Karen Oliveto Dixie Brewster Keith Boyette UMC Judicial Council

Methodist Court Hears Arguments on Contested Lesbian Bishop

on April 25, 2017

Members of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church (UMC) heard oral arguments this morning regarding the election of contested lesbian bishop Karen Oliveto to lead the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area by the Western Jurisdictional Conference. Oliveto remains in an openly acknowledged same-sex “marriage” to another woman.

Rev. Keith Boyette, esq. represented Dixie Brewter, lay member in the South Central Jurisdiction and a member of IRD’s UMAction Steering Committee, who had moved to submit key questions to Judicial Council, asking for a narrowly defined declaratory decision that could effectively decide whether Oliveto’s election as bishop would be allowed to stand.

LGBTQ clergy surrounded the Judicial Council's tables prior to the session.
LGBTQ clergy surrounded the Judicial Council’s tables prior to the commencement of oral arguments surround the election of contested lesbian bishop Karen Oliveto.

Boyette argued that the Western Jurisdiction’s actions have dramatic ramifications for the entire UMC, not just that individual jurisdiction. Since the issue will necessarily affect other jurisdictions across the denomination – through future appointments made by Oliveto and precedent for who may be elected as a bishop within the UMC – this case fell within the legal jurisdiction of the Judicial Council, he said. The case raised a question relating to the “meaning, application, or affect” of the UMC’s ecclesiastical law as contained within the Book of Discipline.

Boyette warned that there has been and will continue to be chaos within the UMC until the Book of Discipline¸ which prohibits UMC clergy from performing same-sex union ceremonies or from being “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” (or being heterosexually active outside of heterosexual marriage), is enforced. He urged the Judicial Council to issue a ruling declaring Oliveto’s election as bishop null and void.

Attorney Richard A. Marsh, Chancellor of the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, to which Dr. Oliveto has been assigned as bishop by the Western Jurisdiction, contradicted Boyett’s arguments. He based his case on four essential arguments. First, he asserted that neither the General Conference nor the Judicial Council were allowed to interfere with jurisdictional conferences’ elections of bishops. Thus, it would be outside the Judicial Council’s jurisdiction to invalidate an election of a bishop by a jurisdictional conference.

Second, he argued that Oliveto was a clergy member considered in “good standing” and fulfilled all the requirements to be lawfully elected as a United Methodist bishop. He said this meant there no legally valid reason for the Judicial Council to interfere.

During his statements, Marsh accused the South Central Jurisdiction of leading the way toward breaking the UMC’s polity, whether intentionally or not. That’s because each jurisdiction was historically “allowed to experiment” free from “oversight” by other jurisdictions, according to Marsh. He decried the South Central Jurisdiction’s “unconstitutional interference” in the Western Jurisdiction.

Later, Boyette described this understanding of how jurisdictions related to one another as “novel,” since Boyette argued the UMC’s polity has always been fundamentally connectional.

Third, Marsh denied that Oliveto had violated the Book of Discipline by entering into a same-sex “marriage.” He said her “marriage” did not necessarily mean she was a “practicing” homosexual, which would be prohibited within the Book of Discipline. He argued anyone in a same-sex marriage may serve within the UMC, since simply being in a relationship does not necessitate engaging in sexual acts. While same-sex marriage are not recognized in church law, they are not explicitly prohibited, Marsh said.

Fourth, he argued that by issuing a declaratory decision, the Judicial Council would interfere with the denomination’s Way Forward Commission by sowing confusion. He said legislating church law should be left to the General Conference, rather than the Judicial Council ruling where the Book of Discipline is ambiguous.

Marsh made an emotional appeal toward the end of his remarks. Referring to Oliveto’s election as bishop last July, he asked: “Does anyone really believe that the Holy Spirit was not at work at the conference?” He called on the Judicial Council to throw out the case for “any number” of jurisdictional reasons.

UMC Judicial Council
Seven of the nine current members of the Judicial Council. Members of the council heard oral arguments regarding contested lesbian bishop Karen Oliveto. (Photo credit: UMNS / Kathleen Barry)

Judicial Council member Deanell Reece Tacha asked whether the respondent would hypothetically support an abatement by the Judicial Council – in other words, a delay – until after the Way Forward Commission finished its work. Marsh said he would be “open to it.” However, Tacha said this result was unlikely.

Members of the Judicial Council aimed numerous questions at both sides about whether the Council had jurisdiction in this matter. Numerous members pushed Marsh to explain why Oliveto’s election would not affect the entire denomination. Others seemed skeptical that same-sex marriage was not an expression of “practicing” homosexuality.

  1. Comment by Dan on April 25, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    If only the Western Jurisdiction could get a Federal District Court judge in San Francisco to intervene in this case they would be assured of a favorable judgment, or at least a restraining order. 🙂

  2. Comment by Ian McDonald on April 26, 2017 at 8:18 am

    The Western Jurisdiction is far out of line with scripture and the Book of Discipline. This is going to be interesting.

  3. Comment by Tom Graffagnino on April 26, 2017 at 9:03 am

    We’re the Church of Lukewarm Water,
    Preaching feel-good seminars.
    Golden Calves to Nye-hilisms,
    Deca-dancing with the stars.

    We’re the Church of Lukewarm Water…
    (We’ve been swimming here awhile.)
    Always “fair”, and proudly caring…
    Yes!…Affirming every “style”.

    We’re the Church of Lukewarm Water.
    We’re progressing!…Come on in!
    We’ve got fences you can straddle.
    Plus we never mention “sin”!

    We’re the Church of Lukewarm Water.
    Where complacency does well.
    We preach things here inoffensive.
    And (of course) no talk of “hell”!

    * * *

    We’ve been fitted for the millstone,
    Oprah helped us find our way.
    Holy Scripture’s set aside here…
    We have found a broader way!

    Are we there yet?…Have we “made it”?
    Has The Darkness been confirmed?
    Here’s the point, sir, that we’re making:
    It’s The Point of No Return.

  4. Comment by Prentice Durwood Worley on April 28, 2017 at 10:46 pm

    That’s telling it like it is. Thank you.

  5. Comment by John H on May 2, 2017 at 9:03 pm

    Amen !!!

  6. Comment by LukeinNE on April 26, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    I’m not a Methodist, but this seems surprisingly similar to an actual court of law. I mean, the lawyer said in essence “you should acquit her because you can’t prove she’s having sex with her wife.”

    Shouldn’t a church trial have a higher commitment to honesty than that? I’d frankly respect her and her lawyer more if they just went for jury nullification: “yep, I’m in violation of the Book of Discipline, but it’s outdated and you should throw it out.” I’d respect her most of all if she resigned and joined the UCC. They’d be happy to make her a Conference Minister somewhere.

  7. Comment by John Smith on May 2, 2017 at 7:13 am

    The UCC doesn’t have the size, money, or visibility of the UMC. The UCC is shrinking so fast it makes the UMC look like its growing. Its like all the calls for a separation, no one wants to leave because in the UMC is where the money is.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.