Docket 0413
‐1
IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law in the Desert Southwest Annual
Conference Regarding the Resolution Entitled “Inclusiveness Resolution”
Request for a Ruling of Law
Statement of Facts
The Desert Southwest Annual Conference, held at Glendale, Arizona on June 24, 2012,
adopted the following resolution: 21.30 Inclusiveness Resolution.
During the discussion of the above mentioned resolution Rev. Duane Combs asked for a
ruling of law on the resolution. As presiding officer, I, Bishop Minerva G. Carcalio ruled
Rev. Combs out of order since no decision had thus far been made by the body. I further
stated that I would be willing to consider Rev. Combs' request for a ruling of law once a
decision was made.
The 21.30 Inclusiveness Resolution was passed by the annual conference by an
overwhelming majority. It states as follows:
Inclusiveness Resolution 21.30
WHEREAS the 2012 General
Conference of the United Methodist Church retained
language in the Book of Discipline which continues to discriminate against Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons; and
WHEREAS, No
other marginalized group has been singled out in the Book of Discipline
for discrimination or special exclusionary treatment. We believe this is in conflict
with our traditional and historic emphasis on God's grace being available to all. The
discriminatory language is itself in conflict with the inclusive language in other parts of the
Book of Discipline, including the Constitution of our denomination.
WHEREAS
we believe that LGBT persons should be embraced as members of the body of
Christ, as United Methodists in full standing, and as gifted children of God entitled equally
to all of the ministries, ceremonies, and sacraments of the United Methodist
Church; and
2
WHEREAS,
in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an
inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever
affects one directly, affects all indirectly"; and
WHEREAS,
the nonviolent Civil Rights movement fought for justice and equality in civil
and
religious life in the United States with compassion and courage. Yet injustice
continues to threaten us, in the United States and in the United Methodist Church; and
WHEREAS,
the recognition of the full humanity, sacred worth and equal rights of LGBT
people is crucial to the civil rights struggle of our time. LGBT and straight United
Methodist laity and clergy are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, and
WHEREAS,
the continuing denial of full access to all the rights and privileges of
church membership in the United Methodist Church is causing deep spiritual harm
to our LGBT brothers and sisters and is a threat to us all; and
WHEREAS,
when asked which commandment in the law is the greatest, Jesus said,
"'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it:
'you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37
‐39): and
WHEREAS,
in his sermons "The New Birth" and "The Catholic Spirit," John Wesley taught
that as long as we hold in common the essential elements of our faith, and as long as we
unite in love, meaning that we love one another, that we commend each other to
God in prayer, that we provoke each other to love and to good works, that we love
each other not only in word but in deed and in truth, then our hearts are right and we
should walk together hand in hand. Wesley further taught that differences of opinion
ought not to tear this union of hearts asunder; and
WHEREAS,
our membership vows call us "to resist evil, injustice and oppression in
whatever forms they present themselves"; and
WHEREAS,
the first of Wesley's General Rules is to Do No Harm, and
WHEREAS,
the United Methodists Church claims to be a church of open hearts, open
minds and open doors and to be a church that practices radical hospitality,
WHEREAS
the Desert Southwest Conference, being part of the Western Jurisdiction
has affirmed the
We Will Not Be Silent statement adopted by the United Methodist
Western Jurisdictional Conference in 2000; and
WHEREAS,
the Desert Southwest Conference, took the bold and courageous stand in
2009, and voted as an Annual Conference to become a Welcoming and Reconciling
Conference; therefore let it be
3
RESOLVED
that the Desert Southwest Conference reaffirm its commitment to and work
for the full civil and ecclesiastical rights and privileges of all persons including LGBT
persons, and declares its opposition to continued restrictions of church law on the
participation of LGBT people in The United Methodist Church; and be it further
RESOLVED,
that we acknowledge when following the Book of Discipline it requires us
to do harm and injustice by discriminating against, diminishing, or demeaning our LGBT
brothers and sisters, and that we are placed in an impossible situation as to be
guided by our Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience or by the Book of
Discipline; and be it further
RESOLVED,
that the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church
work together to build a fully inclusive church. We commit to be in ministry with
all people, regardless of their economic status, race, age, ethnicity, gender,
sexuality, disability, or immigration status.
Sometime later in the plenary Rev. Combs again asked for a ruling of law on 21.30
Inclusiveness Resolution. I received the request for a ruling of law stating that I
understood I had a few days to respond and would do so.
At the conclusion of the annual conference session I requested the Combs' written
request for a ruling of law. Rev. Combs had failed to submit a written request. In an effort
to be responsive to Rev. Combs concern, I asked the conference secretary of the Desert
Southwest Conference, Rev. Louie Lyons, to attempt to obtain a written request for a
ruling of law from Rev. Combs. Rev. Combs submitted his request for a ruling of law on
July 3, 2012 by email (attached).
Rev. Combs' request for a ruling of law asks:
1.
Were the comments of the presenter acceptable?
2.
Does this resolution give the people of the Desert Southwest Conference
and the World the impression that we can pick and choose the parts of our
church law that we like or dislike and will follow?
3.
Does 21.30 meet the requirements of our Church law?
I would submit that:
1.
That the comments of the presenter were acceptable. The presenter
articulated in summary form the points of the resolution.
2.
This question is hypothetical and therefore moot. There is no way for I or
4
anyone else to determine how others will receive or respond to this
resolution.
3.
Resolution 21.30 does not ask pastors or lay persons to disobey the Book of
Discipline of The UMC.
Rather it expresses an opinion about the perceived
impact of the restrictions of church law and the frustration and pain that some
experience when following these restrictions. It encourages ministry to and with
all people in the spirit of the Social Principles of The United Methodist Church.
I would further submit that 21.30 Inclusiveness Resolution adopted by the Desert
Southwest Conference is not in violation of the
Book of Discipline of The United Methodist
Church.
Submitted by Bishop Minerva Carca
ǹo, July 25, 2012
Docket 0413
‐2
IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law at the Western Jurisdictional
Conference Regarding the Relationship Between ¶ 2711.2 and the Resolution “The
Sense of the 2012 Western Jurisdictional Conference”
Bishop's Report To The Judicial Council
Of The United Methodist Church
Addendum of Relevant Information
Report of an Episcopal decision made by Bishop Robert T. Hoshibata during the session of the Western
Jurisdiction Conference, meeting at San Diego, California on July 12, 2012.
Subject: Response to a question of law
On July 12, 2012, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Western Jurisdiction Conference meeting
in San Diego, California, a motion to adopt the petition entitled "The Sense of the Western
Jurisdiction of, the United Methodist Church" was duly presented to the body. Following discussion
and a vote, the motion was adopted. Mr. Lonnie Brooks, a layperson from the Alaska United
Methodist Conference, presented a question of law in response to the affirmative vote by the
Jurisdictional Conference on the petition submitted by the Oregon
‐Idaho Annual Conference.
The text of the question of law as presented is:
5
In the light of Par. 2711.2 of the 2008
Book of Discipline, which says, in relevant part, "The trial
court shall determine the penalty," what is the force in law on the penalty phase of any trial
conducted within the bounds of the jurisdiction of the resolution entitled "The Sense of the
Western Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church," adopted by the 2012 Western
Jurisdictional Conference.
THE DECISION
: The petition is flawed in that the paragraph cited (Par. 2711.2) has no language to support
the pretense of the question. The question of law Is therefore declared moot.
PETITION TO THE WESTERN JURSIDICTIONAL CONFERENCE 2012
Submitted by Laura Jaquith Bartle OR
‐ID Conference Secretary
Title: The Sense of the Western Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church, Paragraph 304.3
Sponsors: Oregon
‐Idaho Reconciling United Methodists
Oregon
‐Idaho MFSA
Jeanne Knepper (OR
‐ID clergy member)
The Oregon
‐Idaho Annual Conference wishes to submit to the 2012 Jurisdictional Conference the
following resolution:
The Sense of the Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church, Paragraph 304.3
Whereas the Constitution of The United Methodist Church reserves to the clergy members of each Annual
Conference the exclusive right to vote "on all matters relating to the character and conference
relations of its clergy members," [The Constitution, 133, 2008 Book of Discipline, p. 31);
And whereas The United Methodist Church reserves to the clergy members of each Jurisdiction the
exclusive right to sit on a trial court if a bishop from that jurisdiction Is charged and tried for a violation of a
disciplinary provision [12712, 2008 Book of Discipline, p. 773);
And whereas The Book of Discipline establishes among the laws of the Church that "... self
‐avowed
practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to
serve in The United Methodist Church' [2008 Book of Discipline, ¶ 304.3, p. 206];
And whereas the Western Jurisdiction has adopted resolutions and statements that are specifically
welcoming of people regardless of sexual orientation or gender Identity;
Be it hereby resolved that the sense of the Western Jurisdiction is that If any bishop of the Western
Jurisdiction be charged with ordaining or appointing a self
‐avowed practicing homosexual, and after due
Disciplinary process is tried and convicted of such an offense, that an appropriate penalty to assign
6
would be the suspension of said convicted bishop from the exercise of episcopal office [2008 Book of
Discipline, ¶ 2712.6, p. 774] for a period of 24 consecutive hours.
Docket 0413
‐3
IN RE: Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law at the Northeastern Jurisdictional
Conference Regarding Rescission of Resignation from the Episcopal Office
Report of an episcopal decision made by Bishop Thomas J. Bickerton and the Northeastern
Jurisdictional College of Bishops during the session of the Northeastern Jurisdictional
Conference, meeting at Charleston, West Virginia on Wednesday, July 18, 2012.
Subject:
During the NEJ Episcopacy Committee report to the Northeastern Jurisdictional
Conference, Rev. Joseph DiPaolo (Eastern Pennsylvania) requested, “as a question of law,
that a determination be made as to the disposition of Bishop Hae Jong Kim’s case, including
the rescission (in 2007) of his earlier letter of resignation from the episcopacy to ensure that
his case has been handled in accord with the due process requirements outlined in the Book
of Discipline.” This action took place at the opening session of the Jurisdictional Conference
on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 with Bishop Thomas J. Bickerton presiding.
Ruling on Question of Law Regarding Hae
‐Jong Kim
Submitted at the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference
Charleston, West Virginia
July 19, 2012
Question of Law Regarding Hae
‐Jong Kim
I ask for a ruling from the presiding bishop, that a determination be made as to whether the
handling of the case of Bishop Hae
‐Jong Kim was in accordance with the due process
requirements outlined in the
Book of Discipline, with special attention to the following
concerns:
1) Bishop Kim’s letter to the Northeastern Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee (dated Feb.
12, 2007, and copied to Bishop Jane Middleton) rescinding his earlier letter of
resignation was never acted upon.
The official letter from Hae
‐Jong Kim requesting the rescinding of his resignation was
addressed to the President of the Council of Bishops, Janice R. Huie (dated January 11,
2007), not the NEJ Episcopacy Committee. The letter to the NEJ Episcopacy
Committee, dated February 12, 2007, requested that the Episcopacy Committee
7
consider providing “corporate wisdom and consideration” along with the possibility of
setting up an “ad
‐hoc committee to help the process.”
At the time this letter was received, Hae
‐Jong Kim was a retired Elder of the New
Jersey Annual Conference having resigned from the episcopacy sixteen months earlier
on September 1, 2005.
The Council of Bishops, through its Executive Committee, consulted with the general
Counsel for the Church (COB Executive Committee Meeting, January 16
‐17, 2007,
Atlanta, GA, Docket item 07E
‐351) and determined that they had no jurisdiction in the
consideration of this request.
The Book of Discipline does not provide any provision for the rescinding of a
resignation. As a result, there is no procedure outlined in the Book of Discipline to act
upon such a request. As such, the request in paragraph 1 is moot and hypothetical.
2) The Council of Bishops never took any final action on his 2005 letter of resignation,
specifically, by failing to issue a “certificate of resignation” as required by para. 408.4 of
the
Book of Discipline (2008).
After extensive research it has been determined that there is no official “certificate”
which designates one as resigned from the episcopacy. The purpose of such
certification is to “entitle him or her to membership as a traveling elder in the annual
conference (or its successor) in which membership was last held.” (¶408.4, 2008 Book
of Discipline)
In the Press Release announcing Hae
‐Jong Kim’s resignation, Bishop Peter D. Weaver
(President of the Council of Bishops) states: “Bishop Kim has resigned from the
episcopacy for personal reasons, effective September 1, 2005. At that time, his clergy
membership will return to the Greater New Jersey Conference of The United
Methodist Church.”
In addition, Hae
‐Jong Kim has been listed as a “Retired Elder” in the Journal of the
Greater New Jersey Annual Conference since that time and has been listed in the
Appointment Listing of the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference as the “Retired
Elder” appointed to The Alpine Community United Methodist Church since 2008.
As such, these statements “certify” that Hae
‐Jong Kim is “a traveling elder in the
annual conference (or its successor) in which membership was last held” thus fulfilling
the mandates of ¶408.4 of the 2008 Book of Discipline.
8
3) The Northeast Jurisdiction Episcopacy Committee took no action and made no report or
recommendation in its 2008 report.
The 2008 Book of Discipline requires the Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee to
report to the Jurisdictional Conference the following items:
¶50 Article VI: “The committee shall review the work of the bishops, pass on their
character and official administration, and report to the jurisdictional conference its
findings for such action as the conference may deem appropriate within its
constitutional warrant of power. (pg. 37)
¶413.4: “Any actions of the jurisdictional or central conference committee taken on a
complaint shall be reported to the next session of the jurisdictional or central
conference. (pg. 309)
¶524.3a: “Review and evaluate the work of the bishops, pass on their character and
official administration, and report such evaluations and other findings to the
jurisdictional conference for such action as the conference may deem appropriate
within its constitutional warrant of power. (pg. 336)
¶524.3h: “Prepare a report of its decisions, activities, and recommendations to be
transmitted to its successor through the office of the secretary of the jurisdictional
conference prior to the jurisdictional conference. The report shall be made available
to delegates of the jurisdictional conference prior to the jurisdictional conference.”
(pg. 336
‐337)
In January 2005 a written complaint concerning retired Bishop Hae
‐Jong Kim was
received and processed in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Book of
Discipline. This complaint was sent to the Jurisdictional Committee on Investigation as
a judicial complaint (¶413.3). Before the matter was considered by this committee,
Hae
‐Jong Kim informed the committee that he was choosing to resign from the
episcopacy. Hae
‐Jong Kim resigned from the episcopacy on September 1, 2005, thus
ending the complaint procedure. This matter appropriately did not come before the
Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee. As such, the Jurisdictional Episcopacy
Committee was under no obligation to report this matter to the Jurisdictional
Conference.
The official letter from Hae
‐Jong Kim requesting the rescinding of his resignation was
addressed to the President of the Council of Bishops, Janice R. Huie (dated January 11,
2007), not the NEJ Episcopacy Committee. The letter to the NEJ Episcopacy
Committee, dated February 12, 2007, requested that the Episcopacy Committee
consider providing “corporate wisdom and consideration” along with the possibility of
setting up an “ad
‐hoc committee to help the process.” The NEJ Episcopacy Committee
chose to not act upon this recommended action and was under no obligation to do so
9
since Hae
‐Jong Kim had resigned and there are no provisions in the Book of Discipline
to act upon a request to rescind a resignation. As such, the Jurisdictional Episcopacy
Committee was under no obligation to act on this request or to formally report this
matter to the Jurisdictional Conference.
4) In its 2012 report, the NEJ Episcopacy Committee again made no mention of Bishop
Kim’s case. Upon my inquiry on the floor of the 2012 NEJ Conference, the chair of the
Episcopacy Committee indicated no knowledge whatsoever of Bishop Kim’s resignation,
rescission of the resignation, or any matters connected with the handling of this case.
Hae
‐Jong Kim’s resignation, request for rescission of the resignation, or any matters
connected with the handling of this case were not under consideration by the NEJ
Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee. No matters were referred to the Committee for
consideration. As such, the request in paragraph 4 is hypothetical and not proper.
5) An investigation by the Commission on Religion and Race discovered procedural errors
in the due process requirements of handling the original complaint, as outlined in a
letter from the commission chair.
The investigation by the Commission on Religion and Race related to the events
surrounding the complaint filed against Hae
‐Jong Kim in January, 2005. Before the
complaint reached the Jurisdictional Committee on Investigation, Hae
‐Jong Kim
resigned from the episcopacy, thus bringing closure to the Judicial Process in which he
was the respondent.
The Commission on Religion and Race has no jurisdiction in the matter of the
confidential agreements reached which resulted in the resignation of Hae
‐Jong Kim
from the episcopacy. As such, the request in paragraph 5 is hypothetical and not
proper.
Bishop Thomas J. Bickerton
President
Northeastern Jurisdictional College of Bishops
Docket 0413
‐4
Review of a Bishop’s Decision of Law in the Congo Central Conference Regarding
Mandatory Retirement Age for Bishops in Light of ¶¶ 50, 408, and 543.3
ARequestforDecisionof Law
10
As a member of the Congo Central Conference and in conformity with paragraph #2609.6 of the Book of Discipline,
I request that the presiding Bishop make a decision of law concerning the following questions:
Did the 2012 General Conference in it's legislative actions regarding paragraph #408 of the Book of Discipline
authorize the extension of Episcopal tenures in the DR Congo beyond the mandatory retirement age of 68 years?
1.
Do the paragraphs #50 of the Constitution and # 543.3 of the Book of Discipline constitute an authorization of
the Central Conference to extend Episcopal terms beyond the mandatory retirement age of 68 years?
2.
In the absence of the above mentioned authorizations, can the Bishops extend their Episcopal terms
themselves?
Decision of Law
Introduction:
At the Congo Central Conference, during the session for the election of a new Bishop for the
new Episcopal area of Congo East, presided by the official delegate from the Council of
Bishops, Bishop Patrick Streiff, a member of the Congo central conference, C
ȇsaire Ilunga
Mushiya, submitted a request for a decision of law during the session of Tuesday, August 21,
late morning.
Bishop Patrick Streiff gave an oral response in the beginning of the session in the afternoon
of Tuesday, Auguset 21, adding that he will put it in writing and hand it to the secretary of
the central conference and send a copy to the Judicial Council of the United Methodist
Church. The oral response was in four points and a final conclusion, as followed in writing:
Decision of Law:
1. Concerning the retirement age of bishops, the reference should not be made to the
Book of Discipline of the central conference, published in 1990 (based on the
Book of
Discipline 1988
). The reference has to be to the Book of Discipline established by
General Conference.
2. At general conference 2008, the mandatory retirement age for all clergy was changed
from age 70 to age 72 (
BOD 2008, par. 358.1). BOD 2008, par. 50 and par. 543.3
speak about the power given to central conferences to fix the tenure of its bishops.
However, the ministry of a bishop is not a third order which would not be subject to
the rule for mandatory retirement age of clergy; see the reference made to par.
358.1 in
BOD 2008, par. 408.1c, last part.
3. The
Book of Discipline 2008 includes a specific regulation for bishops in jurisdictions in
the United States. This regulation mentions as mandatory retirement age if a bishop has
reached his/her 68
th birthday before July 1st of the year in which is held the session of
the jurisdictional conference; see
BOD 2008, par. 408.1a. The Book of Discipline 2008
does not mention a similar regulation concerning bishops in central conferences.
4. General Conference 2012 wanted to clarify this question for bishops in central
conferences through a petition (petition 20416; calendar item 372). This petition was
amended in the Legislative Committee on Superintendency, based on a recommendation
from the Standing Committee for Central Conference Matters, for adjusting to the
different dates of the sessions of central conferences (they have to be held within a year
following the general conference, see
BOD 2008, par. 30), and this added a new par.
11
408.1b for the central conferences, but still mentioned a clear indication that it would
become effective immediately. In the discussion on the floor of general conference,
amendments on the effective date were proposed. In the final vote, it was approved by
general conference that the amended petition in the episcopal areas of Central Congo
(for one speaker) and of South Congo (for another speaker).
Conclusion
General Conference 2012 voted the effective date in full knowledge of the implications
for the two episcopal areas in the Congo and thus allowing its bishops who have passed the
age of 68 to continue in active service beyond the session of the central conference in 2012.
For the bishops in the Congo central conference who will continue in active ministry
beyond their 68
th anniversary, the mandatory retirement age remains at their 72nd birthday.
At the time of their mandatory retirement during the quadrennium 2012 – 2016, the central
conference (through its executive committee) may either call for an extraordinary session
for the election of a successor, or ask the Council of Bishops to name a bishop for overseeing
the episcopal area under consideration until a successor has been elected at the ordinary
session of the central conference in 2016.
Bishop Patrick Streiff
August 23
rd 2012
Docket 4012
‐5
IN RE: Request from the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference for a Ruling on
the Legality of Certain Financial Actions and the Complaint Process Regarding the
East Africa Annual Conference in Light of ¶¶ 258.4f, 413, and 613.13
Substitute motion by Robert Zilhaver: Approved.
I move that the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference petition the Judicial Council to
hear and determine the legality of the following actions in regard to Petition 106 in accordance
with ¶2609.5 of the 2008
Book of Discipline.
1) Were the funds given by the Pittsburgh East District of the Western Pennsylvania
Conference to the East African Annual Conference used in accordance with ¶258.4.f?
2) Were the funds given by members of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference in
the payment of Isaac Sebit in compliance with ¶ 258.4.f and ¶613.13?
3) Was the complaint filed by one member of the Western Pennsylvania Annual
Conference (Nancy Denardo) properly dealt with in accordance with ¶413 of the 2008
Book of
Discipline
?
Docket 0413
‐6
IN RE: Request for a Declaratory Decision by the Northern Nigeria Annual
Conference and the Southern Nigeria Annual Conference as to the Meaning,
12
Effect, and Application of ¶ 405 in the Election Process of the West Africa Central
Conference
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALL SESSION BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND
SOUTHERN NIGERIA ANNUAL CONFERENCES OF THE NIGERIA EPISCOPAL AREA
HELD AT UMC LANKAVIRI, EUGENE WESLEY DISTRICT OF THE
SOUTHERN NIGERIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON THE 10/10/2012.
AGENDA
1. To discuss the purported election of Rev. Johnwesley Yohanna as a bishop of Nigeria Area
by WACC held in Sierra Leone on the 6
th October, 2012, against the will of the majority
delegates (clergy and lay) of the Nigeria UMC.
2. Report from delegation that was sent by Southern and Northern Nigeria Annual
Conferences to tender our complaint to WACC held in Sierra Leone.
3. AOB
OPENING PRAYER.
Rev. Daniel Y. Korot the Superintendent of the Northern Nigeria Annual Conference said the
opening prayers after a service of choruses led by Rev. Philip Micah Dopah, Director
Connectional Ministries of the Southern Nigeria Annual Conference.
EXHORTATION
: Rev. Abbo Z. Wakili, the Conference Chaplain gave the exhortation from II
Corinthians 6: 1ff
ELECTION OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
As a routine procedure of the church (BOD Par. 603(6), 2008, whenever a Bishop is not around,
any travelling elder nominated to preside over the meeting pro
‐tempo. Nominations were done
as follows: Rev. Philip Micah Dopah got 321 votes; Rev. Abbo Z. Wakili got 112 votes, Rev.
Abainatus Akila, got 59 votes while Rev. Liatu J. Kane had 47 votes. 42 delegates abstained
from voting. Rev. Philip Micah Dopah was then to preside.
INTRODUCTION OF DIGNITARIES
:
The Director of Connectional Ministries Rev. Philip Micah Dopah who is also the presiding
officer, welcomed and introduced the VIPs and the delegation that was sent to WACC to
forward our complaints.
REGRETS:
The presiding officer announced that the following people sent their regrets for being
unavoidably absent; District Superintendent of Taraba West, Rev. Jonah T. Madugu, Rev. John
Kwanneri, Rev. Jonah Jagampo and Women president of the Northern Nigeria Annual
Conference.
13
WELCOME ADDRESS
The presiding officer thanked the delegates for the privilege accorded him to be the presiding
officer. He welcomed all delegates to the special call session. He said this has become necessary
in view of WACC’s inconsiderate action to have gone ahead to purportedly elect Rev.
Johnwesley Yohanna as a bishop of Nigeria Area even after we had collectively written series of
complaints to Bishop Kulah and Bishop John G. Innis, being the President of WACC. He said
delegates were aware that, nomination was not done in Nigeria, and our delegates to WACC
who were to go for election in Sierra Leone did not go because it was our collective decision
since we sensed that the discipline was about to be circumvented, which it has. He told the
delegates to give constructive suggestions that will address the issue at hand. He also told the
house that a 4
‐man delegation that was sent to Sierra Leone to carry our petition to the floor of
WACC will brief the house on what transpired on the floor of WACC. The presiding officer also
encouraged Pastors and members to stand by the truth as the truth shall set them free (John
8:32).
REPORT FROM THE SIERRA LEONE DELEGATION
The delegation comprised of one(1) clergy Rev. Wilson Gana from the Northern Nigeria Annual
Conference and three(3) Lay persons
‐ Dr David Ishaya, Mr. Solomon Olusiyi and Mrs. Emily
Godwin Nyame from the Southern Nigeria Annual Conference. Dr. David Ishaya on behalf of
the others told the house that they were able to submit the petition to the WACC’s Committee
on Petitions and Resolutions. That they were also able to address the committee on the
complaints written earlier to the president of the West Africa College of Bishops (WACOB),
which he replied earlier that Bishop Kulah should address the issue but he refused. He said after
the committee on petitions has invited them for hearing, they later on told them that, they
have met with the WACOB and that they have directed them not to listen to them again until
they meet at the plenary. In the plenary the committee on petitions and resolution while giving
her report said, there was a write up from Nigeria which is neither a petition nor complaint,
because the heading did not capture the word “complaint”. All attempts to explain to the
conference not to throw out the complaint on the basis of technicalities but to look at the
substance of the complaint was denied by the presiding Bishop, Bishop John K. Yambasu. He
said the complaint was based on the fact that there was no nomination by the Nigeria Area and
that the conference was requested not to go ahead with the elections. The delegation later
thanked the delegates for the privilege accorded them to serve the church in that capacity.
RESOLUTIONS
.
After series of discussions on the delegation’s report, the house arrived at the following:
‐
14
1. WHEREAS the rules guiding the identification exercise by Bishop Kulah was violated in the
Central Nigeria Annual Conference and nomination was subsequently not done in Nigeria,
election ought not to have taken place at WACC held in Sierra Leone.
2. WHEREAS the election of the Bishop was not done in accordance with constitution of the
Church (BOD) paragraph 405(2008) , the house agreed as follows:
3. That our members from the North and Southern Annual Conferences will continue to be
members of the UMC
‐Nigeria but will seek redress for justice at the Judicial Council of the
UMC.
4. That we will not allegiance Rev. Johnwesley Yohanna because he was not duly elected.
5. That no appointments will be accepted from the new Bishop imposed by West Africa
central conference on us.
6. That we should put away our differences and come together to fight against this injustice
and lack of fairness in a non
‐violent way.
7. That the Bishop will not be recognized by the northern and Southern conferences because
of his moral bankruptcy (he masterminded the escalation of the problems of the UMCN
from initial stage up to 2012).
8. The House also agreed that all the Churches in the northern and Southern Conference be
communicated to be calm, prayerful and avoid any violent tendency throughout this period
of struggle for justice.
9. That the District Superintendents and Pastors from the above conferences should ensure
that there is no breach of law and order in any of our Churches.
10. That security personnel be deployed to the UMCN Cathedral and Bishop Dabale Memorial
Secretariat to avert any breach of law.
11. That the Church should write to both the Judicial Council and the West Africa Central
Conference College of Bishops to express our displeasure for refusing to listen to our
petitions.
12. That the Laity advocacy forum should be co
‐opted in the writings to the above institutions.
The Chairmen Laity advocacy were named as follows:
‐ Dr. James Seni Barka from the
Northern Conference and Mr. Urbanus Yunana from the Southern Conference.
13. The house also agreed that good standing Committees be formed to oversee the affairs of
the Church in the Northern and southern Nigeria Annual Conferences. The offices agreed
upon were as follows:
‐
a. Conference Lay Leaders from South/North
b. Superintendent from the North
c. Director of Connectional Ministries
d. Conference Secretaries from North and South
e. Board of Ordained Ministry Chairs
‐ North and South
f. Men President from South and North
15
g. Women President from South and North
h. Youths President from North and South
i. Youth Directors from South and North
j. Chancellors from North and South
k. Cabinet members
l. Chaplain (s)
m. Episcopal Committee members from North and South.
The above officers were told to ensure that they work diligently for the progress of the
body of Jesus Christ. They were given the mandate to call meeting (s) wherever there is
problem and they should sensitize the entire congregation on all developments.
12. That the report of our delegation sent to the West Africa Central Conference concerning
the election of Bishop be typed and be distributed to the District Superintendents and
Pastors.
13. That the WACC should tell us whether the office of the Bishop is now by act of
appointment instead of election.
14. That letter of appreciation be written to the Taraba State Government her usual
assistance to the Church and also sensitize the government on current developments in
the church and the appointment of some key leaders to take charge of the affairs of the
Church pending the time the issue at hand is resolved.
ADJOURNMENT AND PRAYERS
Motion for adjournment was moved by Mr. Urbanus Yunana from Jalingo District and was
seconded by Matthew Manyazen from Pa’a Yorro District. Closing prayers was said by Rev.
Hannaniya Ntoriko
Rev. Lantoya John Ezekiel
Conference Secretary
Southern Nigeria Annual Conference
This docket has the actual requests for Judicial Council action received by the Judicial Council
inserted. This is done to comply with the amendment of ¶2608.1 by the 2012 General Conference.
For further information contact F. Belton Joyner, Jr., 1821 Hillandale Road, Suite 1B, PMB 334, Durham,
NC 27705 E
‐mail: judicialcouncil@umc.org
