Church charges brought against Sessions

[tulc]

Church charges brought against Sessions – The United Methodist Church

The group claimed in a June 18 statement that Sessions, a member of a Mobile, Alabama, church, violated Paragraph 2702.3 of the denomination’s Book of Discipline.

Specifically, the group accuses him of child abuse in reference to separating young children from their parents and holding them in mass incarceration facilities; immorality; racial discrimination and “dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrines” of The United Methodist Church.

All are categories listed in 2702.3 as chargeable offenses for a professing member of a local church.

tulc(will just leave this here)

 

[HereIStand]

Wow. This might be one case where the Book of Discipline is enforced.

 

[Tree of Life]

This seems to me to be out of order. Maybe it works within the Methodist polity, but if anyone brings charges against a church member it should be a member of that person's local church. Charges are dealt with at a local level before becoming a regional or national issue.

 

[Albion]

Apparently it is relatively easy to bring these kinds of charges against anyone, even for a partisan political purpose and despite the fact that they never go anywhere (except to the media, which probably was the real intention).

 

[Hank77]

This seems to me to be out of order. Maybe it works within the Methodist polity, but if anyone brings charges against a church member it should be a member of that person's local church. Charges are dealt with at a local level before becoming a regional or national issue.

Wouldn't that be because their actions are only effecting others in their local church?

Sessions is a representative of that church on a national level, what he says and does effects all the Methodist churches across the nation, not just his own local church.

 

[Tree of Life]

Wouldn't that be because their actions are only effecting others in their local church?

No. It's just following Matthew 18. If you have a charge to bring against someone, you do it personally and privately. They should hear about it from a friend in a private way before they hear about it being broadcast in the media.

Sessions is a representative of that church on a national level, what he says and does effects all the Methodist churches across the nation, not just his own local church.

He's actually just a private member. He doesn't hold any church offices and does not represent the UMC in any official capacity.

 

[Albion]

Sessions is a representative of that church on a national level, what he says and does effects all the Methodist churches across the nation, not just his own local church.

That's quite a stretch. I would guess that about 95% of Americans had or have no idea what church Sessions belongs to, and he certainly cannot be called a representative of the church if he does not attempt to speak for the church, which I do not recall him doing.

 

[HereIStand]

That's quite a stretch. I would guess that about 95% of Americans had or have no idea what church Sessions belongs to, and he certainly cannot be called a representative of the church if he does not attempt to speak for the church, which I do not recall him doing.

True. Which is why they don't need to learn about it for the first time in this way. Beyond this, the UM Book of Discipline has been ignored or brushed aside in cases involving gay or lesbian clergy. It's funny to see the Book of Discipline being used with grave concern in the case of Sessions.

 

[Hank77]

No. It's just following Matthew 18. If you have a charge to bring against someone, you do it personally and privately. They should hear about it from a friend in a private way before they hear about it being broadcast in the media.

Ah...I agree with you there.

He's actually just a private member. He doesn't hold any church offices and does not represent the UMC in any official capacity.

imo,
When he starts using scripture to support actions outside the church, he is representing the whole Body of Christ and the UMC specifically.

That's quite a stretch. I would guess that about 95% of Americans had or have no idea what church Sessions belongs to, and he certainly cannot be called a representative of the church if he does not attempt to speak for the church, which I do not recall him doing.

imo, he did the minute he invoked God's Word to support a political issue on a national level.
The church and especially the UMC has every right to declare their objection.

 

[Hank77]

True. Which is why they don't need to learn about it for the first time in this way. Beyond this, the UM Book of Discipline has been ignored or brushed aside in cases involving gay or lesbian clergy. It's funny to see the Book of Discipline being used with grave concern in the case of Sessions.

I not sure what you are referring to as far as gay marriage or gay clergy in the UMC.

• ¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. View full statement.
  
• ¶ 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

What is the denomination's position on homosexuality? – The United Methodist Church

 

[JAM2b]

Sessions is a representative of that church on a national level, what he says and does effects all the Methodist churches across the nation, not just his own local church.

I think it also effects all Christians in general.

He is doing something drastic and public. It needs to be addressed publicly. He lost the right to have private accountability when he stepped into the public spotlight and made his religious affiliation known...AND used Scripture to support this sin.

 

[HereIStand]

I not sure what you are referring to as far as gay marriage or gay clergy in the UMC.

• ¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. View full statement.
  
• ¶ 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

What is the denomination's position on homosexuality? – The United Methodist Church

What is actually on the books, as it were, and what is actually enforced are two different things. A retired UMC pastor has noted that within the UMC "everyone is doing what they want to do in regards to homosexuality. The Book of Discipline is still orthodox in theology and John Wesley still is esteemed but both are largely ignored by liberals." The UMC Good News renewal group follows this.

 

[Tree of Life]

imo, he did the minute he invoked God's Word to support a political issue on a national level.
The church and especially the UMC has every right to declare their objection.

Any church has the right to publicly object to or denounce a civil policy or law.

But disciplining a member and taking a public position are different things.

 

[Hank77]

What is actually on the books, as it were, and what is actually enforced are two different things. A retired UMC pastor has noted that within the UMC "everyone is doing what they want to do in regards to homosexuality. The Book of Discipline is still orthodox in theology and John Wesley still is esteemed but both are largely ignored by liberals." The UMC Good News renewal group follows this.

It seems to me that this issue caused a split in the denomination did it not? Or was that just the Lutherans?

 

[Hank77]

But disciplining a member and taking a public position are different things.

I agree. However, I still don't see why they don't have a right to discipline in this case.
But I'll leave there.

 

[Albion]

Ah...I agree with you there.

imo,
When he starts using scripture to support actions outside the church, he is representing the whole Body of Christ and the UMC specifically.

Clergy excepted, would you say that all of us here represent the churches to which we belong when we post any opinions??

 

[HereIStand]

It seems to me that this issue caused a split in the denomination did it not? Or was that just the Lutherans?

It has been issue in several mainline denominations. In the UMC, the more evangelical overseas portion of the church has kept the church at least officially traditional on the issue.

 

[Hank77]

Clergy excepted, would you say that all of us here represent the churches to which we belong when we post any opinions??

I would and I would say that all Christians represent the Body of Christ as a whole. I don't see how it could be any other way considering what the Bible says about who a Christian is. The Bible doesn't differentiate between the clergy and the layman when it comes to their actions.

 

[Albion]

I would and I would say that all Christians represent the Body of Christ as a whole. I don't see how it could be any other way considering what the Bible says about who a Christian is. The Bible doesn't differentiate between the clergy and the layman when it comes to their actions.

I cannot agree that there is no distinction made between laity and clergy. We have, for example, several explicit verses that lay out the qualifications for being a deacon and also for being made a bishop. The existence of those verses contradicts your view.

In addition, Scripture makes clear in several places that God intends for different people to play different roles in his church. You mentioned the Body of Christ as a whole, and that is correct as an explanation of the nature of the church, but again, when it comes to what each of us does in the church, the comparison is made to a body by saying that some of us are like the heart, some others like the arms, and so on. All work together for a common good but these parts are not interchangeable or identical.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Apparently it is relatively easy to bring these kinds of charges against anyone, even for a partisan political purpose and despite the fact that they never go anywhere (except to the media, which probably was the real intention).

So...virtue signaling?