Methodist Bishop Karen Oliveto: 'My presence changes the conversation' on LGBTQ people

[Fish and Bread]

Link:

Bishop Karen Oliveto: 'My presence changes the conversation' on LGBTQ people

 

[frienden thalord]

LET us quaote the famous charity or love chapter.............
is man with man or woman with woman love .............
Let us read these words with HOPE in our heart.
LET us see as GOD sees .
and i can prove this without a doubt
GOD is love my peoples HE IS
so we have to be honest.
thus let us examine corithians chapter thirteen
for lets face it , if we have not charity we are done for
and does it not say charity is the greatest of the three.
SO lets examine what love or charity REALLY IS.
first we see that it does not rejoice in inquity ..........
but is man with man or woman inquity. lets wait for that anwer.
let us see the next line.
Charity does NOT behave itself UNSEEMINGLY
but is man with man or woman with woman
unseemingly............
NOW its only fair to examine it IN the bible.
so let us read romans chapter one
MAN with man working that which is UNSEEMINGLY............
EXACTLY.
so these churches DONT follow GOD.
and see i KEPT it all NEW TESTAMENT..
hard to go around the TRUTH . amen.

 

[hedrick]

The brief quote in the OP could be misleading. It could suggest that Oliveto is pretty arrogant, since obviously most mainline denominations currently accept gays. In context, she meant that having an openly gay bishop changes the context of the conversation *in the UMC.* That's pretty clear.

I'm less sure that it was a good idea. There is going to be a special national meeting in February of 2019. Having Oliveto as bishop puts the Western Jurisdiction in a difficult position. Do they back down? If so they'd look pretty silly, since presumably they knew when they elected her what was going to happen. But if they ignore the decision, they risk forcing a split now. At that point the 2019 meeting is pretty much doomed, since the jurisdictions that feel most strongly about the issue would either be gone or not in good standing.

The question has now been referred back to the Western Jurisdiction. They have to review the case and make a decision. I'd recommend that they say, "OK, we'll be happy to do so. We expect that this review will be finished in March, 2019."

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Link:

Bishop Karen Oliveto: 'My presence changes the conversation' on LGBTQ people

I absolutely think that her presence is providing a greater impetus for United Methodists and supporters to advocate for change at the 2019 Special General Conference. The Judicial Council's complex ruling, which sent mixed signals to folks on both sides, about Bishop Karen Oliveto's case, which nevertheless says she "remains in good standing", shows just how divided the UMC is right now and how both sides are preparing for 2019.

 

[seeking.IAM]

The UMC keeps trying to kick the can down the road instead of being decisive. At some point, that simply isn't going to work anymore. I still have much affection for my former UMC, but I wish they would be decisive and let the chips fall where they may. I think it's past time to get on with it.

 

[frienden thalord]

It matters not if I gave all my goods to the poor yet have no charity it profits me nothing........
don't matter if I had by body to be burned it profited me nothing
faith hope and charity , and the greatest is CHARITY
but charity DONT behave itself unseemingly
the churches and all who supported gay marriage will be held accountable to GOD
Its not accident JESUS
said...............MANY in that day shall say
LORD did we not prophesy IN YOUR NAME
and cast out demons IN YOUR NAME
and done good works IN YOUR NAME
they get cast out because they worked inquity.
remember charity DONT REJOICE in iniquity....
and it sure don't behave itself unseemingly.
my hands are clean, I gave the Truth , and the one true version of LOVE CHARITY.
I can speak truth ........but I am not GOD.....................
thus my job is done . I warned .

 

[hedrick]

The UMC keeps trying to kick the can down the road instead of being decisive. At some point, that simply isn't going to work anymore. I still have much affection for my former UMC, but I wish they would be decisive and let the chips fall where they may. I think it's past time to get on with it.

My own denomination (PCUSA) went through this a while ago. I'm sympathetic with this position. I often felt we should just have it out and split.

But there's a problem with this. Most Christians are kind of in the middle: uncomfortable both with full endorsement of homosexuality, and with excluding gays. And most churches have a range of views in it. Forcing the issue to the point of split will leave both individuals and churches having to make a choice that they really don't want to make.

Also, the balance among Christians is shifting rapidly. Congregations might currently end up in a conservative version of a denomination when 10 years from now they'll be uncomfortable there.

It would really be better to find a way to live with disagreement. Unfortunately that's going to be harder for the UMC than for the other mainline denominations.

 

[seeking.IAM]

... Forcing the issue to the point of split will leave both individuals and churches having to make a choice that they really don't want to make.

Also, the balance among Christians is shifting rapidly. Congregations might currently end up in a conservative version of a denomination when 10 years from now they'll be uncomfortable there...

You make some interesting points. I agree that views are changing rapidly. I heard the majority leader of my state's legislature say they were trying to push anti-gay legislation now because they knew it would never pass in the next legislative session because the voter demographic was turning more sympathetic to LGBTQ persons.

As to your point about putting off deciding possibly avoid schism, I wonder how many people are already leaving from each side because of the wounds and acrimony over this issue? That is why I said I wish they would decide some direction decisively. Not deciding seems to me only to prolong the pain -- sort of like when you know you need knee replacement but you put it off because you're afraid of the surgery. There is lots of misery in the meantime. If a decision results in a split, is it not possible that both sides are happy in their new church?

 

[HeLeadethMe]

Oh so lost is mankind without God's word and His Spirit to guide us.........there is a way that seemeth right to man but its end is death. That's such a beautiful exposition of God's word, frienden daLord, praise His name........that word that God magnifies even above His own name. Best we heed it then and not try to rely on our own wisdom, the way that seemeth right to us.

 

[hedrick]

As to your point about putting off deciding possibly avoid schism, I wonder how many people are already leaving from each side because of the wounds and acrimony over this issue?

There's no question that people are leaving because of this issue. But suppose we face the issue and force a choice. What do churches with mixed congregations do? How about families where members disagree? There are many people who can coexist with those they disagree with. The PCUSA, and other mainline churches, have definitely lost both congregations and members over this. But still, we didn't split down the middle. There are many people who continue to be in fellowship with those with whom they disagree. I think that's the better approach, and in fact I think it's good for Christians to show the communion can exist in spite of disagreement.

But that's easier in a church that allows both approaches. When one is forbidden, we aren't showing unity despite disagreement. We're showing enforced agreement. That's the way of the world, not the Church.

 

[bekkilyn]

I would suppose that most UMC congregations are probably mixed on this issue. So if there is a split, are we supposed to install a wall down the middle of the sanctuary and have the one congregation go on one side and the other on the other side? Or do we fight over which congregation gets the existing building? Or do we knock down the building and build two in its place? Or maybe we trade off weeks or something.

While I personally don't have an issue with homosexuality as I don't believe it is a choice that we make, I'd likely just stick to whichever version of the church ended up in the building where I'm already going, provided that everything else remains the same, and then hope for some sort of reunion in the future. It's not like we have Methodist churches on every street corner to be able to be that picky about it.

 

[seeking.IAM]

My understanding is that whatever side prevails at Annual Conference keeps the building and whatever side that dissents will be looking for new space. In the UMC, the national church owns the building unlike some other denominations. At least that is how it was when I was in the UMC.

 

[hedrick]

My understanding is that whatever side prevails at Annual Conference keeps the building and whatever side that dissents will be looking for new space. In the UMC, the national church owns the building unlike some other denominations. At least that is how it was when I was in the UMC.

In principle property is in trust for the denomination. But much of the practical responsibility is at the Annual Conference level. So if whole jurisdictions or conferences separate things get complex. Courts in different states also vary on how these things are enforced.

To my knowledge, the existing cases have all been isolated congregations leaving denominations. I don't think there has been any case of a national church trying to enforce a property clause against a subunit like a jurisdiction or an annual conference. So it's not clear how courts would rule, and it might well depend upon the State.

 

[hedrick]

I posted in error. I just looked more carefully at the judicial commission's ruling. It appears that although they said that the election was a violation of the Discipline, the only actions that could affect the Bishop have to take place within the jurisdiction. So the specific risk of schism that I saw doesn't seem to be there. It looks like there's a reasonable chance that that can be postponed until 2019. It is still hard for me to imagine that the UMC will be able to avoid schism in the end.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think this stuff is driven more by national politics. On the ground there are still a lot of conservative congregations, at least in the ELCA. They may tolerate gays, but they are far from being gay-affirming. Mostly it's "don't ask, don't tell". The pastors may be ahead of the laity, but the laity controls the purse strings.

 

[MercyBurst]

Why not have an atheist pastor? Be all-inclusive, tolerant and non-judgmental.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Why not have an atheist pastor? Be all-inclusive, tolerant and non-judgmental.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia

 

[abysmul]

Money, property, public opinion, hurt feelings... these are the things I see raised in this discussion (I was raised in the UMC) far more often than a thoughtful and prayerful look at what scripture says. Then again, the UMC membership/attendance in our area has dropped off over the past few decades enormously... congregations that had close to 200 every Sunday frequently have 50-80 if they are lucky.

 

[hedrick]

Money, property, public opinion, hurt feelings... these are the things I see raised in this discussion (I was raised in the UMC) far more often than a thoughtful and prayerful look at what scripture says.

This is just silly. Conservative churches are more successful by all the usual worldly measures. Is it so hard to believe that many Christians actually think Jesus wants us to accept gays?

 

[abysmul]

I think it is silly, to be more worried about hurt feeling, public opinion and such when it comes to a discussion of sin and the UMC stance on homosexuality, marriage, etc. .. and yet that's what I observed to be the driving force. As the local UMC congregations began to dwindle in size, the discussion of merging congregations came up, and ALWAYS stopped because of money/property/building issues (far too many made it clear that it wouldn't feel like church in a different building, etc.).