Loading ...Kentucky bishop bars church from removing its leadership
flockwoodI’ve just received a ruling from the United Methodist Bishop of Kentucky, and it’s very interesting. It involves one of the oldest and largest Methodist churches in the Commonwealth, a downtown Lexington fixture since 1789.
A popular staff member at Lexington’s First United Methodist Church was fired by the Staff Parish Relations Committee in September. Angered by the decision, many church members demanded that the church hold a special church conference was scheduled to discuss the removal of members of the Staff Parish Relations Committee, and to fill vacancies on the committee.
The meeting was scheduled pursuant to church law and was advertised in the church’s Sep. 28, 2008 and Oct. 5, 2008 bulletins. Both notices stated that the meeting had been called to discuss the removal of committee members. So people flocked to the church for the Oct. 11 meeting, which had been authorized by District Superintendent Paige Williams.
Under the church’s Book of Discipline, committee members can be removed if they are “unable or unwilling to perform the duties reasonably expected of” them.
But church leadership had a surprise awaiting the membership. At the start of the meeting, Williams informed church members that they would not be allowed to discuss or vote upon the central item on the agenda — the removal of committee members. They would only be able to fill vacancies. And when church members insisted that they had a right to conduct the business for which the meeting had been called, including voting to remove committee members, Williams adjourned the meeting without any votes taking place.
Williams’ decision to unilaterally cancel a validly called church conference didn’t end matters. Those in attendance went ahead and voted to remove members of the committee. But the validity of that vote was in dispute. So an appeal was filed with Bishop Lindsey Davis.
On Nov. 6, Davis issued his ruling. In it, he states that superintendents have the authority to state and approve the purpose of a church conference. Superintendents also have the authority to adjourn church conferences at will, regardless of the wishes of the church membership.
Superintendents can also ignore Robert’s Rules of Order and the will of a church’s majority. “The United Methodist Church is an ecclesiastical body not a legislative or legalistic one,” Davis wrote. Majority votes cast after a superintendent unilaterally adjourns a meeting are void.
A new church conference has been scheduled for Nov. 23, but Davis told church members they cannot remove any of their committee members because “no continuing officer of the church elected to a three year term can be removed.” This ruling, which is final, appears to directly contradict the United Methodist Church’s 1996 Book of Discipline which states:
“¶ 252. Removal of Officers and Filling of Vacancies–If a leader or officer who has been elected by the charge conference is unable or unwilling to perform the duties reasonably expected of such a leader or officer, the district superintendent may call a special session of the charge conference in accordance with ¶ 248.7. The purpose of such special session shall be stated as “Consideration for the removal of person(s) from office and the election of person(s) to fill vacancy(ies).” The committee on nominations and personnel (¶¶ 262.1, 249.16) shall meet as soon as possible after the special session of the charge conference has been announced and shall propose person(s) who may be elected if vacancy(ies) occur at the charge conference. If the charge conference votes to remove a person or persons from office, the vacancy(ies) shall be filled in the manner prescribed for elections in accordance with ¶ 251. When a local church trustee is under consideration for removal and the pastoral charge consists of two or more churches, a church local conference shall be called instead of a charge conference, in accordance with ¶ 2525.
[If the church has the 2008 Book of Discipline on line, I can't find it. If anyone has a link to the 2008 version, please let me know.]
Davis didn’t explain why the Book of Discipline would outline the procedure for removing officers if those officers are exempt, under church law, from removal.
“My rulings on these matters are final,” Bishop Davis wrote. But church members they can appeal Davis’ decision – to him –, in the summer of 2009, he writes. After receiving their appeal, he’ll issue a ruling of law, which can eventually be appealed to the national church.
Realistically, in between now and then, there’s going to be a church split. Odds are, by the time this dispute winds its way to the national church’s supreme court — the Judicial Council — a year or more from now, most of the dissenters will have left.
The bishop’s ruling doesn’t cast any light on whether the committee members deserve to be retained or rejected, but it speaks volumes about the difference between church governance in a congregational body versus church governance in a hierarchical denomination.
If this were happening in a Baptist church, there’d probably still be a church split. But the majority, not the bishop, would ultimately rule.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Frank,
The 2008 Book of Discipline hasn’t been published yet, as the General Conference wasn’t all that long ago. It is scheduled to be published in January of 2009. Since the 1996 Book of Discipline you quoted in your post, however, the 2000 and 2004 Books of Discipline, reflecting changes to the Discipline made at the 2000 and 2004 General Conferences respectively, have been published.
Also, the preferred Methodist term for the way that we do things is not hierarchical, but rather connectional. Baptists may call our polity “hierarchical,” but we do not.
By the way, I’m not sure you’re operating with the best information here. It sounds like your only sources are those who opposed Albin’s removal. As for the “validly called charge conference,” as DS calls a conference, a DS may also suspend a conference. Suspensions are, in my experience, rare, but they do happen. When any body in a congregation makes the continuation of a conference impossible, the DS may choose to suspend that conference until the conditions which made its conduct impossible are changed.
I say that, because what I heard – and this is not unprecedented – is that a faction from the church that opposed Albin’s removal forcefully took over the Charge Conference, removed the microphone from the DS’s hand, and then dominated the proceedings. If this is true, such a move would be out of order, and would almost of necessity result in the suspension of the Charge Conference.
In that event the Charge Conference – and any decision made in after its suspension by the DS – would be invalid.
Your reporting on this incident has been distressingly one-sided.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
In addition, you write:
Realistically… there’s going to be a church split.
Whatever your sources are telling you, not only is that by no means inevitable, there is not even a mechanism in our polity for such a split. It is probable that a sizable faction from First Church may leave the congregation. However, since the denomination, and not the congregation, own the church property, and since the faction that left could neither form their own United Methodist congregation nor call their own pastor, such a move is a defection rather than a split. A split occurs when one congregation is broken up into multiple congregations, and that can’t be the case here.
Whatever happens, it will begin with a single congregation, and end with a single, albeit now smaller, congregation.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Is it any wonder that a majority of Kentuckians voted Republican on the 4th?
November 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Sandalstraps,
It’s not just Baptists that call the Methodist church structure “hierarchical.” Lawyers for the United Methodist Church maintain, and courts across the country have ruled, that the Methodist Church is a “hierarchical church.”
The primary source for my post is the bishop’s final ruling, dated Nov. 6, 2008.
Regarding a “church split,” this is simply semantics. When a sizable portion of a church splits, it’s not inaccurate to describe that as a church split, even if Methodist polity doesn’t have a mechanism for it to occur.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Sandals has good reason to question the tone of this post. Where Frank says:
“Superintendents can also ignore Robert’s Rules of Order and the will of a church’s majority.”
it would be more accurate to report that our denomination grants much authority to the district superintendents for calling and conducting charge conferences, and that church rules cannot be voided by any congregation acting on its own. We must follow the Book of Discipline, not Robert’s. The United Methodist Church does not allow a majority vote to overrule each and every point of law. Neither does the United States, and for good reason. It would be anarchy, even more chaotic than what Lexington FUMC has now. Does someone find that unwise or heavy-handed? I don’t. If you think the congregation should have the right to choose a new theology each week by 51% vote then look elsewhere.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
As an Episcopalian, not a Methodist, I’m just happy that somebody else is under the microscope for awhile. I suspect there’s something to what both Frank and Sandalstraps are saying. You can have the most hierarchical form of church governance in the world (and while I know Methodists prefer “connectional” to hierarchical, I still use hierarchical, because that’s what it is; connectional makes it sound like an ecclesiastical Lego set, and it’s not: The direction comes from above, not sideways), like the Catholics have, and the opinions of the congregants still matter, if only because they’re the ones dropping the money into the offering plate.
The problem with a hierarchical system is that while it usually works pretty well (the Catholics and Mormons, two of the most rigidly hierarchic denominations, are growing, while most of the rest of us aren’t), it never gets good press when it actually operates because we as a society are used to democracy, not theocracy. Frank is correct that if this were a bunch of Baptists, after they put their guns away, they would take a vote. But is this the best way to settle a church dispute? Voting means that the current members of a congregation get to make decisions concerning money and property that was often donated by people long dead, who can’t vote. And, as this example shows, these disputes generally involve very temporary matters: Who is to be appointed minister, or music minister, or some such. In the 200 year plus history of this church, is it really worth splitting up the congregation over one music director, no matter how good he was?
Reasonable people might say no, while congregants, more interested in their own Sunday services than in the great scope of church history, might say yes. That’s why you need a church hierarchy to add order to the chaos. Having said that, that doesn’t automatically mean that what the hierarchy says goes. This is a big church that presumably contributes a lot of money to the Methodist governing organization. That means that the bishop and other pooh bahs have to worry about what happens there. Otherwise, part of the congregation will split off, and while Sandalstraps may well be right on the textbook version of what’s supposed to happen, you can’t tell me that if a bunch of wealthy Methodists split off and want their own congregation, that the bishop or whoever’s permission it takes wouldn’t accomodate them. I know that the Methodists have lots of rules and regulations about everything, but when push comes to shove, wealthy congregants usually win out in most denominations.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Caleb, I’ve been a Methodist all my life and have never seen a congregation split into two Methodist churches over any matter like this. The annual conference handles all new church starts and there is a lot of planning and preparation involved. Sometimes a congregation will split but it’s on friendly terms. Part of the congregation will agree to leave in order to form the core of the new church. It’s more a cause of joy than sadness. The correct image is planting a seed, not a divorce.
If a Methodist congregation does experience a conflict such as this the typical result is that some people just pick up and move to a different church. (We did that once when we couldn’t tolerate the new senior pastor, but we gave it our best effort for over a year.) In a big enough metropolitan area there will be other United Methodist churches, but in smaller towns they may have to drive to the next town or decide to change denominations. I can think of one big city church that has suffered some personnel problems for a few years and lost some prominent longtime members, but just about everyone who left went to some other Methodist church. These were some rich folks, too. Dividing the church was never an option.
Anyhow, this whole situation is really weird. It does not appear that the Staff Parish Relations Committee members were “unable or unwilling to perform the duties reasonably expected” of them so there is no justification for removing them from office, according to the Book of Discipline. And although a congregation can call a churchwide meeting to discuss various topics, it cannot meet as a charge conference without the approval of the district superintendent, who also presides over the meeting. You might disagree with the decision of the SPRC for dismissing the staff member but we should not fault the committee, the DS, or the bishop for abiding by the rules and procedures of The United Methodist Church.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
No doubt that’s the way it’s supposed to work, Jose, but people are human. If these folks truly want a new church, I expect they’ll get one, though I have no idea whether that’s what they want.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I appreciate the knowledgeable replies from, obviously, United Methodists or at least someone familiar with our denomination. The church has an official team called the Lay Leadership Team (2004 edition and updated from the 1996 edition Mr. Lockwood used when this team was called Nominations and Personnel). This team is charged with year-round identifying, monitoring, training, growing and helping potential leaders to serve from their spiritual gifts and strengths. As well, each year a Leadership Dessert is open and available for anyone to come and explore open leadership positions where they could become part of the process. This year THREE persons responded. As well, numerous announcements have been in the church bulletins and newsletters. On August 25, the handouts from a Churchwide Meeting included a list of the Lay Leadership Team, an explanation of the nominations process, and an invitation to express interest in a leadership position. There were two responses from the newsletter, none from the bulletins and none from the Churchwide Meeting.
The Lay Leadership Team looks at desire to serve, the willingness to be examples of Christlike living, involvement in a biblical community (sunday school, bible study, etc.) where spiritual formation takes place, personal devotional disciplines, a spirit of cooperation in team settings, actively serving to help othesr, and being part of setting goals for our church. The senior pastor is in charge of the church, but he empowers leaders to draw others into serving and growing, resulting in making disciples. It is also the sr. pastor’s role to challenge the church to “grow” spiritually and not just in numbers, although that usually occurs when people are excited about the church. His/her role is to hold the vision and future of the church up as something worth working toward and serving together. And when decisions are made, everyone moves forward together for the good of our mission. It’s not an autonomous structure, but rather a decision of the body of Christ to work together. All non-appointed staff (i.e. not ordained minister) are accountable to the senior pastor and to the Staff Parish Relations Committee. After due consideration, they can terminate staff, or terminate at will.
I’ve said all this to say that our specific processes and Book of Discipline are there for a reason–to guide and assist in forming a local congregation to make disciples. The Discipline is there as a help and an explanation of the general church. And it’s there to outline duties and responsibilities and a way to conduct church business. The decision making body, the Administrative Council is one, meets regularly and is an open meeting. All meetings are open except SPRC, which is confidential due to personnel issues. Until lately, there wasn’t much interest from folks to come and sit in a church business meeting.
Now in the last 6 weeks, an unhappy group is attempting to change (or at best circumvent) the process of the United Methodist Church so that a small group of people with an obvious agenda could get “control.” They have petitions, calling campaigns, badgering people who are still in the choir to quit, and are continuing a vicious email assault that is aimed at spreading enough outrageous rumors that people are brainwashed with bad things about the pastor and the leadership.
I ask you, which scenario do you believe is the most thoughtful approach to selecting leadership? Where were all these people when council meetings were making church body decisions? Where were they when a call was put out for interested leaders?
The Bishop didn’t “bar the church” from removing leadership. He made a decision to protect the church process from a mob mentality. Our leaders are all “willing and able” to do their work. He would be negligent to turn over the structure and integrity of the organization of the church if he let a simple majority take charge in this instance. That does not mean that we don’t take votes or that the people have no voice. They do. But they need to exercise that vote for the good of the church and through the appropriate channels.
I hope Mr. Lockwood becomes a bit more informed before he publishes another blog liek this–especially with the high probability of hurting the church even more.
Here’s my challenge, Mr. Lockwood. Instead of going to lunch or dinner with the Whitworth’s when you are in Lexington, COME AND WORSHIP AT FIRST CHURCH. See for yourself that this church is moving on and will continue to grow. Stop by fellowship time and hear the joyful sound of friends, families, children and guests. This church has been here since 1789, and I believe God has been and always will be in charge. This church is bound for greater things than we could “hope for or imagine.”
November 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
The way I see this as a member of FUMC. Dr. Whitworth was an employee who was given a chance to correct actions that were detrimental to the church’s ability to move forward. He chose to ignore the rules and created his own to suit his wants. He was called on it, fired and now he is stamping his feet creating the “dust storm” that is clouding the church. Since this is a personnel issue, the church cannot reveal what is in the file. Only Dr. Whitworth can release the file. He is keeping his minions stirred up on his blighted view of the facts. I have never seen such immaturity coming from someone who purports to be a man of God.