Ruling: NCJ Bishops, Others Must Still “Fully Comply With” the UMC Discipline

Last month, the United Methodist Church’s North Central Jurisdiction (NCJ) made a splash by passing a far-left resolution, entitled the “Covenant to Build BeLoved Community.” As a delegate to that conference, I exercised my constitutional right to request a ruling of law challenging one section of that ruling that promoted an alternative set of values to our global denomination’s biblical standards prohibiting gay weddings and “self-avowed practicing homosexual” clergy. Last weekend, I received the official ruling, which makes clear that bishops must still fully comply with the UMC Discipline’s traditionalist sexuality standards, despite the NCJ Covenant. The ruling of law also explicitly states that this same obligation “to fully comply with and uphold” the UMC Discipline also still applies to district superintendents as well as those charged with screening ordination candidates and administering clergy-accountability processes. Then today, I opened my email to find official confirmation that this ruling has been duly received by our denomination’s supreme court, the Judicial Council.

The key part of this new official ruling of law, prompted by my request, is that “the resolution [adopted by the NCJ’s 2021 special session] does not, therefore limit or restrict the rights or obligations of bishops, district superintendents, counsels for the church, committees on investigation, trial courts, boards of ordained ministry, or district committees on ministry to fully comply with and uphold Paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2706, and 2711 of The Book of Discipline.”

Let’s unpack this.

My request specifically challenged the section of the NCJ resolution that says:

LGBTQIA+ clergy and laity are a gift to the Church. We implore all in the NCJ to do no harm and to create a culture in which abundance and diversity can be celebrated and lived. Therefore, we urge all members of the NCJ to avoid pursuing charges for LGBTQIA+ clergy and allies, and request our episcopal leaders dismiss charges related to LGBTQIA+ identity or officiating same gender weddings. Because we are all beloved children of God, we, in the NCJ, implore all our conference leaders, boards and agencies, to bring no harm to LGBTQIA+ people. We will not restrict God’s calling based solely on a candidate’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ruling was issued by Bishop David Bard of the Michigan and Minnesota Conferences, who was presiding over the conference when I submitted my request.

His ruling correctly notes that the Judicial Council has consistently held that annual and jurisdictional conferences “are free to adopt resolutions that are aspirational in nature, and to express their ideals and opinions so long as they do not attempt to negate, ignore, or contradict The Book of Discipline” but that such a resolution is impermissible if it “ignores Church Law and encourages a violation of Church Law.”

In interpreting the above-quoted section of the NCJ Covenant as merely aspirational, Bishop Bard leans heavily into the idea that “it is not clear precisely what is being requested” by these statements.

I question some details about this part of the ruling. It is relatively less consequential, but it merits further careful examination, and perhaps some challenges later. Some initial, non-comprehensive thoughts: This ruling could be seen as construing the NCJ Covenant, and especially the section in question, as largely a statement about the sort of denomination its supporters aspire to have in the future, after the UMC splits, and that in the meantime, this resolution merely non-bindingly encourages the use of de-escalation tools already in the Discipline, such as “just resolutions” (within the boundaries of the limitations placed by the 2019 General Conference) and dismissing complaints that are clearly false accusations, and that it merely calls for “bring[ing] no harm to LGBTQIA+ people” in ways traditionalists like myself agree on (like continuing to be in ministry with members of this community), but does not actually encourage violating or ignoring any part of the Discipline in this interim period.

Some may laugh at such an interpretation of the NCJ Covenant. But if you have witnessed any supporter of the NCJ Covenant, particularly any member of the Writing Team or other NCJ delegates, publicly say that their intent in adopting this statement actually went further in what it called for happening now, such as encouraging ordinations of openly partnered gay clergy or discouraging accountability for ministers who violate the Discipline’s sexual-morality standards, please let me know.

As for the future, I have already written about this NCJ Covenant’s implications for the post-separation United Methodist Church (psUMC) and the exclusion of orthodox believers we can expect in that future context.

But for the present, the ruling is clear that the traditionalist sexual-morality standards of the UMC Book of Discipline, as enhanced by the 2019 General Conference, remain no less in effect than they were in early 2020. Our bishops, district superintendents, those responsible for relevant accountability processes (counsels for the church, committees on investigation, and trial courts), and those responsible for screening clergy candidates (district committees on ministry and annual conference boards of ordained ministry) still have both the permissive “rights” and mandatory “obligations” to “fully comply with and uphold” the UMC Discipline’s prohibitions of same-sex weddings and any clergy sexual activity outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. The NCJ Covenant does not “in any way limit or restrict” these “rights or obligations.” (For that matter, neither can any statement or action by any leaders, conferences or groups until General Conference actually meets again.)

A basic matter of “UMC 101” is that we are a connectional rather than confederate or nationalist denomination. This means that basic moral standards for clergy behavior are set by the global General Conference, and no U.S.-only jurisdiction, annual conference, or bishop has any right or ability to establish their own replacement standards in between General Conferences.

The way I framed the last part of my request, concerning the rights and obligations of specific leaders “to fully comply with and uphold” the UMC Discipline, I am not sure how Bishop Bard could have ruled differently than to somehow say that these rights and obligations remain no less fully in place and were not at all reduced by the adoption of the NCJ Covenant. Indeed, this is effectively what he ruled. It is a matter of public record how he and I have promoted contrary values on issues addressed by the NCJ Covenant. But we must remember that such judicial rulings are not matters of expressing our personal preferences, but rather of objectively noting the boundaries of current church law. With this ruling that the Discipline’s standards remain in effect, Bishop Bard showed integrity in doing what he had to do.

For fellow church-law nerds, I requested this ruling of law “in light of” specific, binding precedents of the Judicial Council which have already established that:

• “annual conferences may not legally negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree” (Decision #886)
• This standard, as well as the standard that an annual conference may not “encourage other entities to violate Church law” nor “discourage the enforcement of Church law” applies “equally to jurisdictional conferences” (Decision #1340).
• Annual conference boards of ordained ministry are to make a “full examination” of ordination candidates, which “must include” the Discipline’s sexuality standards (Decisions #1343 and 1344)
• When the Discipline entrusts certain responsibilities to one particular group or official in enforcing the UMC’s moral standards, regional conferences cannot act, “even by means of a suggestion, to modify or to limit” the Discipline’s processes and options for disciplining clergy who violate the ban on gay weddings, or commit any other chargeable offense (Decision #1201).
• Regional conferences cannot pass a resolution that “strongly encourage[s]” people to “refrain from filing complaints against pastors and deacons who perform” gay weddings (Decision #1292)
• Annual conferences (and by implication, jurisdictional conferences) “do not have the authority to adopt rules governing duly elected delegates to General Jurisdictional/Central Conferences” by requiring any specific behaviors not explicitly mandated by the Discipline (Decision #1403).

And here are key provisions from the specific UMC Discipline paragraphs this official ruling makes clear that NCJ bishops, district superintendents, counsels for the church, committees on investigation, trial courts, boards of ordained ministry, and district committees ALL must “fully comply with and uphold”:

• ¶304.1-3: the minimal standards for all licensed or ordained ministers, including how all ministry candidates must “[b]e accountable to The United Methodist Church, accept its Doctrinal Standards and Discipline and authority” and specifically commit to the sexual ethic of “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.” Furthermore, “[t]he practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” so no United Methodist minister of any rank and no one of any denomination appointed as a minister anywhere in the UMC can be a “self-avowed practicing homosexual.” That phrase is now officially defined to mean anyone who “openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, Board or Ordained Ministry, or clergy session” that they are “a practicing homosexual,” who openly acknowledges to such leaders that they are “living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union,” or who simply “publicly states that she or he is a practicing homosexual.”
• ¶635: each annual conference board of ordained ministry must “make full inquiry” into the “fitness” of each ordination candidate.
• ¶341.6: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”
• ¶2702: any minister impermissibly commits a “chargeable offense” if they cross such lines as “not being celibate in singleness,” “not being faithful in a heterosexual marriage,” “being a self-avowed practicing homosexual” (as defined above), “conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions,” “the use or possession of pornography,” or more broadly engages in “disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church.”
• ¶362: in the initial stage of addressing a complaint against a minister accused of not complying with the UMC Discipline’s standards, any just resolution process (basically an out-of-court settlement) must include the “complainant” (the person who filed the complaint). If no just resolution is reached within four months, then the bishop can only dismiss the complaint if the accusation has “no basis in law or fact.” Otherwise, the bishop must appoint a counsel for the Church (basically a prosecuting attorney) to move the complaint forward. (Bishop Bard’s ruling notes that bishops may dismiss complaints, “but only for cause.”)
• ¶2704: Anyone appointed as such a counsel for the Church must be willing “to uphold the requirements of Church law and the Discipline.”
• ¶2701: basic requirements for judicial processes, including that any just resolutions cannot ignore the expressed concerns of the complainants, and that for any just resolution reached at any time, “every effort shall be made to have the complainant(s) agree to the resolution before it may take effect.”
• ¶2706: the basic rules for when each an annual conference committee on investigation convenes, after the appointment of a counsel for the Church, to determine “whether reasonable grounds exist to support” each accusation in a complaint. Includes the requirement that if any members of this committee “are unwilling to uphold the Discipline for reasons of conscience” (such as if they are unwilling to uphold the prohibition on gay weddings), then “such members must step aside” and be replaced by individuals “who are willing to uphold the Discipline.”
• ¶2711: If a church trial determines that a minister indeed officiated a gay wedding, and refused previous opportunities for a just resolution, then this minister must be subject to a minimal penalty of a one-year suspension without pay for the first offense, and permanent removal from ministry for the second offense.

All of this comes at a moment when we are preparing for the UMC to split primarily into two denominations, the liberalized psUMC and the orthodox Global Methodist Church. Whatever ultimately happens with naming, both denominations will be very different from United Methodism as we’ve known it. After the separation is completed, whatever happens within the psUMC will no longer be of much concern to those of us in the GMC, and vice-versa.

But in the meantime, while we remain a unified denomination, for traditionalist United Methodists, the UMC is still our church. After all, by definition, traditionalist United Methodists are those who support the historic, official doctrinal and moral standards of the unified UMC.

As long as these rules remain in our Discipline, which only General Conference can change or suspend, then there is simply no integrity in and no respect deserved by any bishop, district superintendent, counsel, or member of any of the enforcement-responsible bodies explicitly mentioned in the ruling willfully ignoring or violating any of the Discipline’s standards they are entrusted with upholding.

No one can reasonably expect traditionalist United Methodists to “just accept” any clergy in our denomination making unforced choices to betray the trust of their ministerial office by violating any of the standards noted above, when we know this hurts our church and all involved.

This official decision of law makes clear that regardless of what liberal activists want for the future, in this interim period, the legitimate, official standards of our denomination make no such expectation of us. We traditionalists are certainly not eager to “throw the first punch” in starting a church fight. But whenever clergy violate our church’s official standards, this always causes harm. Thankfully, we have at our disposal the enhanced tools for accountability enacted by the last General Conference.

This decision of law remains in place until it is reviewed by the Judicial Council, which will not happen for at least several months (and possibly much longer). It is now out of Bishop Bard’s hands. No one who understands how the Judicial Council works would expect even its more liberal members to reverse this ruling to instead declare that any of the officials named now actually have any less rights or obligations “to fully comply with and uphold” the UMC Discipline.

No, this provisional-but-official ruling of law does not directly address every relevant problematic situation in our denomination. But it helps clarify the boundaries of what official leaders and regional conferences must, can, and cannot do in our still-unified denomination before General Conference meets. Even in contexts where liberals have a seemingly unstoppable super-majority.

The entirety of the ruling of law issued in response to my request appears below, without any editing:

Bishop’s Ruling of Law

Building BeLoved Community Resolution

North Central Jurisdiction Conference Special Session, 2021

Bishop David Alan Bard, presiding bishop

December 11, 2021

Statement of Facts

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at the special session of the North Central Jurisdiction Conference a resolution was presented by a writing team of delegates who had been authorized to do so.  The resolution was entitled “Covenant to Build BeLoved Community” (copy attached).  Bishop David A. Bard (Michigan and Minnesota) was presiding.

Following discussion, including the offering of amendments, the resolution, as amended, was approved with 135 voting in favor, 32 oppossed.

John Lomperis, lay delegate from the Indiana Conference made a request of Bishop Bard for a ruling of law:

In accordance with Paragraphs 51 and 2609.6 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline and in light of Judicial Council Decisions # 886, 1201, 1292, 1340, 1343, 1344, and 1403 I respectfully ask and request a decision on the following questions of law about the section of the covenant statement just adopted by the 2021 North Central Jurisdictional Conference special session, particularly the section that begins with “LGBTQIA+ clergy and laity are a gift …” and that ends with “We will not restrict God’s calling based solely on a candidate’s sexual orientation or 65 gender identity” (which appears on lines 58-65 on page two of the version of this statement that was emailed to delegates last night):

-does this section of the statement impermissibly negate, ignore, violate, encourage actions that are contrary to, or discourage the enforcement of Discipline paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2711, or other relevant church law?  And if so, is this section null, void, and of no effect?

-Does this section of the statement in any way limit or restrict the rights or obligations of bishops, district superintendents, counsels for the church, committees on investigation, trial courts, boards of ordained ministry, or district committees on ministry to fully comply with and uphold Paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2706, and 2711 of the Book of Discipline?  If so, is this section of the statement null, void, and without effect?

Minutes of the Thursday proceedings are attached.

Ruling by Bishop Bard

Judicial Council decision 886 clearly states that annual conferences “may not legally negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline.”  The Council has also ruled that an Annual Conference may not pass a resolution if “the action ignores Church Law and encourages a violation of Church Law” (JCD 1262).  However, the Judicial Council in decision 1052 stated that “Annual Conferences are free to express their ideals and opinions as long as they do not attempt to negate, ignore, or contradict the Discipline,” and in decision 1120 affirmed that “an annual conference may adopt a resolution on human sexuality that is aspirational in nature.”  In subsequent decisions (e.g. 1340, 1406), the Judicial Council has continued to affirm that annual conferences may adopt resolutions that are aspirational in nature.  The Council has extended the same rights to jurisdictional conferences.  “Jurisdictional conferences are free to adopt resolutions that are aspirational in nature, and to express their ideals and opinions so long as they do not attempt to negate, ignore, or contradict The Book of Discipline” (JCD 1340).

The resolution, “Covenant to Build BeLoved Community” arose out of conversations among delegates about the future United Methodist Church.  The resolution itself is a mixture of aspirational statements, requests, and directives.  The majority of the resolution is comprised of statements of values and exhortations, e.g. “we request;” “we implore;” “we encourage;” “we recommend.”

The particular paragraph which provides the focus for the requested ruling of law mirrors the language of the entire resolution, that is, it is comprised of statements of values joined by statements of encouragement or exhortation.

The opening statement of the resolution is rooted in values expressed in Disciplinary paragraph 161.G: We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God.  All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self….  We affirm that God’s grace is available to all….  We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.  We commit ourselves to be in ministry with all persons.

Following the opening sentences, members of the North Central Jurisdiction are “urged” to avoid pursuing charges against LGBTQIA+ clergy and allies.  This is an aspirational and hortatory statement which encourages certain actions that are not otherwise deemed mandatory by The Book of Discipline.  No one is required to file complaints.

A request is made of episcopal leaders to “dismiss charges related to LGBTQIA+ identity or officiating same gender weddings.”  It is difficult to make a strong case that this statement represents a violation of The Book of Discipline.  The resolution makes a request.  Request language is aspirational and encouraging, not directive.  Further, it is not clear precisely what is being requested.  The aspiration is clear, namely, that judicial processes not be used against persons “related to LAGBTQIA+ identity or officiating same gender weddings.”  The Book of Discipline itself discourages the use of church trials, viewing them “as an expedient of last resort” (¶2707).  Bishops are given the authority to dismiss complaints, but only for cause and only after engaging in a process seeking a just resolution, which is not a part of the judicial process (¶362).  Is the request that certain complaints be dismissed at the point in the process where such action might be considered?  Is the request that such complaints not be considered at all?  Is the request to place such complaints in abeyance?  That this is a request, and that the precise nature of the request is ambiguous speaks to the aspirational nature of this section of the resolution.

The resolution next “implores all our conference leaders, boards and agencies, to bring no harm to LGBTQIA+ people.”  The word “implore” is hortatory in nature, and here what is being encouraged is rooted in ¶161.G, We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.  We commit ourselves to be in ministry with all persons, as well as in our general rules to do no harm.

The statement about not restricting God’s calling “based solely on a candidate’s sexual orientation or gender identity” is, again, a statement of values whose implications cannot be determined abstractly or hypothetically.  At the very least, the statement encourages fair treatment of LGBTQIA+ persons in church processes.  Beyond that, its meaning is not clear.

Having examined the various statements in the paragraph of the resolution under review, the final question of the request for a ruling of law can be addressed.  Does this section of the statement in any way limit or restrict the rights or obligations of bishops, district superintendents, counsels for the church, committees on investigation, trial courts, boards of ordained ministry, or district committees on ministry to fully comply with and uphold Paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2706, and 2711 of the Book of Discipline?   Having argued that the language in this section of the resolution consists of statements of values and aspirational requests and exhortations, the resolution does not, therefore limit or restrict the rights or obligations of bishops, district superintendents, counsels for the church, committees on investigation, trial courts, boards of ordained ministry, or district committees on ministry to fully comply with and uphold Paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2706, and 2711 of The Book of Discipline.

As a statement about the future shape of The United Methodist Church, a statement which asserts important values and encourages consideration of how one might live into those values, this section of the resolution “Covenant to Build BeLoved Community” stands with the rest of the resolution approved by the North Central Jurisdiction.

Thursday Minutes/Amendments

Episcopacy Committee Motion:  The North Central Jurisdiction states its intent to elect at its next regular session of the jurisdictional conference the number of bishops to total eight active  bishops eligible for assignment by the NCJ Committee on the Episcopacy (¶524.36),subject to further action of the General Conference, which has the authority to set the number of bishops to which a jurisdiction shall be entitled (¶404.2b).                                                                                Approved;      142 Yes; 13 No;             92% – 8%

The previous question asked by Charles Boayue, Jr. (Michigan – clergy) for the record: “Can a special session of the jurisdictional or central conference authorize a special session that elects and assigns bishops of the United Methodist Church without General Conference authorization?”

Paul Black   Is this document considered to be aspirational in intent, particularly in the language in line 61 and following, requesting “episcopal leaders dismiss charges” related to specific classes of complaints? Or is this a directive to the bishops on how they rule on such matters?

Alka Lyall Amendment:    Line 40  We request the Mission Council evaluate their budget and demonstrate, and report at the next JC,  how the budget incorporates antiracism work and healing institutional trauma.       Approved;    138  Yes; 20 No;             87% – 13%

Alka Lyall Amendment:   2nd is like this  Line 42 + – The Mission Council must designate sufficient NCJ funds for the purpose of convening Conference Commissions on Religion and Race and Annual Conference antiracism task force representatives in 2022 to operationalize ‘ and share a report at the next JC’:                      Approved;      144  Yes; 14  No;    91% – 9%

Matthew Laferty Amendment:    I would like to amend the petition by addition: After first word of Line 5, “More than ever, we need to lean into the call of Hebrews 10:22-25 (CEB):  “Therefore, let’s draw near with a genuine heart with the certainty that our faith gives us, since our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies are washed with pure water. Let’s hold on to the confession of our hope without wavering, because the one who made the promises is reliable. And let us consider each other carefully for the purpose of sparking love and good deeds. Don’t stop meeting together with other believers, which some people have gotten into the habit of doing. Instead, encourage each other, especially as you see the day drawing near.”              Approved;      146  Yes; 13  No;       92% – 13%

Jon Priebe Amendment:     Add “and clergy” following “congregations” on lines 88 and 90. Approved;      150  Yes; 9  No;         94% – 6%

Andy Adams Amendment:     Delete lines 87-90 “We encourage conferences and local churches to strive for reconciliation and understanding. However, some congregations may feel called to a different future in the faith. We grieve each separation. NCJ annual conferences should use existing disciplinary and conference provisions to accommodate local congregations seeking disaffiliation.”
Replace them with:

We honor the expressed desire of some churches and church leaders to leave the United Methodist Church to participate in other denominations. We call bishops and NCJ annual conferences to handle any separation in as gracious and amicable way as possible, avoiding property lawsuits and other forms of bitter fighting. We further call bishops and NCJ annual conferences to assist local churches by developing strategies and resources on how to have difficult conversations in ways that reduce harm and ensure the open and accurate sharing of information about options as they discern their future.    

*** Call for the Question on Adams Amendment by Lonnie Chafin:           Approved;   135 Yes;         33 No;             80% – 20%

After Andy Adams Summation his Amendment:      Not Approved;          46  Yes; 123  No;          46% – 73%

Aleze Fulbright Amendment:  Line 51 to reflect:     of color, RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FOR LEADERS OF COLOR (LAY AND CLERGY), and developing programs for youth/young adults of color.   Approved;                  146 Yes; 17 No;         90% – 10%

Becky Boland MOTION: I move for a limit of three speeches for and against on each motion today.              Approved;      148 Yes; 16 No;         90% – 10%

Hwa-Young Chong Amendment: add “sexism” in the sentence  in lines 15 and 16: “We confess…..colonialism, racism, sexism, classim, and heterosexism.”  Approved;

            149 Yes; 10 No;         94% – 6%      

Sara Isbell Amendment: insert at Line 88 following the word “faith” – New sentence:  “We respect our siblings who depart and desire to do no harm as we anticipate cooperative ecumenical efforts in the future.”           Approved;      153 Yes; 11 No;             93% – 7%

Andy Call Amendment:  Add to the end of line 75: “We remain committed to our continuing call to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world and by sharing and living the Gospel.”                      Approved;      150 Yes;  12 No;            93% – 7%

Becky Boland: Call the Question on the Covenant as Amended.  Bishop Bard ruled out of order due to not having 2 speeches for and 2 speeches against the motion to approve The Covenant.

Becky Boland made a motion to Suspend the Rules:            Approved;      131 Yes;  36 No;             78% – 22%

Becky Boland made a motion to end debate by Calling the Question on all before us.            Approved;      131 Yes;  36 No;        78% – 22%

Covenant Document as amended before the body:                Approved;      135 Yes;  32 No;             81% – 19%

Kennetha Bigham-Tsai Point of Privilege & Motion:  Thanked the writing team and moved the NCJ having just passed The Covenant to Build Beloved Community affirm the Narrative of the Council of Bishops approved at their November 2021 meeting.            Approved;      131 Yes;         31 No; 81%- 19%

https://www.unitedmethodistbishops.org/files/websites/www/a+narrative+for+the+continuing+united+methodist+church…._.pdf

John Lomperis Question of Law         In accordance with Paragraphs 51 and 2609.6 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline and in light of Judicial Council Decisions # 886, 1201, 1292, 1340, 1343, 1344, and 1403 I respectfully ask and request a decision on the following questions of law about the section of the covenant statement just adopted by the 2021 North Central Jurisdictional Conference special session, particularly the section that begins with “LGBTQIA+ clergy and laity are a gift …” and that ends with “We will not restrict God’s calling based solely on a candidate’s sexual orientation or 65 gender identity” (which appears on lines 58-65 on page two of the version of this statement that was emailed to delegates last night):
-does this section of the statement impermissibly negate, ignore, violate, encourage actions that are contrary to, or discourage the enforcement of Discipline paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2711, or other relevant church law?  And if so, is this section null, void, and of no effect? –-Does this section of the statement in any way limit or restrict the rights or obligations of bishops, district superintendents, counsels for the church, committees on investigation, trial courts, boards of ordained ministry, or district committees on ministry to fully comply with and uphold Paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2706, and 2711 of the Book of Discipline?  If so, is this section of the statement null, void, and without effect?

Dave Nuckles made a motion that NCJ affirm the grassroots Call to Grace Letter (appearing at www.acalltograce.com).  Was ruled by Bishop Bard to be appropriately before us as within the scope of the call for the special session.       Approved;      128 Yes;  31 No;   81% – 19%

Bishop’s Ruling of Law

Building BeLoved Community Resolution

North Central Jurisdiction Conference Special Session, 2021

Bishop David Alan Bard, presiding bishop

December 11, 2021

Interested Parties

Rev. Paul White

Secretary, North Central Jurisdictional Conference

paulw2800@gmail.com

John Lomperis

JLomperis@theird.org

North Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops

Bishop David A. Bard, President

1011 Northcrest Road

Lansing, MI 48906

bishop@michiganumc.org

United Methodist Council of Bishops

Bishop Bruce R. Ough, Executive Secretary

110 Maryland Ave, NE, Suite 301

Washington, D.C.  20002

bishop.ough@umc-cob.org