Dr. Kenneth E. Jones, Editor

The Christian Index
The Official Publication of the
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Offices housed at the CME Headquarters
4466 Elvis Presley Blvd.
Memphis, Tennessee
and
Miles College 205-929-1410 or
Fax: 205-744-0010
Goodoc@aol.com
Bishop Charles L. Helton, Chairman

June 2005 The Editor's Page

"Did We Basically Eliminate the Effective role of the Judicial Council?

Okay, someone needs to ask this question and it might as well be me.  What happened to the Judicial Council of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church?  When we left the General Conference of 1998 in Birmingham, AL, the General Conference had changed the role of the judiciary branch of the church government.  But if I had to guess, I would say few really knew just how much the Judicial Council’s role really had changed.

One of the distinctive features of The Christian Index over the years was always the reports of the Declaratory Judgments of the Judicial Council.  Through these reports, there was created a sense of objectivity and equity in dealing with matters that came before the church, matriculated through the process of law, and rose to the level of consideration by this body.  Today, all of that is different.  In fact, I believe there has been only one report from the Judicial Council that has appeared in The Christian Index during my tenure as editor.  In a sense, maybe that’s a good thing if all is well in the church.  But when we go from having regular reports to none at all, that may also signal a radical system change.  So, specifically, what has changed?

Unable to find a copy of the minutes from the 1998 General Conference, I started thumbing through Disciplines in order to figure out this matter.  And I believe that the significant difference in the current role of the Judicial Council in comparison with pre-1998 legislation begins on page 188 of the Discipline of 1994.  There, we find these words under Article 5. Duties (Judicial Council), §5. “…any Church member (clergy or lay) affected thereby shall have the right to petition the Judicial Council for declaratory judgment as to meaning, application and effect of such.”

Thus, prior to the 1998 General Conference, the Judicial Council was given the authority to make a determination as to the merits of any petition coming from any member or members directly to the Council for Declaratory Judgment.  But, the 1998 General Conference changed that, and ¶805, §4 (Discipline, 2002) informs us “…no petition for Declaratory Judgment or Bill of Charge may be presented nor shall it be considered by the Council until all other steps of the judicial process, including appeals, have been exhausted.”  We are directed to reference ¶802.  There we will find in §6(e) the steps of the procedure through which a matter must flow before it rises to the level of consideration by the Council.  Thus, one might interpret the steps of the judicial process outlined in the Disciplines of 1998 and 2002 as a negation of the individual member’s direct access to the Council’s interpretation of law.  What has been the effect of this change in the law?  The answer is a very different Judicial Council.  We cannot help but ask ourselves, is the judicial process running so smoothly that the Judicial Council now has little or nothing to do?  Or, has the change in the judicial process in 1998 created a bottleneck of authority, bogging down free expression and limiting what otherwise would be unencumbered access to the judiciary?  Perhaps the changes of 1998 warrant a second look.

For years, the Judicial Council of the CME Church has been a proud, distinguished group that has had a significant impact on our church, helping shape our identity.  The Council remains proud and distinguished today.  The judicial process as currently defined in the Discipline is a well-thought-out provision that centralizes authority for due process within the vertical structure of the church.  But what of horizontal redress?

For certain, we have a Judicial Council for reasons that have withstood the test of decades.  But unless the Council has the authority it needs to carry out an effective, meaningful function in the church, there will remain an imbalance in our system of government that should be addressed.

Rev. Kenneth Elvis Jones, D.Min, PhD, Editor