Dissent of decision of the committee on appeals

By LaGretta J. Bjorn

I agree with the majority opinion that the Presiding Officer did not err by excluding testimony proffered by the Trial Court.

I do not agree with the majority opinion that it was error for the Presiding Officer not to rule on the merits of the legal arguments raised by the Appellant. I believe that by virtue of the fact that in the pre-trial discussion the Presiding Officer decided not to allow the Trial Court to consider the Appellant’s legal arguments, in so doing, he ruled on their merits.

I do not agree with the majority opinion that, while we agree that the weight of the evidence sustains the charges against the Appellant, it is also possible for us to vitiate the Trial Court’s verdict. I believe these conclusions are inconsistent and add to the ambiguity and the present state of confusion surrounding the relevant Judicial Council Decisions (702, 920,980,984 and 985).

I do not agree with the majority opinion that the First Restrictive Rule of our Constitution is violated by Paragraph 304.3 There are other provisions in the Discipline which speak to the church’s stance on homosexuality which the majority does not and should not interpret as "doctrinal." Paragraph 806.9 bars the distribution of United Methodist funds "to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality." Paragraph 332.6 provides "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." The majority does not seek to hold either of these provisions of the Discipline as "doctrinal" statements. Using the majority opinion’s definition of paragraph 304.3 as "a new standard rule of doctrine," these two paragraphs would be subject to challenge on the same basis.

Most importantly, in regard to the majority opinion’s characterization of Paragraph 304.3 as "doctrinal," it is not within the purview of the appellate body to legislate, which is what it attempts to do by deeming paragraph 304.3 "a new standard of doctrine." No definition of "doctrine" is found in the Discipline. For the majority opinion to presume to define "doctrine" as "establish(ing) a definitive interpretation of Christian teaching on a particular subject and binds the church to act in accordance with that interpretation" constitutes an attempt to create legislation. Paragraph 2715.7 limits the power of the appellate body to "two questions only: (a) Does the weight of the evidence sustain the charge or charges? (b) Were there errors of Church law as to vitiate the verdict and/or penalty?" Paragraph 2715.8 delineates the parameters of the responsibilities of the appellate body; these duties do not include creation of legislation.

Rev. LaGretta Bjorn, pastor of Spring Valley (N.Y.) United Methodist Church is a member of the Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals, the committee that cited legal errors in overturning the Dec. 2 verdict against the Rev. Irene "Beth" Stroud. She was the lone dissenter on the nine-member committee.