The Impact of Judicial Council Decision 1514 on Retired Clergy
The United Methodist Judicial Council issued Decision 1514 on October 26, 2024. In it, the council nullified a bishop’s ruling of law, one which restricted the freedom of retired clergy to conduct ministry without an appointment. The decision effectively maintains the status quo in church law. A minority concurrence attached to the decision does not change its impact.
Background
In its statement of facts, the Judicial Council wrote:
On April 22, 2024, the Board of Ordained Ministry of the Peninsula-Delaware Annual Conference sent a letter to five clergy members who it determined had voluntarily withdrawn from The United Methodist Church (The UMC) by serving a church that had disaffiliated from the UMC beyond the date of disaffiliation. The minutes of the clergy session of the annual conference on June 6, 2024, state that Question 42 was read regarding clergy who have had their conference membership terminated by withdrawal to unite with another denomination. The minutes add that Question 42 “was read for informational purposes, as it did not require a vote.”
Thereafter, an elder requested rulings of law as follows:
[1] Pertaining to Paragraph 360 regarding withdrawal, if there has been no written request for withdrawal by the clergy member, can the Board of Ordained Ministry assume a voluntary withdrawal by other means?
And
[2] If a retired clergy member in good standing chooses to operate in the capacity as a UM clergy in Word, Sacrament, Order and Service at a church or location that is not United Methodist, is that a chargeable offense and subject to Par. 2702.2, including fair process as defined by Par. 20?
The Bishop’s Ruling of Law
Bishop Latrelle Easterling ruled the second question moot and hypothetical because “no clergy member ‘of the sort identified in the question … has been charged with committing any of the chargeable offenses listed in Discipline ¶2702.’”
On the first question, the bishop issued the following ruling of law:
a clergy member can be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn her or his membership in the Peninsula-Delaware Conference and in The United Methodist Denomination by their action of having served or currently serving without a Bishop’s appointment a church that disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church or which is not a church of a recognized denomination.
The bishop’s ruling, which is now null and void, was problematic from my point of view.
There is nothing in the one applicable paragraph, (¶360.1, Withdrawal to Unite with Another Denomination) that provides for constructive dismissal or de facto withdrawal from conference membership. The mere fact of serving in a church of another denomination does not indicate a change of membership. In fact, the Discipline recognizes that clergy can serve in one denomination while retaining membership in their own denomination. Absent evidence of actually joining another church (as was the case in Judicial Council Decision 696), the conference has no Disciplinary grounds to terminate a retiree's membership in the United Methodist Church.
Additionally, the bishop’s ruling established requirements for retired clergy not found in the Book of Discipline, treated clergy in congregational settings differently than clergy who ministered in non-congregational settings, and perpetuated the myth that there are “recognized” denominations.
On the question of “recognized” denominations, the UMC has various sorts of ecumenical relationships with other Christian denominations, but such relationships do not imply that these are the only valid Christian churches. My annual conference regularly appoints and receives clergy ordained by other Christian bodies under ¶346 and ¶347.
The bishop's ruling appeared to apply to both active and retired clergy, but it makes no sense in the context of clergy not yet retired. How can elders in an effective status serve in a pastoral role in any church without the bishop’s appointment, regardless of whether the church is “recognized” or not?
If the dismissed clergy were not retired, they should have either received a new appointment on the effective date of the church's disaffiliation or entered a leave of absence. Elders in a leave of absence retain very limited clergy authorities which may be exercised only under the control of the bishop (¶353.8). Active clergy who either failed to report to a new appointment or improperly exercised ministerial authority while in a leave of absence certainly could be charged under ¶2702.3(c), "disobedience to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church." Bureaucratic maneuvers are cheaper, easier, and quicker than church trials, so I understand the conference looking for a shortcut.
The bishop explicitly targeted clergy serving in congregations which had legally disaffiliated under provisions approved by the General Conference. I can think of no just reason why those churches should be treated differently under church law than other Christian congregations.
But these are not the reasons that the council nullified the bishop's ruling.
The Judicial Council Decision
The council decided that bishop should have also ruled question one to be moot and hypothetical “because it did not state a connection to a specific action taken or to be taken by the conference. Therefore, the bishop’s ruling is reversed.”
The council nullified the bishop’s ruling of law on a technicality, which I’m not certain was appropriate given that there were five people who were in fact affected by a “specific action taken by the conference.”
While not mentioned in the ruling, the decision effectively let stand the Peninsula-Delaware Board of Ordained Ministry's decision to involuntarily terminate the conference membership of the five clergy members as a form of "voluntary withdrawal." The specific actions taken by the Board of Ordained Ministry and the Annual Conference were not within the scope of the council's consideration. The Judicial Council did not rule one way or the other on the legality of the actions. It only ruled that the theoretical question raised by the questioner was moot and hypothetical. So, while the Judicial Council invalidated the bishop's ruling of law and kept it from becoming the legal standard for the church, it has not prohibited bishops or boards of ordained ministry from applying the same flawed logic in their annual conferences.
While question #2 was ruled moot from the beginning, I appreciate the questioner recognizing that retired clergy minister in both congregational and non-congregational settings. As the former endorsing agent for the denomination, I know that many retired clergy serve as minsters of word and sacrament in non-congregational settings, usually without an appointment.
The Minority Concurrence
Although the council ruled the bishop’s ruling of law moot, a minority of the council (4 of the 9 members) issued a "concurring opinion." The minority wrote:
a retired clergy person who intends to serve in a role requiring Word, Sacrament, Order, and Service, in any local church, UMC or not, [is required to] seek appointment or approval by the bishop first in accordance with ¶357.6. But even so, any Board of Ordained Ministry policy seeking to terminate the conference membership of such retired elders still requires the vote of the clergy session pursuant to ¶¶369.5 and 605.7.
A concurring opinion is not law. Despite the fact that minority opinions, both concurring and dissenting, are published with judicial council rulings, a concurring opinion has no legal force. It is not a component of the judicial council decision. I am certain, however, that some church leaders will take it as binding. I’ve seen bishops and boards of ordained ministry quote concurring opinions as if they were authoritative rulings of the judicial council.
Justifying its opinion, the minority wrote.
A growing number of retiring elders chose to remain United Methodist but have affiliated themselves with and are currently serving in non-UMC local churches without appointment or approval by their bishop. This lack of accountability undermines trust in our clergy but also our connectional system. Elders in full connection commit themselves through their ordination to “live in covenant of mutual care and accountability with all those who share their ordination, especially in The United Methodist Church.” ¶303.3 [emphasis added]. Their ordination vows specifically express this commitment. By entering into this covenant, they “offer themselves without reserve to be appointed and to serve, after consultation, as the appointive authority may determine.” ¶333.1 [emphasis added] This covenant does not end with an elder’s retirement but “is a lifetime commitment, and those who enter into it dedicate their whole lives to the personal and spiritual disciplines it requires.”
Analysis of the Concurring Opinion
You may have noticed that the minority opinion does not cite any provision of the Discipline that clearly and explicitly requires what the minority says is required. No such provision exists. Earlier in 2024, General Conference considered adding provisions that would restrict retired service, but chose not to adopt them.
The minority opinion refers to episcopal "appointment or approval," as if these are equal disciplinary categories. They are not. The Discipline gives bishops the right to appoint. Except for those on leaves of absence or honorable location, it grants bishops no power to approve or disapprove the actions of the clergy. We have a constitutional episcopacy. Where the Discipline does not grant bishops authority, no authority exists.
Quoting ¶303.3, the opinion interprets “live in covenant of mutual care and accountability” (with the word “accountability” underlined) as if these words self-evidently mandate the requirements the minority proposes. What does accountability actually mean? Can church leaders just make up any rules they like and say the word “accountability” justifies them? Of course not. The Discipline defines what accountability requires. Retirees live out the covenant of accountability by doing what the Discipline explicitly directs. (See below.)
The opinion bizarrely quotes ¶333.1 as if it applies to retirees. It clearly is relevant only to elders in an effective status. “They offer themselves without reserve to be appointed and to serve, after consultation, as the appointive authority may determine.” The opinion underlines the final words in the paragraph. It should have underlined the words at the beginning. Prior to retirement, I promised to go wherever I was sent, “without reserve to be appointed” wherever the bishop chose. That obligation ended at retirement. As a retiree, the Discipline no longer gives the bishop the authority to appoint me or task me without my consent. When retirees serve without an appointment, they are stealing nothing from the United Methodist Church. Our time is our own.
The opinion cites ¶357.6 without quoting it. “A retired ordained minister shall be eligible to receive an appointment when requested by the bishop and cabinet.” This statement is permissive, not directive. Obviously, to serve a United Methodist congregation, an appointment is required. The primary focus of this paragraph is compensation. There is nothing in the paragraph which requires a retirees to be appointed for every ministry of Word, Sacrament, Order, and Service.
In fact, the previous paragraph (¶357.5) requires retired clergy to report “all marriages performed, baptisms administered, and other pastoral functions” to the pastor of the charge conference where their membership is held. Such a requirement makes no sense if clergy cannot perform these functions without episcopal appointment. The primary point of accountability for retired clergy is the charge conference.
The opinion also cites ¶605.7 without quoting it.
The annual conference shall make inquiry into the moral and official conduct of its ordained ministers and local pastors. In response to the inquiry whether all such persons are blameless in their life and official administration, the district superintendent may answer for all the preachers in the district in one answer, or the Board of Ordained Ministry may make inquiry of each district superintendent about each ordained minister in the district and make one report to the bishop and the conference in open session.
The minority, then, envisions offenders being dismissed from membership without the right of trial, administrative fair process or administrative review at the clergy session of the annual conference under the question, “Are all the clergy members of the conference blameless in their life and official administration?” In other words, the writers thought that the Peninsula-Delaware Annual conference simply used the wrong paragraph of the Business of the Annual Conference to expel the five offenders. The character question requires a vote. The withdrawal question does not.
Are there, however, any consequences directly attached to the ¶605.7 question about moral and official conduct? Is there any Disciplinary provision for expelling clergy from membership in the United Methodist Church apart from a trial? Involuntary retirement, location, and leave of absence do not terminate one's membership in the church itself. What provision does?
The Constitution of the United Methodist Church, in fact, guarantees clergy the right to trial.
¶ 20. Article IV.—The General Conference shall not do away with the privileges of our clergy of right to trial by a committee and of an appeal; neither shall it do away with the privileges of our members of right to trial before the church, or by a committee, and of an appeal.
Finally, the opinion also unjustly applies standards to clergy in congregational settings that it does not to clergy in non-congregational settings. They should be treated equally.
What Does the Discipline Require of Retirees?
What doe’s Disciplinary accountability look like for retirees? In summary, the requirements are these:
- To hold clergy membership in a charge conference, and in an affiliate charge conference if living outside the bounds of the annual conference.
- To report one's pastoral activities to the pastor of the charge conference in which one's membership is held, and to an affiliate charge conference when applicable.
- To attend annual conference, where I am allowed to vote, or to provide the secretary of the conference with a notice of absence. The reason for a retiree’s absence is not subject to Board of Ordained Ministry review.
- To respect the the prohibitions of ¶341 and the chargeable offenses of ¶2702.
That’s it. I am no longer expected to attend meetings other than Annual Conference. I am no longer required to complete mandatory training if I am not appointed. I am no longer required to be evaluated. All these points of accountability go away in retirement. The church is no longer required to provide me with equitable compensation or additional pension benefits or a place to serve.
The requirements are few. Given the age and health of retirees, I suspect that even these requirements are often ignored. Do we really expect clergy in nursing homes to send reports? (Neither the pastor nor the conference secretary even acknowledged my required submissions this year. That experience is typical since I entered extension ministry in 1991.)
Meanwhile, the lifetime authorities remain.
Elders are authorized to preach and teach the Word, to provide pastoral care and counsel, to administer the sacraments, and to order the life of the church for service in mission and ministry as pastors, superintendents, and bishops. ¶340
The Book of Discipline explicitly limits the ministerial authority of clergy in a “Leave of Absence” (¶353.8 and ¶354.7) and clergy on “Honorable Location” (¶358.2). Episcopal permission is required for ministry beyond the charge conference in which membership is held. The Discipline establishes no such restrictions for retirees.
General Conference had the opportunity to change all this in 2024 but chose not to do so. The General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (my former employer) proposed changes to ¶344.1.d and ¶357.6 that would have required retirees to receive the approval of the bishop and the board of ordained ministry to “serve in paid or unpaid positions in non-United Methodist churches.” General Conference did not approve the measures. Instead, it left the status quo in place. The Judicial Council’s minority is attempting to bypass General Conference and impose these same restrictions through the back door.
I argued at length against GBHEM’s proposals, and I am grateful that the measure failed. I believe that changing the status quo is unnecessary as it inflicts no harm on the United Methodist Church. The proposed change is an emotional response to the anger and pain of the disaffiliation crisis. In practice, the proposed restrictions on retirees are cumbersome, unworkable in many cases, and likely to be selectively enforced. Moreover, treating clergy serving in congregations differently than those in non-congregational settings is unjust to both.
Retired clergy now serve in a wide variety of settings, both congregational and non-congregational. Some are paid, some are self-employed, and some are volunteers. Some are in a lead role and others in a support role. Some are in long-term, full-time employment. Others are part-time, interim, contract, on-call, pay-per-service, or client-based. Some settings are formally organized, while others are not. And yes, some are serving in various capacities, for various lengths of time, in non-United Methodist congregations or institutions. Retirees should retain the freedom and flexibility that the Discipline provides to serve wherever God leads whenever God leads. That is one of the gifts of the retired status.
