (a former eight (8) year pastor at Church of the Redeemer), District Superintendent Rollins, or any other cabinet member, the Board of Ordained Ministry,47 Colorado pastor’s wife/coach, the Church of the Redeemer lay leadership, the Discipline of The United Methodist Church, eldersin-full connection, with knowledge and experience, of the “concerns,” “issues,” and “challenges” of providing pastoral leadership to Church of the Redeemer, Cleveland Heights, Ohio, both within and currently outside East Ohio had made any effort, to train, inform, advise, warn, or otherwise prepare Patrice Brewer for what takes place at Church of the Redeemer on Reconciling Sunday. e) did not have the Church of the Redeemer’s profile shared with her; 48 in that the Church of the Redeemer’s profile, including among other items, would have contained its mission statement and the evidence of its status as a reconciling church of the East Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church and a detailed statement distinguishing the practice of homosexuality among the laity with Christian teaching.49 f) was not advised on April 9, 2012, during her take-in interview, of the unique challenges of providing pastoral leadership to a congregation that its 44 See petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 14,36, 37, 55, 45 Ibid. 46 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.30 47 ¶425.4 48 ¶427 49 ¶304.3Chairperson of the Staff-Parish Relations Committee, would later describe in a letter to Peggy Streiff, North Coast District Superintendent, as “We are gay, we are straight, Black and White, financially advantaged and financially disadvantaged. We are physically and mentally gifted and physically or mentally challenged,” notwithstanding Dan Bryant, Mahoning Valley District Superintendent and recent eight (8) year pastor of Church of the Redeemer was Patrice Brewer’s take-in guide. Other letters50 (email and regular) and actions of support were also communicated to the North Coast District Superintendent, Rev. Dr. Margaret Streiff and others, but not acknowledged as received by the Board of Ordained Ministry to be included in the record. g) was made subject to the Board of Ordained Ministry instituted de facto mentoring and supervision of Patrice Brewer through its Clergy Review Team,51 that was appointed on April 25, 2013, as a result of David Baker, Chair Board of Ordained Ministries’ decision that there was need for a more formal and documented review of Pastor Brewer’s ministry”52 consultation with Bishop Hopkins that was “assigned …to continue the mentoring and evaluation process;”53 in that the Board of Ordained Ministry is vested with many responsibilities and duties54 including “shall annually appoint and train a sufficient number of mentors in each district in consultation with the district superintendent,55 however, no authority or duty to mentor; in an email Announcement to Church of the Redeemer, dated Wed. Feb 6, 2013 at 10:33 PM, District Superintendent Streiff, wrote in part, “The events of the past two Sundays have been unsettling for your congregation and Bishop Hopkins and I are aware of your pain and confusion. On Tuesday evening (Feb. 5, 2013), District Superintendents Benita Rollins, Dan Bryant and I met with your PPR Committee for a lengthy discussion. At the conclusion of the evening, I gave Pastor Patrice Brewer two weeks leave to help all of us diffuse and settle the [still unidentified or stated] concerns at hand.”56 In the Board of Ordained Ministry’s meeting of February 26, 2013, the excerpted and redacted minutes reflect the following in regards to Patrice Brewer: “Gordon Meyers reported on the recent conflict in her congregation, though Patrice had been asked to come before the BOM prior to this most recent event. She has had difficulty in a 50 See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 34, 42, 46, 92, 100, 101, 103, 106 51 ¶635.2 See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 48, 49,51 52 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.66 53 ¶¶349.2, 350, 350.1, 419.6-9, 11. See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.66 54 ¶635 55 ¶635.2. f) 56 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.30previous appointment with relationship building and accountability. David Baker said that Patrice does not appear to be aware of her role in the conflict, or in the severity of the broken relationships. Supervisory meetings will continue with three D.S.’s and the Bishop.”57 In a letter dated, March 28, 2013, to Pastor Patrice Brewer from Rev. Dr. Margaret N.B. Streiff, containing a “writing to clarify expectations58 around your change in responsibilities for the next three months. The Bishop and Cabinet have prayerfully and carefully discerned that it is in your best interest and in the best interest of the church, to relieve you of the ongoing pastoral responsibilities for Church of the Redeemer. You are still the pastor of record and hold the appointment to Church of the Redeemer until June 30, 2013. …”59 In a letter dated, May 2, 2013, to Pastor Patrice Brewer from Rev. Dr. David A. Baker, Chairperson Board of Ordained Ministry stated in part, “The Board’s conversation with you on February 26, 2013 was part of the mentoring and evaluation process. The Board of Ordained Ministry wants to continue those evaluative and mentoring conversations with you.”60 When she inquired in her letter to Rev. Lynda Masters, Chair of the BOM’s Clergy Review Team, dated, May 10, 2013 Patrice Brewer wrote in part, “I find ambiguity in the exact purpose for the BOM team’s desire to meet with me at this time.”61 She also wrote, concerning her February 26, 2013 meeting with a BOM team, “Though the intent of that interview may have been to mentor and provide Christ-centered evaluation, my experience on that day was anything but. … let be known that as a Provisional Member, I left the courtesy interview feeling completely unsupported by the BOM of the east Ohio Conference when the three members I met with stated that I am an ‘incompetent’ and ‘in-effective’ pastor who ‘inflicts harm’ on the people I lead. How such strong conclusions were drawn by individuals … (whom have never visited either of the local churches I’ve been appointed to during my time of active of active pastoral service) is beyond my scope of compression and reason. In that same interview, I was not provided with any concrete evidence that could potentially breathe life into these incredibly accusatory claims.”62 Next to her concluding paragraph, she wrote, “If there is a desire to meet for the sake of mentorship and evaluation, it is imperative and fair that I receive the full clarity of purpose and intent for 57 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.44 58 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.39 59 Ibid. 60 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 44 61 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 47 62 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 47meeting.”63 In Rev. Dr. David A. Baker, Chair BOM’s May 15, 2013, letter to Pastor Patrice Brewer, he wrote, “The meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 23, 2013 is not optional. The Board of Ordained Ministry requires you to meet with Rev. Masters, Rev. Fashbaugh and Rev. McGhee.”64 Further, on May 15, 2013, Rev. Dr. David A. Baker, Chair BOM knew that prior he had been in consultation with Bishop Hopkins and he had decided there was need for a more formal and documented review of Pastor Brewer’s ministry65 and that on April 25, 2013 he appointed BOM members, Rev. Delaine McGhee, Rev. Ed Fashbaugh and Rev. Lynda Masters (Chp.) of the Clergy Review Team.66 He further knew that on February 6, 2013, Patrice Brewer had been placed on involuntary two week leave67 and on March 28, 2013, Patrice Brewer had her status changed from “pastor” to “pastor of record,” all without benefit of disciplinary rules of process.68 Further, Rev. Dr. David A. Baker, Chair BOM, knew that there exists no meeting within the United Methodist Church where attendance is not optional; he also knew that the files of the BOM were void of substantial evidence to support the actions of February 6, 2013 and March 28, 2013 that affected the status of Patrice Brewer69 and he knew that his letters to Patrice Brewer contained intentional deceptions and falsehoods of the highest order.70 h) was not informed of the basis of the change in appointment and the process used in making the new appointment;71 in that Patrice Brewer was sanctioned with an involuntary two week leave and a three month involuntary change in conference appointment in arrogant disregard to disciplinary process,72 no recorded recommendation of the executive committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry. i) was not informed that a complaint had been received by the bishop, or that the bishop or district superintendent had initiated a complaint;73 in that the sanction of involuntary leave and involuntary change in conference appointment had 63 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 47 64 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 49 65 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 49 66 Ibid. 67 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 40 68¶ ¶362, 363 69 ¶363 70 See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos.49 and 52 71 ¶428.3 72¶363.1 d) See Petitioners’ Exhibit No 39, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 102, 104 73 ¶363.1been levied and enforced without fair process or judicial ruling,74 or subsequent ratification by the clergy session. j) was not afforded the process of a supervisory response;75 in that no written and signed statement claiming misconduct or unsatisfactory performance of ministerial duties had been received and neither the district superintendent or the bishop had initiated a complaint76, and no pastoral and administrative response was directed toward a just resolution among the parties was begun.77 k) was not fully relieved of pastoral responsibility for Church of the Redeemer during her maternity leave;78 in that Pastor-Parish Relations Committee meetings for 8/14/12 and 8/22/12 that required her presence. l) was not advised of the reason for the proposed procedures with sufficient detail to allow Patrice Brewer to prepare a response;79 in that the Board of Ordained Ministry’s Clergy Review Team under the intentionally deceptive purpose of mentoring and evaluation was knowingly tasked with the purpose of investigating and attempting to gather more formal and documented evidence to justify the past actions of her district superintendent and bishop thus supporting their premeditated action to discontinue the provisional membership of Patrice Brewer because she quoted a passage from ¶304.3 of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.80 m) was not advised of her right to a fair profess hearing before an impartial81 committee on conference relations, prior to any final recommendation to discontinue82 her relationship; in that in a June 30, 2013 joint letter, Bishop John L. Hopkins and Margaret N.B. “Peggy” Streiff, Superintendent, North Coast District, sent to Pastor Patrice Brewer, contained in its first paragraph, “You have been appointed as the pastor of the St. Paul United Methodist Church and are being sent to lead that congregation to carry out its purpose, mission, and ministry in the Kingdom of God. Peggy Streiff, North Coast District Superintendent, and I are aware 74 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 39 75 ¶363.1 b), See Petitioners’ Exhibit 82, 87, 93 76 ¶363.1 a) 77 ¶363.1 b) 78 ¶356.5 79 ¶362.2 b) 80 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 23 81 The Chairperson of the committee on Conference Relations, Jean Forbes was the same Jean Forbes who moved for the inclusion of the requirement that Patrice Brewer agree to, pay for, and under undergo psychological treatments and surrender periodic reports of all treatments to the Board of Ordained Ministry. Petitioners’ Exhibits Nos. 71a , 71b, 91 and 95 82Recommendation to discontinue provisional membership is judicial, whereas the recommendation not to proceed toward ordination is administrative. ¶325. The distinction being that a judicial process begins when a written and signed complaint is received by the bishop. ¶363. of the ministry gifts that you have that will help St. Paul [’s sic] UMC reach its full kingdom potential;”83 n) was not advised that the BOM Clergy Review Team continued its investigations, with a June 24, 2013 meeting with Rev. Judy Wismar-Claycomb, DS Firelands District,84 a June 27, 2013 meeting with Rev. Benita Rollins, DS Tuscarawas District,85 a July 2, 2013 meeting with Rev. Dan Bryant, DS Mahoning Valley District,86 a July 9, 2013 meeting Gordon Meyers, BOM Registrar,87 a July 16, 2013 meeting with Bishop Hopkins,88 a report dated, September 10, 2013 delivered to the Board of Ordained Ministry during its September 17, 2013, meeting. After the receipt of the comprehensive report of the task force,89 “testing the will of the BOM, Nancy asked for a motion to discontinue Patrice as a provisional member and a final motion to discontinue Patrice [Brewer’s] provisional membership was made and seconded. [Motion 09-17-13-10]90 The motion failed unanimously with no one from the BOM in support of this option. Subsequently, in the same meeting, the motion to continue Patrice Brewer as a provisional member with requirements to be named by the BOM was made and seconded. [Motion 09-17-13-11]91 That motion was tabled. [Motion 09-17-13-12]92 Motion by James Roberson, seconded by Larry Hukill that Patrice Brewer must not apply for ordination until October 1, 2015 passed. [Motion 09-17-13-13]93 Jean Forbes [Chair of the Conference Relations Committee, a committee charged with hearing request for discontinuance of provisional members, involuntary leave of absence, administration location, involuntary retirement, or other such matters] moved that Patrice undergo a comprehensive psychological evaluation to address past issues and her current mental and emotional status. This evaluation is to be completed through the Office of Pastoral Care or by a professional recommended by the Office of Pastoral Care. The BOM must receive ongoing progress reports from the evaluator, the first to be submitted to the BOM by February 14, 2014. The progress reports will outline the evaluator’s recommendations and his or her assessment of Patrice’s progress. Patrice must sign a release of information form so that the evaluator may communicate with the 83 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No.60 84 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 58 85 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 59 86 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 61 87 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 62 88 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 63 89 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 67 90 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 67 91 See Petitioners’ Exhibit 67 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid.BOM, and Patrice must follow whatever recommendations are made in that report. Second by Irene Beville. Discussion ensued. Motion was approved with two abstentions. [Motion 09-17-13-14]94 Lynda Masters moved that Patrice Brewer must demonstrate cooperation and compliance with the District Superintendents and BOM members who give her supervision. Second by Ed Fashbaugh. Motion approved. [Motion 09-17-15] Yvonne Conner moved that Patrice Brewer must meet with the BOM annually for encouragement and monitoring at a time and place to be determined by the BOM, until such time as she seeks to apply for ordination and full membership. Second by Howard Pippin. Approved with one opposed and three abstentions. [Motion 09-17-13-16] Darlene Robinson asked us to remember there are cultural differences in how people are perceived, especially in conflicted situations. With the requirements being established, the original motion was lifted from the table. Steve Sullivan moved that Patrice Brewer be continued as a provisional member with the following requirements: 1. Patrice must not apply for ordination until October 1, 2015. 2. Patrice must agree to undergo a comprehensive psychological evaluation to address past issues and her current mental and emotional status. This evaluation is to be completed through the Office of Pastoral Care or by a professional recommended by the Office of Pastoral Care. The BOM must receive ongoing progress reports from the evaluator, the first to be submitted by February 14, 2014. The progress reports will outline the evaluator’s recommendations and his or her assessment of Patrice’s progress. Patrice must sign a release of information form so that the evaluator may communicate with the BOM, and Patrice must follow whatever recommendations are made in that report. 3. Patrice Brewer must demonstrate cooperation and compliance with the District Superintendents and BOM members who give her supervision. 4. Patrice Brewer must meet with the BOM annually for encouragement and monitoring at a time and place to be determined by the BOM, until such time as she seeks to apply for ordination and full membership. Second by Sue Chidly. Approved with two abstentions.95 [Motion 09- 17-13-11] 94 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 67 95 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 67was not informed that Rev. Nancy S. Hull, Chairperson, Board of Ordained Ministry had consulted with Meg Lassiat of the General Board of Higher Education in Ministry and Mr. Rex Miller96 prior to her Confidential Document dated October 29, 2013, about substantive matters (personal data and private information) concerning Patrice Brewer, outside her presence and wrote in that letter “that [she] could not make changes to the agreement requirements on behalf of the Board of Ordained Ministry in terms of whether they would be open to any changes in the requirements that have been set forth in order for Patrice Brewer to move forward in her seeking ordination and full membership.” o) was not afforded fairness at the purported “fair process hearing;”97 in that in a letter dated October 8, 2013, entitled “Requirements of the Board of Ordained Ministry” that contained material misrepresentations from the action taken by the Board of Ordained Ministry in Motion 09-17-13-11, in the following particulars: 1. The BOM will expect to see changes in behaviors of Patrice Brewer in relation to parishioners, supervisors and other related parties as a result of treatment in determining whether or not Patrice may move forward in the ordination and full membership process. 2. Payment for service provided by Dr. Sanders shall be solely the responsibility of Patrice Brewer. BOM will pay the cost of the psychological evaluation by Dr. Sanders only. The “Requirements of the Board of Ordained Ministry” also contained violations of ¶¶324.8, 324.12, in that, ¶324.8 requires “Each candidate shall present a satisfactory certificate of good health by a physician on the prescribed form;” and ¶324.12 requires, in part, “The candidate also shall release required psychological reports, criminal background, credit checks and reports of child abuse.” p) was not provided a copy of the report of the review of the process by the Administrative Review Committee that included a finding that the process utilized by the Board of Ordained Ministries’ Clergy Review Team performed its primary purpose, of attempting to obtain a just resolution of any violations of the sacred trust that exist in the ordination and membership in the East Ohio 96 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 75 97 The Chairperson of the committee on Conference Relations, Jean Forbes was the same Jean Forbes who moved for the inclusion of the requirement that Patrice Brewer agree to, pay for, and under undergo psychological treatments and surrender periodic reports of all treatments to the Board of Ordained Ministry. Petitioners’ Exhibits No. 67, 91 and 95.Annual Conference;98 Further, no provision in The Discipline of the United Methodist Church exists for the Board of Ordained Ministry to enter into any sort of written “Agreement” with a particular provisional candidate that will not be applicable to all candidates. The eligibility and rights of Provisional Membership are set forth in ¶327. Whereas, neither the BOM representative nor the Bishop’s representative presented any new evidence at the “Fair Process Hearing,” but stated agreement with the contents of a Note Book prepared for the participants, Patrice Brewer did prepare and submit a typewritten seven (7) page written Response99 and a five page written Presentation,100 the contents of neither of which were presented to the BOM or the Clergy Session. Further, Patrice Brewer had begun her pastoral leadership of St. Paul UMC and in her District Superintendent’s Recommendation signed 11/25/13, she wrote in part, “By all reports from the {St. Paul UMC] PPR Committee this fall, they have been very pleased with her ministry. She has brought in 5 new members to this small congregation. The committee reports that there is less bickering in the church and that Pastor Patrice has promoted unity.”101 In a letter dated, January 21, 2014, to Rev. Peggy Streiff, North Coast District Superintendent from Tina Johnson, Church Council Chairperson, St. Paul UMC, contained the following comparative statistics for the periods, January 2013- June 2013 and July 2013 –December 2013: • a 4% increase in Tithes from $22,470.40 to $23,388.96 • a 37% increase in General Offerings from $16,954.61 to $27,069.10 • a 33% increase in Collection Plate Offerings from $777.97 to $1,185.29 • a 14% increase in Apportionment Giving $2,427.00 to $2,817.00 She continued, “Prior to Pastor Brewer, St. Paul was dying a slow death. There was very little hope of survival among the congregation. Our spirit was basically decimated. Now, we have an anointed compassionate pastor who has breathed new life into our church. She has revived our “dry bones,” Ezekiel 37. To snatch her from the clutches of our congregation will be harmful to the future of St. Paul. … This is why we are so 98 ¶¶363, 363.1 b) 99 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 95 100 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 95 101 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 81perturbed that the Board of Ordained Ministry recommended that Rev. Brewer’s status as a provisional elder be discontinued.”102 Although the above letter and report were in the possession of the District Superintendent and the Board of Ordained Ministry, and discussed in BOM meetings, the contents of these documents were not shared with the clergy session. Notwithstanding, the existence of the finality of the action taken in the passage of Motion 09-17-13-11, during the December 3, 2013 meeting of the Board of Ordained Ministry103, Nancy Hull, Chair asked Ed Fashbaugh to provide the task force report again, as well as, a report of negotiation meetings with Patrice Brewer, her attorneys, Rex Miller, Conference Solicitor, Ed Fashbaugh and Nancy Hull BOM Chair. During the discussions that followed, Ed Fashbaugh reported: “Her attorneys wanted to know why these issues weren’t addresses previously. But they have been here ever since her provisional interview. A sticking point was her apostolic letter which she received from her district superintendent, Peggy Streiff, for her current appointment at St. Paul [’s sic]. It was glowing. Her attorneys thought that was inconsistent with our concerns. Nancy tried to explain that the apostolic letter is something that goes to all church pastors at the time of a move. … Patrice says this all about a statement she made at Redeemer. Her attorneys are hooking onto this. She doesn’t see this as part of a series of events. Nancy tried to explain that to her during the last meeting, to no avail.” Peg Welch: “What about her performance at her current appointment? Nancy Hull: “I received a letter from a church member [in fact this letter was from Tina Johnson, Church Council Chairperson, St. Paul UMC, as a note, such persons from Church of the Redeemer UMC are referred to as lay-leadership, even if their letters are undated and unsigned] at St. Paul’s regarding how wonderful Patrice is. She must have recruited this person to write to me because there would be no other reason to have the BOM Chair receive such a letter. Nancy also stated that she has only been at St. Paul [‘s sic] a few months. Gordon has a copy of the most recent evaluation from Peggy Streiff.104” Steve Sullivan moved that the BOM recommend to executive session of Annual Conference that Patrice Brewer be discontinued as a provisional elder according to ¶327.6 of the 2012 Book of Discipline effective June 30, 2013. Second by Lynda Masters. After many comments, the question was called and Motion 12-03-13-15 passed 32 for, 5 against, 5 abstentions. As a matter of law, Motion 12-03-13-15 to discontinue was out of order, in that 102 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 92 103 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 83 104 See Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 831. The actions of Motion 09-17-13-11 to continue the provisional membership of Patrice Brewer, with conditions were and are still in effect until rescinded, revoked, reconsidered, amended, revised, etc. 2. The motion to discontinue membership is a punitive sanction requiring proof of violation of some stated disciplinary requirement, by complaint, investigation, trial and a finding of guilt, whereas a motion not to allow the provisional member to proceed toward ordination is administrative.105 Further, as a matter of law, Motion 12-03-13-15 to discontinue was out of order, in that the clergy session: 3. was not advised that the Board of Ordained Ministry did not review and evaluate, but investigated, deceived, planned and implemented a vindictive and undermining environment and process to defeat the purposes of the Book of Discipline not to do away with the privileges of clergy of the right to trial by committee and to an appeal, and the right to trial before the church, or by a committee, and of an appeal.106 In that the Clergy Review Team did not “review” the current ministry of Patrice Brewer. 4. was not advised that the initiation of the Supervisory Process had occurred prior to David Baker’s April 25, 2013 appointment of a Clergy Review Team, consisting of Rev. Delaine McGhee, Rev. Ed Fashbaugh and Rev. Linda Masters (chp), in that the process began during David Baker’s consultation with Bishop Hopkins, where he “decided there was need for a more formal and documented review to Pastor Brewer’s ministry,”107 in that she had not been notified of her designation as a provisional candidate experiencing difficulties in parish ministry and thereby made subject to, a previously unknown, Board of Ordained Ministries’ policy of conducting follow-up interviews108 with those provisional candidates. In that disclosure of this fact would have assisted her in preparing for the interviews. 5. was not afforded the opportunity to examine or possess the written complaint and any supporting material supporting the designation.109 In that disclosure of these materials would have assisted her in preparing appropriate responses. 105 ¶325. 106 ¶20 107 Minutes, Board of Ordained Ministry, September 17, 2013 108 Clergy Review Team Report, September 10, 2013, line 14, cited ¶327, 2012 Book of Discipline does not provide the authority for the follow-up policy. ¶327, 2012 Book of Discipline has no language concerning follow-up interviews for provisional candidates experiencing difficulties in parish ministries. 109 Judicial Council Decision No. 9746. was not advised before April 25, 2013, that the meeting she had with BOM Chairperson Rev. David Baker, Rev Gordon Myers, Registrar, and Rev. James Roberson on February 26, 2013 for the purpose of continuing mentoring and evaluation, was, in fact, for the purpose of a follow-up interview “to obtain a more formal and documented review of Patrice Brewer’s ministry to support anticipated sanctions concerning difficulties in her parish ministry. In that disclosure of this fact would have assisted her in seeking just resolution of alleged difficulties. 7. was not advised before May 2, 2013, that “In consultation with Bishop Hopkins, Rev. Baker decided there was need for a more formal and documented review of Pastor Brewer’s ministry.” In that on April 25, 2013, he appointed BOM members, Rev. Delaine McGhee, Rev. Ed Fashbaugh and Rev. Lynda Masters (Chp.) of the Clergy Review Team. 8. was not advised on “May 2, 2013, that the letter from Rev. Baker to Patrice Brewer informing her that the BOM is charged to continually evaluate provisional members as to ‘character, servant leadership, and effectiveness in ministry’ (¶327, 2012 BOD)” and would arrange a meeting date with her was deceptive. In that it was not clear that the content of future meetings would be different from previous meetings that had in fact a different agenda. 9. was in doubt when she again responded with the request for “1) the full clarity of the purpose and intent for meeting in writing. 2) per Paragraph 327 of the 2012 BOD; the BOM evaluates provisional member annually. In that she had already met with the BOM once within the year. 10. was not advised of the determination of the outcome of the administrative process averred herein to be September 17, 2013, the day the Board of Ordained Ministry received the final report of the Clergy Review Team with the recommendation of each team member that Patrice Brewer’s provisional membership be continued, with individually crafted requirements. In that Motion 09-19-13-11, as amended passed that Patrice Brewer be continued as a provisional elder with requirements. Mark Collier, Chair, Administrative Review Committee was called during the clergy session, by Bishop Hopkins to report on the findings of the Administrative Review Committee, in regards to Disciplinary Question 42c. Mark Collier stated the scope of the committee’s review and reported that the Administrative Review Committee found that all procedures were appropriately followed. However, Mark Collier did not advise the Clergy Session as to:11. Whether or not, the Administrative Review Committee found or was able to determine if Bishop Hopkins or the North Coast District Superintendent, Rev. Dr. Margaret N.B. Streiff received an accusation that Patrice Brewer violated the sacred trust of ordination and membership in the East Ohio Conference. 12. Whether or not that the Administrative Review Committee found or was able to determine whether or not the Clergy Task Force, the Board of Ordained Ministry or anyone on their behalf, provided Patrice Brewer, provisional candidate for ordained ministry, a written statement on the disciplinary and annual conference requirements for membership, as required by ¶635.2.i). 13. Whether or not, the Administrative Review Committee found or was able to determine whether or not “the board of ordained ministry provided to the Administrative Review Committee a complete written record of ‘the entire administrative process leading to the action for change in conference relationship.” Judicial Council Decision No. 921. 14. Whether or not the Administrative Review Committee found or was able to determine whether or not the action of the Board of Ordained Ministry approving Motion 09-17-13-11 that Patrice Brewer be continued as a provisional member with identified requirements (that was approved with two abstentions) remained in effect when Steve Sullivan moved and was seconded by Lynda Masters (Motion 12-03-13-15) “that the BOM recommend to executive session of Annual Conference that Patrice Brewer be discontinued as a provisional elder according to ¶327.6 of the 2012 Book of Discipline effective June 30, 2013” and after debate was approved by a vote of 32 for, 5 against, 5 abstentions was in order as to process. 15. Whether or not the Administrative Review Committee found or was able to determine whether or not the administrative review of Patrice Brewer included notice to her of her alleged violations of the sacred trust and that the review of the Clergy Review Team had “as its primary purpose a just resolution,”110 “in the hope that God’s work of justice, reconciliation and healing may be realized in the body of Christ.”111 16. Whether or not Patrice Brewer had been advised of the actual reason for the proposed procedures with sufficient detail so as to allow her to prepare a response, in compliance to Judicial Council Decision No. 691 (Item 4). 110 ¶363.1 111 ¶363.1Futher, that on April 23, 2012, Dan Bryant, Superintendent of the Mahoning Valley District112 accompanied Patrice Brewer to Church of the Redeemer, North Coast District for the take-in interview. That on June 2, 2012, Patrice Brewer received her M.Div. from Ashland Theological Seminary, and in the June, 2012 East Ohio Annual Conference she was commissioned a Provisional Elder, and by Bishop Hopkins’ letter dated July 1, 2012 she was appointed pastor of Church of the Redeemer UMC, Cleveland Heights, Ohio. 17. That the district superintendent did not confer with Patrice Brewer about the specific possible appointment to Church of the Redeemer UMC in Cleveland Heights, Ohio (a Reconciling Church) and its congruence with gifts, evidence of God’s grace, professional experience and expectations, and the family needs of Patrice Brewer, identified in “consultation”113 with her, as required in ¶ 428 5. a) of the 2012 The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church and Judicial Decision No. 701. 18. That “the right of the executive session of the clergy members in full connection with the [East Ohio] Annual Conference to receive all pertinent information, confidential or otherwise, related to the qualifications and/or character of any candidate or clergy member of the conference” ¶ 635.1. m), was violated with the BOM motion to discontinue the provisional membership of Patrice Brewer did not include the positive attributes of her past pastorate at Rush UMC, Oberlin, Ohio and her current pastorate of the St. Paul United Methodist Church in Cleveland, Ohio. 19. That Bishop Hopkins’ reported statements (recorded by Lynda Masters) to the Clergy Review Team, July 16, 2013, “Referencing Patrice’s obesity and bipolar condition, Bishop wondered, “Is she taking responsibility and seeking help for those issues?”114 Judicial Council Decision No. 917. 20. That the imperative demands to appear before selected members of the Board of Ordained Ministry for continuing “evaluative and mentoring conservations” from Rev. Dr. David Baker, Chairperson, Board of Ordained 112 Judith W Claycomb, Cabinet Representative, during a pre-take-in meeting “identified some issues she saw in Patrice while serving as her DS on the Firelands District. The issues that Judy identified were issues around control and rigidness . . .” Patrice Brewer was not present during this identification of issues. Transcript for meeting with Rev. Dan Bryant, District Superintendent Mahoning Valley, 2 July 2013, lines 36-42. 113 “Consultation” in that [the] Decision was defined as the exchange of ideas between the District Superintendent and the Pastor, not necessarily agreement. The consultation process is to occur before the appointment decision is made and its length or brevity may be determined by different situations. Judicial Council Decision No. 701. 114 BOM Clergy Review Team meeting minutes: July 16, 2013 1 p.m. E.O. Conference OfficeMinistry contained in his letters of May 2 and May 15, 2013 are not authorized by ¶327, as alleged, nor ¶362.2.f). 21. That the undated “consultation” of Rev. Baker, Chairperson, Board of Ordained Ministry and Bishop John L. Hopkins resulted in the April 25, 2013 appointment of three members of the Clergy Review Team to obtain “a more formal and documented review” of Pastor Brewer’s ministry, was investigatory and accusatory, requiring full disclosure notice to the accused for fair process to exist. Judicial Council Decision No. 101. 22. That neither the Board of Ordained Ministry, nor any of its members, can “mentor” or “supervise” provisional members. The annual conference, through the clergy session, has jurisdiction over provisional members; the Board of Ministry shall review and evaluate their relationship and make recommendation to the clergy members in full connection regarding their continuance; provisional members shall be amenable to the annual conference in the performance of their ministry and are subject to the provisions of the Book of Discipline in the performance of their duties, provisional members shall be supervised by the district superintendent under whom they are appointed; provisional elders are to be assigned an elder as mentor by the Board of Ordained Ministry. ¶¶327, 327.4. Brief in Support of Petition for Declaratory Decision We (Patrice Brewer and A. Wendell Wheadon) believe the meaning of “Fair Process” and “Just Resolution” are such that, when applied to the process of discontinuance the membership of Patrice Brewer as provisional elder, have the effect of making the action of the East Ohio Annual Conference unconstitutional or illegal or in violation of the requirements of The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2012 in that: A. Basis for the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Council The jurisdiction of the Judicial Council to consider this Petition for a Declaratory Decision is based on the action to discontinue the provisional membership of Patrice Brewer during the 2014 East Ohio Annual Conference and the ruling that the motion of A. Wendell Wheadon, retired elder in full connection, made while this matter was pending before the Clergy Session, was out of order. Both the action of the Annual Conference and the ruling of Bishop John Hopkins, Resident Bishop, East Ohio Conference, United Methodist affect the Petitioners and involve the constitutionality, meaning, application, effect of the Discipline, or some portion thereof. B. Relationship between this action, The Book of Discipline, and the Petitioners This action of petitioning the Judicial Council for a Declaratory Decision concerning the ruling that the motion of A. Wendell Wheadon, concerning the motion to discontinue the provisional membership of Patrice Brewer, was out of order, is related to The Book of Discipline, In that ¶ 51 provides that “A bishop presiding over an annual . . . conference shall decide all questions of law coming before the bishop in the regular business of a session.” In that ¶ 33 states in part: “The annual conference is the basic body in the Church and as such shall have reserved to it the right to vote . . . on all matters relating to the character and conference relations of its clergy members, and on the ordination of clergy . . . The removal of a candidate’s name from the list of candidates proceeding forward in the ordination process is clearly a matter that falls within the purview of the business of the annual conference regarding the ordination of clergy.” Judicial Council Decision No. 1244. In that ¶ 56.3 provides that the Judicial Council shall have authority to pass upon decisions of law made by bishops in annual conferences;” and that, the meaning of ¶363 is such that, when applied to the motion to discontinue the probationary membership of Patrice Brewer, has the effect of ruling that it was out of order for a motion to provide a “process seeking a just resolution that may begin at any time in the supervisory, complaint, or trial process.” ¶ 363.1(c) In that: i. a motion germane to Discipline Question 42c, a matter relating to the work of the East Ohio Conference (¶ 2610.2(j), was not out of order; and ii. the subsidiary motion, to recommit, permitted by the Rules of the East Ohio Annual Conference ¶ 1.G.5., was not out of order; and iii. a motion in conformity with and permitted pursuant to Rules of the East Ohio Annual Conference ¶2.K., that provides, in part, “All requests and/or motions which would expand the conference structure by establishing a new program or committee within the annual conference will be referred to the Conference Council on Ministries. . . . Any new committee proposed or established must include an estimation of how long the committee is to exist. It must also name the existing annual conference body to which it would be accountable,” was not out of order; and iv. a motion that seeks continued review, with the “primary purpose” of reaching “a just resolution of any violation of” the “sacred trust” required for “ordination and membership in an annual conference of The United Methodist Church,” until the June 2015 East Ohio Annual Conference,115 was not out of order. In that ¶360.1 provides: “When an associate or full member clergyperson’s effectiveness is in question, the bishop shall complete the following procedure: 1) Identify the concerns … 2) Hold supervisory conversations with the associate . . . 3) Upon evaluation, determine that the plan of action has not been carried out or produced fruit that gives a realistic expectation of future effectiveness.” C. The specific paragraphs of The Book of Discipline thought to have been violated The following paragraphs of The Book of Discipline are thought to have been violated: ¶20, ¶33, ¶51, ¶56.3, ¶304.3, ¶324.8, ¶324.12, ¶325,¶327, ¶327.4, ¶327.6, ¶349.1.b), ¶349.2, ¶349.4, ¶350, ¶350.1, ¶356.5, ¶359.5, ¶360, ¶360.1, ¶362, ¶362), ¶362.2 e), ¶363, ¶363.1(a, b, c, d), ¶419.6-9,11, ¶635, ¶¶635.1.m), 635.2, 115 At the September 17, 2013 Board of Ordained Ministry meeting, after receipt of the BOM’s Clergy Task Force report concerning Patrice Brewer, where each member recommended that her provisional membership be continued, with varying conditions, “testing the will of the BOM, Nancy asked for a motion to discontinue Patrice as a provisional member. . . . The motion failed unanimously with no one from the BOM in support of this option.” . . . Motion made to continue Patrice Brewer as a provisional member with requirements to be named by the BOM. Second. Motion was made to table “until we establish the requirements.” Approved. Motion was made “that Patrice must not apply for ordination until October 1, 2015.” Approved. Motion was made “that Patrice undergo a comprehensive psychological evaluation to address past issues and her current mental and emotional status. This evaluation is to be completed through the Office of Pastoral Care or by a professional recommended by the Office of Pastoral Care. The BOM must receive ongoing progress reports from the evaluator, the first to be submitted by February 14, 2014. The progress reports will outline the evaluator’s recommendations and his or her assessment of Patrice’s progress. Patrice must sign a release of information form so that the evaluator may communicate with the BOM, and Patrice must follow whatever recommendations are made in that report. . . . Motions was approved with two abstentions.” ¶635.2 i), ¶425.4, ¶426, ¶426.1, ¶427, ¶428.3, ¶428.5 a), ¶636 ¶2610.2(j), ¶2701, ¶2701.6, ¶2702. D. Identity and Discussion of previous decisions of the Judicial Council bearing on the issues 1. Patrice Brewer was not afforded the opportunity of consultation prior to her appointment to Church of the Redeemer United Methodist Decision No. 101 - “It is therefore the Decision of the Judicial Council that while the final authority in appointing preachers to their charges rests upon the presiding Bishop, it does not relieve the District Superintendent of the responsibility of consulting with the preacher in order to ascertain whether there are any reasons why the appointment should not be made.” (¶¶426., 426.1.) Decision No. 501 – “. . . While the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee is advisory, consultation is mandated. (¶¶426, 426.1.) Decision No. 1174 – “. . . when a change in appointment has been determined, the district superintendent should meet together or separately with the pastor and the committee on pastor-parish relations where the pastor is serving, for the purpose of sharing the basis for the change and the process used in making the new appointment. In the record provided there is disagreement as to whether the district superintendent consulted with the pastor and the Staff-Parish Relations Committee as outlined in the Discipline . . . The record is not clear as to whether the consultation process was followed in the manner specified in the Discipline. Notification of an appointment is not consultation.” (¶¶426, 426.1) 2. The Clergy Executive Session was not afforded the right to consider the record of Patrice Brewer’s very successful ministry (July 1, 2013 to June 16, 2014) at St. Paul United Methodist Church.116 3. The Clergy Executive Session was not afforded the right to consider the genesis of all of the “concerns” and “issues” that gave rise to the actions, reactions, opinions, meetings, letters, e-mails which followed one paragraph of Patrice Brewer’s “Statement of Forgiveness to the Congregation” given prior to her sermon on February 3, 2013, which contained, in part, “Yes, Redeemer is a Reconciling Church on paper. But, as a United Methodist Church, we, first and foremost, have the responsibility of strongly adhering to our biblically based doctrine which states: homosexual acts are ‘incompatible with Christian teaching.’” ¶304.3. 116 Petitioners’ Exhibits Nos. 65, 79, 80, 86, 98, 99, 103, 106Decision No 984 – “Paragraph 304.3 of the [2012] Discipline is a declaration of the General Conference of The United Methodist Church that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Decision No. 406 – “It is the right of the [Clergy] Executive Session of an Annual Conference to have full information presented to it pertinent to the qualifications of any candidate for the ministry. . . .” Decision No. 690 – “The clergy session is not limited to those matters brought before it by the Board of Ordained Ministry. Clergy members in full connection may consider all clergy business matters, with or without Board of Ordained Ministry recommendation. . . .” Decision No. 691 – “4. A Board of Ordained Ministry may not recommend involuntary termination based on any evidence not made known to the respondent.” Decision No 917 – “Fair process clearly precludes the bishop from discussing substantive issues with members of the hearing body outside the presence of the responding clergyperson. ¶362.2 d).117 Decision No 1244 – “on all matters relating to the character and conference relations of its clergy members, and on the ordination of clergy . . . it shall discharge such duties and exercise such powers as the General Conference under the Constitution may determine. The removal of a candidate’s name from the list of candidates proceeding forward in the ordination process is clearly a matter that falls within the purview of the business of the annual conference regarding the ordination of clergy.” 4. Mark Collier, Chair, Administrative Review Committee when called by Bishop Hopkins to report on the findings of the Administrative Review Committee, in regards to Disciplinary Question 42c, said that the review of the Administrative Review Committee consisted primarily of the interview of the three District Superintendents, the Administrative Assistant to the Bishop and the Bishop. These discussions were in violation to ¶362.2. d), “under no circumstances shall one party, in the absence of the other party, discuss substantive issues with members of the pending hearing body.” 117 Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 63, 66Decision No. 917 – “Fair process clearly precludes the bishop from discussing substantive issues with issues with members of the hearing body outside the presence of the responding clergyperson . . . it is likewise inappropriate and a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers for the district superintendent named to the board of ordained ministry as a representative of the cabinet to participate in the deliberations of the board of ordained ministry, or its committees, leading to the recommendation which is conveyed to the clergy session of the annual conference . . . The bishop and the cabinet are involved in the process which leads to commencement of procedures for involuntary discontinuance of probationary membership . . . and initiation of an administrative complaint. In fact, they can properly be seen as the moving parties with respect to such actions. 5. On February 6, 2013, Rev. Dr. Margaret N.B. Streiff, North Coast District Superintendent, by copies of the same Gmail, entitled, “Announcement to Church of Redeemer,” notified, Patrice Brewer and Church of the Redeemer that she had issued the sanction of two weeks involuntary leave after her conversation with the PPR on February 5, 2013. No writing with specific reasons for the action, or the required request, was given to the clergy member, Patrice Brewer, in violation of ¶355.1. On March 28, 2013, Rev. Dr. Margaret N.B. Streiff, North Coast District Superintendent, by letter addressed to Patrice Brewer, contained in part, “The Bishop and Cabinet have . . . discerned that it is in your best interest and in the interest of the church, to relieve you of the ongoing pastoral responsibilities for Church of the Redeemer.” Again, no writing with specific reasons for the action, or the required request, was given to the clergy member, Patrice Brewer, in violation of ¶355.1. Decision No 974 – “A respondent cannot make an adequate response to a complaint without being privy to the complaint in its totality. Fairness alone dictates access to such written complaints and their supporting documents. Full disclosure of all information concerning a complaint must occur for the respondent to make an adequate response. . . . At the initiation of the supervisory process the respondent has a right not only to examine but to possess the written complaint and any supporting material accompanying it. . . . “ 6. The Administrative Review Committee withheld the actions of February 6, 2013 and March 28, 2013, as well as, the actions of the Board of Ordained Ministry of September 17, 2013 from its report to the Clergy Session prior to the vote to discontinue the provisional membership of Patrice Brewer and on the contrary reported that all required processes had been followed. Decision No 921 – “Par . . . [636] does not require the administrative review committee to do anything more than review the record for any violations of fair process. The probationary member in question and a member of the executive committee of the board of ordained ministry are not required t be involved in this review process. However, the board of ordained ministry must provide to the administrative review committee a complete written record of the “the entire administrative process leading to the action for change in conference relationship.” Decision No. 982 – A local pastor under appointment, who receives a notice in writing from his/her bishop or district superintendent informing him/her that she/he is being discontinued from that appointment and his/her license for pastoral ministry is being discontinued for the reason that said local pastor is accused of violating specifically one or more cited chargeable offenses …, does not have a right to the supervisory response mandated in … unless the notice clearly states that it is a written and signed complaint claiming misconduct or unsatisfactory performance of ministerial duties, in which case the notice must also inform the local pastor of the process for filing the complaint and its purpose. Decision No 777 – “The decision of the bishop is reversed at some points and modified at others. The case on which it was based lacked a timely, signed grievance and a complaint specifying the chargeable offense in Disciplinary terms, both of which are indispensable requirements for any such matter referred to the Joint Review Committee for possible punitive action.” 7. That on December 3, 2013, it was error and a violation of process to consider a motion to discontinue when the action to continue, with requirements, was reported to “the full board for final action” passed September 17, 2013, was in force and all parties had undertaken conduct pursuant thereto. That the motion to involuntarily discontinue requires “some circumstances” that rise to the level for this serious sanction and is silent of any further investigations, or circumstances occurred during the period September, 17 - December 3, 2013. E. Supporting arguments and information 1. Whereas, the Board of Ordained Ministries’ letter dated December 13, 2013, contained “issues” identified by 4 District Superintendents, Rev. Dr. Peggy Streiff, North Coast District, Rev. Bonita Rollins, Tuscarawas District, Rev. Judith WismarClaycomb, Firelands District and Rev. Dan Bryant, Mahoning Valley District, the Register Rev. Dr. Gordon Myers and Bishop John Hopkins obtained by ex parte interviews, by a Clergy Review Team outside the presence of Patrice Brewer, and primarily containing hearsay statements, unsupported opinions and bias allegations, in that, only one had ever prepared an evaluation, or directly observed her pastoral performance. Yet, they were able to express strong statements of her “incompetence” and conflicts with “lay leadership” of Church of the Redeemer (pastor for 9 months, less 2 months maturity leave) but ignore statements of praise and support from the never acknowledged or referred to, “lay leadership” of Rust UMC (student/local pastor for 12 months) and St. Paul UMC (pastor for 12 months). Why the “clergy and lay leadership” of the Board of Ordained Ministry did not accept the recommendations of their own Clergy Review Team and insisted on, one and only one, option, “discontinuance” and did not consider the positive reports from credible lay leadership at Rust and St. Paul, even to the point of the Chair of the Board of Ordained Ministry disrespecting the contents of the Chair of the St. Paul UMC letter, by Rev. Nancy Hull, Chair of the BOM stating, “I received a letter from a church member at St. Paul’s [sic] regarding how wonderful Patrice is. She must have recruited this person to write to me because there would be no other reason to have the BOM Chair receive such a letter.” Later in the same meeting, Rev. Nancy Hull, Chair clarified that the five new members [at St. Paul UMC] are persons who came with Patrice from Church of the Redeemer. Patrice continued to hold a Bible study at her home with certain Redeemer members even when told not to by her DS. This violated our policies regarding not being involved with the members of a congregation after a new appointment. Patrice has refused to listen to authority in numerous cases.” Rev. Hull did not state the source of her information, in that it does not appear in any of the documents of record. The record does reflect a consistent absence of fair process and a determined and relentless drive to undermine the ministry of Patrice Brewer. But, through it all, even against the advice of her private attorneys118, she was willing to sign the December 11, 2013 “Agreement” and continue to complete all of its requirements, as she had done in the past, as well as, provide other services and leadership throughout the district and conference.119 as stating one been a supervisor required treatments that address past unidentified and unfounded medical issues to be paid for by Patrice Brewer and treatment progress, with expected behavior changes, reported to the Chair of the Board of Ordained Ministry by a date certain and periodic quarterly dates. These obvious violations were inserted in knowingly and in bad faith in order to place Patrice Brewer in the position of not signing the “agreement” or signing and being a party to Discipline violations. 2. Patrice Brewer was made subject to the Board of Ordained Ministry’s failure to review and evaluate, but made subject to the Board of Ordained Ministry’s investigations, deceptive, planned and implemented vindictive and undermining environment and process to defeat the purposes of the Book of Discipline not to do away with the privileges of clergy of the right to trial by committee and to an appeal, and the right to trial before the church, or by a committee, and of an appeal.120 3. That the requirement of Paragraph 327.6 of The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, which requires: that discontinuance from provisional membership without consent, the provisions of fair process (par. 362.2), which includes in subparagraph b) Notice . . . shall advise the respondent of the reason for the proposed procedure with sufficient detail to allow the respondent to prepare a response, was not followed. In that, no notice with sufficient detail was provided Patrice Brewer, provisional elder that contained the reason for the Board of Ordained Ministry’s action to recommend her discontinuance was not provided twenty days prior to the hearing. 4. That the requirements of Paragraph 363 of The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, which provides, in part, that: “Ordination and membership in an annual conference in The United Methodist Church is a sacred trust. The 118 See Petitioners Exhibit Nos. 72, 73 119 See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. 3, 17, 22, 28, 32, 43, 50, 53, 57, 64, 76 120 See Petitioners’ Exhibit Nos. qualifications and duties of . . . provisional members . . . are set forth . . . Whenever a person . . . is accused of violating this trust, the membership of his or her ministerial office shall be subject to review. This review shall have as its primary purpose a just resolution of any violation of this sacred trust, in the hope that God’s work of justice, reconciliation and healing may be realized in the body of Christ. 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. In appropriate situations, processes seeking a just resolution as defined in ¶ 363.1(c) may be pursued. Special attention should be given to ensuring that cultural, racial, ethnic and gender contexts are valued throughout the process in terms of their understandings of fairness, justice and restoration” were not followed. In that (c) Just Resolution – The supervisory response may include a process that seeks a just resolution in which the parties are assisted by a trained, impartial third party facilitator(s) or mediator(s), in reaching an agreement satisfactory to all parties. If the bishop chooses to initiate a mediated attempt to produce a just resolution, then the bishop, the person filing the complaint, the respondent, and other appropriate persons shall enter into a written agreement outlining the process, including any agreements on confidentiality. A process seeking a just resolution may begin at anytime in the supervisory, complaint, or trial process. . . . F. Relief requested To reverse the decision of the East Ohio Annual Conference to discontinue the provisional elder membership of Patrice Brewer. To pay all remuneration and other benefits of that status prior to the 2014 Clergy Session retroactively. Submitted by: __________________________________ A. Wendell Wheadon, Elder in Full Connection __________________________________ Patrice Brewer, Discontinued Provisional Elder DOCKET 0415-7 IN RE: A Request from the Burundi and East Africa Annual Conferences Regarding the Decision and Action of the General Council on Finance and Administration in Reducing the Bishop’s Salary “The Resident Bishop Daniel Wandabula's salary and Episcopal support was drastically reduced by the GCFAfrom 100% to 10% and then to 0% since the $4,288 which GCFA is going to give the Bishop in 2015 will be covering only his medical insurance and pension. The reduction was premised on the alleged audit faults; on which theGBGM/GCFA raised a complaint which weunderstand thatthis complaint is before the Africa Central Conference following the proper procedure as spelled out in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.The East Africa and Burundi Committee on Episcopacy considers the GCFA's decision pre-mature, high handed, racist, discriminatory and unjustified. GCFA failed to observe the required procedure set forth by the Book of Discipline, 2012 there by denying the Bishop afair hearing. We the delegates HERE by Task the East Africa and Burundi Committee on Episcopacy to petition the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church for a declaration on the inordinate decision and any subsequent related decisions of the GBGM/GCFA that affect our twoAnnual Conferences and Resident Bishop." This docket has the actual requests for Judicial Council action received by the Judicial Council inserted. This is done to comply with the amendment of ¶2608.1 by the 2012 General Conference. For further information contact F. Belton Joyner, Jr., 1821 Hillandale Road, Suite 1B, PMB 334, Durham, NC 27705 E-mail: judicialcouncil@umc.org Human dignity sets tone for church's international work NEW YORK (UMNS) – Human dignity sets tone for church’s international work
As a young person in Greece, Elsa Stamatopoulou didn’t see much evidence of church support for human dignity in the struggle against dictatorship.
But after she joined the U.N. human rights office in 1980, she became familiar with religious groups who were doing “amazing work” to promote human rights.
Stamatopoulou, now a professor at Columbia University, cited the U.N.’s voluntary fund for victims of torture as an example. “In many countries, we cannot even channel the money easily to NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) who can help victims of torture,” she explained. “So faith-based organizations become vehicles through which the United Nations is able to channel this particular humanitarian aid.”
As a church youth leader, student activist and then a staff member of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines during the last brutal years of the Marcos military dictatorship, the Rev. Liberato “Levi” Bautista learned that restoring human dignity to the poor, deprived and marginalized was an important task for the church.
FAITH-BASED WORK AT U.N.
This inaugural symposium is expected to be first of a series on the role of religion and faith-based organizations in international affairs sponsored by the U.N. offices of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, World Council of Churches and United Methodist Women.
The reasoning behind the series: religion is once again emerging as a critical player “in advancing peace and security, human dignity and human rights and social and sustainable development,” according to the sponsors.
A larger audience was able to view the symposium via the Internet, prompting this message from Glory Mulimba, a Global Mission Fellow assigned to the Philippines by the United Methodist Board of Global Ministries:
“I am actually live streaming the symposium which is really a great opportunity to learn mostly about the role of religion vis-a-vis the issues we face in the world, especially the violation of human rights.”
Global Ministries was among the event’s additional co-sponsors, along with the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s Women’s Missionary Society, The Episcopal Church, The Presbyterian Church (USA) and The Salvation Army.
Today, in his 18th year as the main U.N. representative of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, Bautista continually witnesses the intersection of faith-based groups and the secular and political world on issues of human dignity and human rights.
“At the core of religious understandings and beliefs are precepts that enlarge freedoms, secure rights, promote development and sustain peace,” he noted.
Focus on human dignity
Both Bautista and Stamatopoulou were among the speakers on “The Role of Religion and Faith-based Organizations in International Affairs” during a Jan. 21 symposium at the United Methodist-owned Church Center for the United Nations.
With a focus on human dignity and human rights, the event was designed to provoke conversation and build engagement among diverse partners on the international level.
From both religious and secular perspectives, noted the Rev. Ganoune Diop, permanent representative for United Nations of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, human dignity “is accepted as a foundation” for life.
Within the People’s Movement for Human Rights Learning, said Robert Kesten, executive director, the belief is that all are born with dignity, even though that dignity has to be continually reclaimed.
Kesten led symposium participants as they read aloud “30 Points of Dignity,” an unofficial summary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the U.N. in 1948.
Professor Heiner Bielefeldt, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, pointed to the first words of the declaration’s preamble: “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family...”
Such recognition “is not the result of a negotiation process,” he said in a pre-recorded video presentation from Germany, where he is teaching. Instead, that recognition is a more profound insight that is the precondition of any negotiations.
“That’s why the human rights which institutionalize your recognition of everyone’s human dignity are necessarily everyone’s rights, everyone’s equal rights,” Bielefeldt said.
Working for human rights
To be “duty-bearers” for human rights, Stamatopoulou said, faith-based groups need to:
“I also believe that faith-based organizations have to go on that path… of bringing people together, with modesty, integrity, consistency and determination,” she said.
The common setting of the U.N. has allowed faith and cultural groups to examine “shared burdens, vulnerabilities and aspirations” even as they and the international community are sometimes challenged by fanaticism, adherence to ideology, oppression and exploitation, Bautista said.
Despite those pitfalls, “the quest for sustainable peace and justice and the need to overcome violence binds religions, governments and the U.N. together,” he wrote in a paper for the symposium.
“The engagement (with the U.N.) has changed the ecumenical and church community itself,” he told the participants.
Ecumenical work in international affairs is an “inseparable dimension” of the World Council of Churches and its members, said Rudelmar Bueno de Faria, the WCC’s U.N. representative.
When churches become engaged together in human problems and issues “they find themselves in a form of unity that transcends conventional backgrounds, ecclesiastical barriers and national boundaries,” he added.
What church has to offer
Faith-based groups can bring assets to the international arena that are not financial but are tied to the grass-roots quality of such organizations, said Bishop Stacy Sauls, chief operating officer for The Episcopal Church.
“We derive our real potential from how deeply we are connected with people,” he explained. “For one thing, what the church does that no other organization can do as well is to reach into the nooks and crannies of humanity, wherever it is found.”
Faith groups also use that connection with people for disaster relief and development work. Pauliina Parhiala, director and chief operating officer of ACT Alliance, a coalition of more than 140 church and affiliated relief organizations, can attest to that.
“Religious institutions may lack technical solutions or even skill or knowledge to address some of those problems they would be highlighting, but they can be offering a perspective of hope beyond business as usual,” she said.
“They can bridge divides in societies and among communities and they can speak truth even if it’s difficult and hold governments accountable to the commitments they have made.”
But the Rev. Kathleen Stone, U.N. representative for United Methodist Women, said she found herself concerned over how faith groups can ensure human dignity or even, in some cases, survival.
“I’m thinking right now of women and men with their arms up in the air either surrendering or standing with firm resolute against all risk to life and limb, stating that they have a right to breathe and live and love,” she said as the symposium concluded. “And wondering what the place of our churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, shrines... is in all of this.”
Closed for Ebola, Liberian schools to reopen in February MONROVIA, Liberia (UMNS) – Closed for Ebola, Liberian schools to reopen in FebruaryBy Julu Swen MONROVIA, Liberia (UMNS)
Students will return to their classrooms in February, a positive sign that the Ebola outbreak is coming under control in this West African country that at one point was reporting 300 new cases each week.
Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf ordered all schools closed on July 30 in an attempt to contain the deadly epidemic. The World Health Organization reports just 48 news cases there in the past three weeks, bringing the total number of Ebola cases involving Liberians to 8,331, with 3,538 deaths since the start of the epidemic.
The government has said schools will reopen by Feb. 2. The United Methodist school system has endorsed the Liberian government’s plan, but will not be able to reopen all the denomination’s schools by that date, said the Rev. Sampson Nyanti, associate director of the Department of General Education and Ministries of the United Methodist Liberia Conference.
There are 60 United Methodist schools and one United Methodist university in Liberia.
Concern has been expressed that the deadline doesn’t give schools enough time to make sure all the procedures are in place for a safe environment. That includes having chlorine water and soap, thermometers to monitor temperatures and someone to oversee that all children, teachers and any visitors wash their hands before entering classrooms.
“Students should wash their hands and have their temperature checked before going to their classes,” Nyanti said.
Concern over school fees
Another concern is that parents will need more time to pay school fees since many were out of work or under quarantine for the past six months. The Liberia Conference’s education department is allowing each principal to come up with how to relieve financial pressure on parents.
“Remember, the government is asking all schools to institute a payment plan that will divide school fees into three parts,” Nyanti said.
College of West Africa is one of the most expensive United Methodist high schools in Monrovia. School fees are $427 U.S. per semester while government schools cost $50 U.S.
Richard Wiah, president of the College of West Africa, said he was happy about the government decision to reopen schools. “Ebola and money should not be used as an excuse to keep the schools closed perpetually,” he added.
Parents will never have all the money needed for school fees at any one time, he said, noting that an appeal to the government for subsidies to the schools would be the best way forward.
The Ganta United Methodist School in Nimba County in northern Liberia is unlikely to open by Feb. 2, Principal Roger Swy Domah said. Parents of the students in his school are not ready for their children to return unless they get a scholarship to help pay school fees, he explained.
“We cannot afford to bring teachers and other staff to this institution when we are not sure how we are going to pay them,” Domah said.
“Reopening schools is better than letting our children stay home for another semester or year,” said Linda Brooks, a parent.
She said the government should appeal to private institutions to put in place a payment plan that will enable parents to pay their children tuition without going through too much stress.
“You know we used all our money for the festive season,” she added.
New graduation date for university
United Methodist University has set Feb.16 as the date for students to return to school. The university is holding meetings on Ebola training for their response teams for the various satellite campuses around the country.
According to the Rev. George K. Weagba, university vice president for institutional research and development, students are excited about resuming their studies. Weagba said a new graduation date will be set for students who had planned to graduate before the schools closed.
*Swen is editor and publisher of West African Writers, an online publication about United Methodist happenings in West Africa and assists the denomination in Liberia with coverage for United Methodist Communications.
News media contact: Kathy Gilbert, newsdesk@umcom.org or 615-742-5469.
2015 ushers in renewed hope with dip in Ebola cases FREETOWN, Sierra Leone (UMNS) – 2015 ushers in renewed hope with dip in Ebola cases
The new year comes with fresh hope of ending the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone, as the daily report of new cases now is sometimes in the single digits instead of hundreds.
A two-week lockdown imposed at Christmas prohibited travel and large crowds, and those restrictions were extended Jan. 19 for another two weeks in hopes of ending the deadly epidemic by March. And more hope arrived with the announcement that schools – closed for eight months because of Ebola – will reopen in March.
United Methodists in Sierra Leone joined other citizens in observing a quiet Christmas and New Year’s under the lockdown, which is credited with the low rates of infection.
Bishop John K. Yambasu
Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS
‘God has a plan’
Speaking to radio and television audiences at an ecumenical New Year’s Eve watchnight service, United Methodist Bishop John Yambasu used the theme “God has a new plan for you” with a text from Jeremiah 29:10-15 to encourage hope for an end to Ebola in 2015 and the restoration of normal lives.
The bishop recalled that Sierra Leoneans had experienced suffering in recent years beginning with the civil strife from 1991-2002 which he called “one of the most violent, horrible and brutal civil wars” in Africa’s history.
He said that 12 years later, just as the country begins “to put the broken pieces of our shattered lives together again, we are faced with another terrible national crisis – the Ebola virus disease.”
“To say that Ebola has destroyed our nation is certainly an understatement. Each day when I return from work and see my two daughters and grandson sitting at home instead being at school, my heart bleeds. Our nation’s economy has been devastated. Our social life has been disrupted. Our educational system is in total shambles,” Yambasu said.
The bishop continued: “But Jeremiah has a message of hope for you. God has not forgotten us. God knows and understands our suffering. He sees the tears of bitterness and hopelessness in our eyes.”
HOW TO HELP
A different Christmas
Olivia Fonnie, director of specialized ministry to children and assistant pastor at Charles Davies United Methodist Church, said television and radio stations provided good alternatives to the large gatherings normally held during the Christmas and New Year’s season.
“I have a sick patient in the hospital. He called to tell me how much he was moved by the prayer Bishop Yambasu offered during a particular program for Christian heads of churches service,” she said.
However, government restrictions were hard on people, Fonnie said.
“Keeping you in one place was too much to put up with especially against the backdrop of a festive season. You feel caged; you feel deprived; ... It was too much of a negative impact; not only for me but for the whole country,” Fonnie said.
But the Rev. Winston Ashcroft experienced one of his best holiday seasons ever.
Ashcroft, director of connectional ministries for the United Methodist Sierra Leone Conference, said for many, Christmas and New Year’s Day have become “noisy.”
“Christmas as we know it is a celebration that is quietly observed by the family. So, last year, many people really had quality time to spend with family, sharing the word of God with the family, sharing food and drinks and some information with the family,” he said.
Decline in new cases
The National Ebola Response Center, based in Freetown, reports daily on new cases, which have dropped into the single digits on some days. On Jan. 21, the center reported 11 new cases, and just seven new cases were reported Jan. 20.
The World Health Organization reported 549 new cases in the first 21 days of January, bringing the total number of Ebola cases in Sierra Leone to 10,340 since the beginning of the epidemic. WHO reports 3,145 deaths from Ebola in Sierra Leone.
Restrictions under the modified lockdown include closing shops and entertainment centers at 6 p.m. weekdays and from noon Saturday until Monday morning.
Numerous checkpoints are in place and people moving from one district to another are required to obtain a pass from the health ministry.
President Ernest Bai Koroma is visiting districts where the infection has been hard to contain and urging local authorities to come together and not politicize the outbreaks by under-reporting new cases.
“With Ebola, low figures do not matter; what matters is achieving zero new infection rates,” he said, reminding people that a single infected person brought Ebola into Sierra Leone.
“Now is the time to make the sacrifice in this last lap of the fight that will take us to zero,” Koroma stressed. He urged “supreme sacrifice” on everyone to work together.
The president also attributed the declining figures to a significant increase in capacity in the health sector – from a single lab in Kenema when the outbreak started in May to more than seven functional laboratories across the country with a combined capacity to test more than 1,000 samples a day.
“From a single doctor with expertise in this type of viral diseases, we now have many doctors and health workers with skills to tackle the outbreak. We have trained our own medical personnel with international support, and improved the skills of contact tracers, burial teams and call center operators,” Koroma recently said.
Jusu is a communicator for The United Methodist Church in Sierra Leone.
Shining a light on rural church buildings ATLANTA (UMNS) – Finding friends for old country churches
Union United Methodist Church sits so far back in the southeast Georgia pines that the crackling report of a deer hunter’s rifle sometimes interrupts worship.
It’s been known to happen as members kneel for communion.
“All of a sudden they’ve got a grip on the altar rail and they don’t turn loose,” said Steve Brown, the church’s volunteer lay speaker. “It’s what we call white-knuckle prayer.”
VIEW CHURCH PHOTOS
Historic Rural Churches of Georgia offers exterior and interior photos of about 120 church buildings.
Some of the website's loveliest examples are from active United Methodist churches.View a sampling of these photos»
Though Union United Methodist is geographically obscure, it’s enjoying a raised profile thanks toHistoric Rural Churches of Georgia. This online project celebrates — through text andsumptuous photographs — the lovely but vulnerable old church buildings found off the state’s back roads.
“We decided to create a website to see if anybody else cared,” said Sonny Seals, speaking of himself and George Hart, a fellow Atlanta resident and frequent companion for road trips around Georgia.
Since debuting in 2012, their website has had more than 16,800 “likes” on its companion Facebook page. Many of the website’s entries are trailed by reader comments praising the project and sharing memories of the churches.
Last fall, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution featured the project. The University of Georgia Press is publishing a book adapted from the website’s images and text.
“It turns out a lot of people do care,” said Seals, 72. “We seem to have struck a nerve.”
The website is ecumenical, but of the nearly 120 church buildings covered so far, about a third began as Methodist, and a dozen or so are active United Methodist churches or campgrounds.
United Methodist fans of Historic Rural Churches of Georgia include the Rev. Hugh Hendrickson, who leads the North Georgia Conference’s work in archives and history.
Hendrickson has served rural churches his whole career, and he thinks old country church buildings are an under-appreciated spiritual treasure.
“I’ve never gone into an ugly rural church,” he said.
Shining a light
It was an abandoned Methodist church in Powelton, Georgia, that got Seals interested in the fate of rural churches. He discovered the building about 10 years ago during a detour on a dove- hunting trip, and had a vague recollection that Powleton figured in his family’s history.
Seals sought out an elderly aunt, who filled him in. Then he returned to the Methodist church and discovered that its cemetery held the grave of his great-great-grandfather, a Confederate soldier.
Eventually, Seals enlisted Hart to join him in a broader investigation of the state’s rural church buildings, and their ramblings led them to undertake Historic Rural Churches of Georgia.
The project doesn’t raise money to save old church buildings. But it does raise awareness of their beauty, history and fragility, given the threats of fire, vandalism and the decline of many rural areas.
Historic Rural Churches of Georgia cheers on successful efforts at saving old rural churches, as well as those just getting underway.
“The end goal is preservation, and the best way we can positively impact preservation is to shine as much light on the opportunity and problem as we can,” Seals said.
He and Hart are the main steeple chasers, identifying churches to highlight and researching their histories. But they’ve recruited volunteer photographers, working in a style Seals calls “reverential documentation.”
Each church’s entry includes exterior and interior photographs, as well as a history of the church and an analysis of the building’s architectural distinctions. If the church has a graveyard — and most do— the entry includes photos of that.
Many of the buildings still house active congregations. Some are open only for weddings or special services, and others are used for secular purposes. Still others are abandoned, and obviously those are the ones most needing emergency preservation efforts.
Spared by Sherman
Fields Chapel United Methodist in Cherokee County, Georgia, north of Atlanta, is among the going-strong churches glad to be on the website.
“They were very professional to work with, very honoring of the church’s history but also of the fact that it’s active today,” said the Rev. April Ellis, pastor.
Fields Chapel has been meeting since 1820, and built its most recent sanctuary in 1898. The website’s photos dwell on the building’s heart pine floors, oak pews, multi-color pane windows, and curved altar rail.
Seals and Hart’s research showed that the dedication in 1899 drew a big crowd to hear the Rev. Sam Jones, a celebrated revivalist known for his “quit your meanness” theology.
The attention Fields Chapel got from Historic Rural Churches of Georgia prompted members to hold a Founder’s Day service, which pulled in scattered former members as well as visitors.
“It’s been good for us,” Ellis said.
As for Union Methodist, north of Statesboro, Georgia, the website notes that it was organized in 1790, spared by Gen. William T. Sherman on his 1864 March to the Sea, and saw construction of its current white-frame sanctuary some 20 years later.
“Elaborate, carved brackets, some with acorn finials, are mixed with fretwork trim all of which rests upon and is supported by classical, square columns,” the website elaborates.
Brown, the lay speaker, is thrilled with such recognition. To anyone who discovers Union United Methodist through the website, and wants to drive way back in the woods for a visit, he makes this promise:
“When you walk in that door, you realize God’s waiting on you. … And whatever you’ve got on your back will seem a lot lighter when you leave.”
Hodges, a United Methodist News Service writer, lives in Dallas. Contact him at (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org
MAPUTO, Mozambique (UMNS) – Human Sexuality Task Force Hosts its Third Panel
Connectional Table
The United Methodist Church
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Human Sexuality Task Force Hosts its Third Panel
The Central Conference Voice on Human Sexuality and Our Wesleyan Identity
Chicago, Ill: The Connectional Table’s Human Sexuality Task Force will be hosting its third and final panel on human sexuality Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:00 am CAT in Maputo, Mozambique. This panel will highlight the central conference perspective on our Wesleyan identity, the life of the church, and human sexuality.
While this panel will not be live-streamed, there is an opportunity for those who wish to participate to pose questions to the panel beforehand via Twitter. On January 26, 2015 at 9:00 pm EST, DreamUMC will host a Twitter chat where participants will get a glimpse of the types of questions and topics for the panel, an opportunity to answer or comment on those questions and topics, and an opportunity to pose questions of their own, which will be presented to the panel. Any submitted questions will be asked of the panel during the last 20 minutes on February 10.
“We want to thank DreamUMC for helping us to provide this opportunity to reach out to our UMC connection via Twitter,” said the Rev. Amy Valdez Barker, executive secretary of the Connectional Table.
DreamUMC is a grassroots movement that arose out of General Conference 2012. They conductbiweekly chats about the mission and vision of The United Methodist Church including such topics as the role of social media in church life, racism, sexism, community engagement, domestic violence, women in ministry and more. Over 400 United Methodist clergy and laity have been involved in those chats.
To participate in the chat, you will need a Twitter account. If you log in to your account on January 26 at 9:00 pm EST and enter the hashtag #DreamUMC in the search box, you will be able to see other posts related to the conversation. To join the conversation, simply tag your tweet with #DreamUMC. More detailed step-by-step instructions are available at dreamumc.net/2012/08/how-to-join-the-dreamumc-tweetchats.html.
The panelists for the third panel are academics and ministers in the central conferences and will bring a fresh insight to this ongoing discussion. Panelists include:
The panel will be available for online streaming beginning February 15, 2015 by going toumc.org/connectional-table-webcast.
###
Contact: Any questions or comments on this panel or the two previous panels should be sent to: Ashley Boggan, aboggan@umc.org, 773-714-1517
Note: For more information on the two previous panels or to watch the archived videos of the panels, click here:
April 29, 2014: umc.org/who-we-are/connectional-table-online-christian-conferencing-on-human-sexuality November 1, 2014: umc.org/who-we-are/connectional-table-webcast-finding-our-way-love-law-united-methodist-church UMTV: Taking church to a tattoo parlor WILDWOOD, Fla. (UMNS) – View on YouTube | Download Video <iframe width="690" height="388" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YPFxJs_LJH8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Taking Church to a Tattoo Parlor
|
Jessica Bliss
 |
Andraé Crouch
|
“[God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Revelation 21:4.
A giant in gospel music has died. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Andraé Crouch (July 1, 1942 – January 8, 2015) in the gospel music field during the last fifty years. Few have had such a sustained level of accomplishment and recognition in gospel music — seven Grammys, six Dove awards, an Oscar nomination, induction into the Gospel Music Hall of Fame in 1998, and much more. He was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2004.
The United Methodist Hymnal contains three of Crouch’s songs, “My Tribute” (No. 99), “Through It All” (No. 507), and “Soon and Very Soon” (No. 706). The Faith We Sing includes his well-known “Bless His Holy Name” (No. 2015). Together, these provide only the slimmest selection of his more than 350 songs on more than twenty albums. His 40th anniversary album, Mighty Wind, was released in 2006; and his most recent album, Live in Los Angeles, was released in 2013.
Andraé Crouch’s career also extended beyond the gospel song field. He received an Academy Award nomination for his compositions and arrangements for the film The Color Purple (1985). He was the arranger and choral conductor for The Lion King (1994). He worked with artists such as Diana Ross and Ringo Starr. He sang background with Madonna and arranged songs for Michael Jackson. Elvis Presley, Paul Simon, and Madonna recorded his songs.
“Soon and very soon” (1978) is an appropriate song by which to remember him. It is based on Revelation 21:3-4: “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. >He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’” (KJV)
While it does not appear in many hymnals, a bridge between the stanzas reveals that though the hymn text is pointed toward heaven, the composer acknowledged our earthly struggles: there are “rivers we must cross” and “mountains we must climb”, but “God will supply the strength we need . . . till we reach the other side.” For the complete text see www.lyricsmania.com. A performance of this song by the composer may be viewed at http://youtube.
The influence of “Soon and very soon” is evident in the 28 hymnals in which it appears since its 1978 composition (according to www.hymnary.org). The song was sung by a gospel choir for the public memorial service as Michael Jackson's casket entered the Staples Center in Los Angeles (July 7, 2009). Australian artist Brooke Fraser composed a different song soon after her wedding that seems to have been heavily inspired by the Rev. Crouch’s composition, and she recorded it with Hillsong’s band Unitedin 2009. Her text begins, “Soon and very soon my King is coming. . . .”
Though a transcript of the speech from the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute does not include the opening line of the song, it is interesting to note that David Oyelowo, the British actor who plays Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the film Selma (2014), cites the phrase “soon and very soon” in the excerpt of the speech “How Long, Not Long” (also known as “Our God Is Marching On”) given by King at the Alabama Capitol on March 25, 1965. While the phrase works well in the movie, its citation in the movie appears to be cinematic license since Dr. King’s speech was given thirteen years before the Rev. Crouch wrote his song. If indeed Dr. King speaks this phrase in one of his speeches, it could be a potentially interesting connection between the Civil Rights leader and this song.
Born with a twin sister Sandra in Los Angeles, Andraé Crouch grew up in a church founded by his father, Benjamin Crouch, who was in the cleaning business as he pastored Christ Memorial Church, a Church of God in Christ (COGIC) congregation. It was in this congregation that Andraé began to sing and formed his first singing group, the COGICS (Church of God in Christ Singers) in 1960. The COGICS recorded his first song, “The Blood Will Never Lose It’s Power” (available in the United Methodist African American Supplement, Songs of Zion, No. 184), a song that continues to be one of his most popular compositions.
In 1965, Crouch founded the Disciples singing group and, upon the advice of Christian composer Ralph Carmichael, began to record his compositions in 1969. From 1965-1985, Andraé Crouch and the Disciples performed in numerous venues such as The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, theHollywood Bowl, and Carnegie Hall. Andraé Crouch and the Disciples toured more than seventy countries. The songs contained in our hymnals come from this period.
The Rev. Crouch’s ministry in song has had an appeal across racial groups. Married to an Anglo woman, his cross-racial family roots have affected his music: “In high school I attended Youth for Christ, which included different races, and our leader was a white guy from the Nazarene church. They would ask me from time to time to sing a song, so I would sing something that I knew they would understand. Also, my mother’s and father’s backgrounds both included Jewish-German with mixed marriage (Afro-European) grandparents and great-grandparents so we would have extended family gatherings that were racially diverse. When my dad would ask me to sing, I knew they wouldn’t understand the C.O.G.I.C. style of singing. I wanted to reach my family and kids at school, so I would write my songs clearer so that they would understand the gospel instead of some of the vernacular that we use in church.”
 |
Andraé Crouch with Jesse Jackson
|
Andraé Crouch served with his twin sister Sandra as pastor at the New Christ Memorial Church of God in Christ in Pacoima, California, the congregation founded by his parents,New Christ Memorial. His mother, his father, and then his brother all passed away in quick succession, placing the burden of continuing the church built by the Crouch family on him. In an interview with GospelCity.com (2002), Crouch notes, “I thought that if I took up the mantle of pastor I wouldn’t be able to make music my first priority…. But God just pointed out to me that He had given me everything I had and that He wasn’t about to take anything away. I slowly came to understand that He was adding to my life and ministry, and the music was as much a part of both as it had ever been.”
According to The Associated Press article (January 8, 2015), he struggled with dyslexia throughout his life, and health issues plagued the Rev. Crouch in recent years, including diabetes and cancer. He was forced to cancel a concert tour in December 2014 and was hospitalized for pneumonia and congestive heart failure on January 3. He died of a heart attack. Accolades have come from many, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson who stated on a Twitter feed, “Andrae Crouch, a friend and source of worldwide inspiration, served his time well. I miss him already.” With his posting, the Rev. Jackson included a picture of himself and the Rev. Crouch some decades ago.
C. Michael Hawn is University Distinguished Professor of Church Music, Perkins School of Theology, SMU.
Looking ahead:
Here are some of the activities ahead for United Methodists across the connection. If you have an item to share, email newsdesk@umcom.org and put Digest in the subject line.Monday, Jan. 26
Deadline to register for online course "Maximizing Your Leadership EQ: An Online Leader Development Course" – The Discipleship Ministries course is 2-4 p.m. CST Feb. 2-23. The course is for leaders and planners in Christian education/faith formation, children’s ministry, youth ministry and adult ministry. $94. Details
Monday-Thursday, Jan. 26-29
Wild with Words Retreat – The Rev. Martha Brunell, a United Church of Christ pastor, leads this Scarritt Bennett Center retreat that explores words as a common creative medium. The center is in Nashville, Tennessee. Details
You can see more educational opportunities and other upcoming events in the life of the church here.
|  | |
No comments:
Post a Comment