Homosexual Clergy question

[countrymousenc]

Here is the link for the official UMC website:

http://www.umc.org/

 

[Plan 9]

That's my fault, actually. I was just intending to give the church website, so that people would know what the church was. Here are some links to things about the PCUSA and homosexuals:

http://www.layman.org/layman/news/news-from-pcusa/ga99-oldenburg-opposes-standard.htm

http://www.thelutheran.org/9908/page52.html

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/18_120/107760348/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.sdadefend.com/Presbyterian.htm

Note: Some of these may be biased.

Bulldog, I was very pleased to have the Presbyterian site link!
Thank you so much for providing me with more. I really appreciate your kind assistance.

 

[LuxPerpetua]

I've looked over the Methodist thread, and from what I can tell it was mostly personal discussion rather than any official statements given by the heads of the churches involved (I have no idea of such statements having been issued, but I assume that the clergy heading these churches would have justified their voting in some way, but I may be mistaken here).

I'm not interested in discussing the ordination of women (being female has never been a sin, and at least I believe there is interesting evidence supporting female ministers in some forms of pastoral leadership) or the ordination of repentant homosexual people (who, although they believe homosexuality is wrong, cannot commit themselves to heterosexual relationships) but rather I am interested in the *official reasons* churches have given for ordaining openly, non-repentant homosexuals when this seems in violation of Scripture (Titus 1:5, 1 Peter 5:1, Romans 2, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, just to name a few verses). What I'm really wondering is, are these churches looking at these verses through a lens of historical relativism (meaning, that they should only be applied to the church at that particular time in history) or are they questioning the accuracy of the translation of Scripture in the passages dealing with homosexuality, or what? I think I am just personally confused since it seems that Scripture is fairly blatant on the sinful nature of homosexuality, so I don't know what I'm missing that has caused so many churches to change their minds in this regard.

 

[praying]

This implies that Christendom has misinterpreted the Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior prior to this, meaning that the Church cannot authoritatively and infallibly interpret what the Bible says. The question is not whether a pope or bishop is infallible, the question is the Church herself. If they are right, the Church has erred for nearly two thousand years in calling all homosexual behavior sinful. Therefore, the Church has proven not to be trustworthy in deciding what is sinful (if these people are to be believed.) If the Church does not know what is sinful, then the Church does not know from what we need to be saved.

I venture to say we (the believers) are the Church. The Church is not an entity in and of itself. It is run by men (mostly) and women who like the lay people are not infallible. They may, and in most cases are, be more studied then the lay person in theology but they are not above us.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Time will tell.

Lux asked for who and why, and I gave my answer, like it or not.

All of the sects who ordain or are considering ordaining homosexuals also ordain women, and they all do it on the same grounds, which, unless I am mistaken, are the same grounds your denom uses. They do it because they don't consider it a sin.

Actually, that part of your answer was not necessary since lux did not say anything about woman preaching the gospel It did not come up until you mentioned it.

I go to a non-denominational and the reason they allow woman to preach the gospel is because God ordained it. "Your sons AND your daughters is what "is written". Jesus used woman to preach the gospel. . .would you say then that Jesus must not have considered it a sin?

For the sake of lux's thread though I won't derail this anymore. . .I just wanted to address your statement as false. IMO

 

[LuxPerpetua]

Thanks Bulldog and countrymouse for the links

 

[Plan 9]

I've looked over the Methodist thread, and from what I can tell it was mostly personal discussion rather than any official statements given by the heads of the churches involved (I have no idea of such statements having been issued, but I assume that the clergy heading these churches would have justified their voting in some way, but I may be mistaken here).

I'm not interested in discussing the ordination of women (being female has never been a sin, and at least I believe there is interesting evidence supporting female ministers in some forms of pastoral leadership) or the ordination of repentant homosexual people (who, although they believe homosexuality is wrong, cannot commit themselves to heterosexual relationships) but rather I am interested in the *official reasons* churches have given for ordaining openly, non-repentant homosexuals when this seems in violation of Scripture (Titus 1:5, 1 Peter 5:1, Romans 2, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, just to name a few verses). What I'm really wondering is, are these churches looking at these verses through a lens of historical relativism (meaning, that they should only be applied to the church at that particular time in history) or are they questioning the accuracy of the translation of Scripture in the passages dealing with homosexuality, or what? I think I am just personally confused since it seems that Scripture is fairly blatant on the sinful nature of homosexuality, so I don't know what I'm missing that has caused so many churches to change their minds in this regard.

First of all, as far as I can discover, the United Methodist Church has never knowingly ordained a practicing homosexual minister.
The UMC is as much about the individual personal opinions of its members, both laymen and clergy, as it is about the official statements our church "heads" because we all send delegates to conferences, at which they vote. So, yes, you pretty much have to pick through it for Origen's posts, which, IMO, are the best explanatory posts there, and he provides links to the relevant statements contained in our Book of Discipline.
Our General Conference meets toward the end of next month, this subject is on their agenda, and changes to our Book of Discipline may, or may not, result from decisions made there.
However, I believe that Origen has made a good start in the other thread at addressing the questions you've brought up in this post.
United Methodists themselves run the gamut from ultra-conservative to liberal, so consulting the Book of Discipline is always your best bet, in any case.
This is only my personal opinion, of course.

Bye, Lux. Seeya around.

Thanks again, Bulldog!

 

[Bulldog]

Thanks for the compliment, Plan 9.

 

[Origen]

Does anyone know the official reasons churches are citing for ordaining homosexual clergy?

Your question is framed a bit awkwardly. Do churches cite reasons for ordaining left-handed clergy or red-headed clergy? No, because it's not a problem; it's the right thing to do. When mainline churches began to ordain women, they may have offered explanations about why they were changing their position; but the bottom line was that it was/is the right thing to do. Similarly, the mainline churches are more or less slowly correcting their position on the ordination of homosexual clergy.

I'm not as familar with the other mainline churches as I am with the United Methodist church, so I can't speak to what information they have released.

First, it would be a mistake to consider the acquittal in Washington state as a change of position for the whole denomination of the United Methodist Church nationwide. Analogously, a state court in, for example, Tennessee could find that the sale of firecrackers is legal, but that doesn't mean that that ruling is binding on New York. Only our national legislative assembly which meets every four years (called General Conference) can speak for the whole church; there's no Methodist Pope or Archbishop who is going to make some sort of announcement.

So, understanding that the trial court in Washington speaks only for that body, and understanding that this may be more detail oriented than you were looking for, here are some details about how they reasoned for acquittal:

Excerpt a from United Methodist News Service feature article:

Presiding Officer Says Trial Was Fair, Honorable​

Many people are viewing the verdict by the clergy jurors of the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference as an action by the entire United Methodist Church.

In an interview with United Methodist News Service, Grove said it is important for people to distinguish the difference between an annual conference and the denomination in understanding the verdict.

First, he said, a clergy person is a member of the annual conference, and the conference is responsible for determining the "suitability" of clergy or candidates for ordination and conference membership. The decision about suitability is made at the annual conference level.

...

Before the proceedings, Grove questioned the clergy of the Pacific Northwest Conference who made up the pool of potential jurors "to determine if they would be able and willing to set aside any personal convictions or feelings (and) apply the relevant portions of the Book of Discipline."

Some who felt they could not set aside their feelings were excused. Those remaining in the pool "committed themselves to abide by the provisions of the Book of Discipline, which I believe they did," Grove said.

He said he does not think the trial court was insincere in its efforts. "This is why I think the decision should be respected, even if it is not agreed with."

He said the trial court found Dammann not guilty based on the testimony heard about Paragraph 304.3 in the Book of Discipline, where the phrase, "since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," is found. "They received testimony that caused them to doubt whether the paragraph has force given the fact that the word 'since' refers back to the Social Principles," Grove said.

The 2000 General Conference declared that the Social Principles represent the official position of the church "but they are not church law," Grove said.

The court also brought a not guilty verdict based on Paragraph 2702.b. The jurors, in their interpretation, could not find that "declaration ... but as I understand their interpretation, they said that while they found those words in the Discipline, they did not find the declaration which is referred to."

Before the 13 members of the trial court began deliberations, Grove ordered that after they reached their verdict and before they reported it, they must draft a statement explaining their decision to help the church understand their reasoning.

"If we look at their statement, it indicates that they did not believe that there is in the Book of Discipline itself a declaration but a reference to one because of the word 'since.'" He said testimony indicated that the declaration is in the Social Principles, which have been ruled as not being law but an instructional guide with prophetic statements that represent the church's position on social issues.​

The Presiding officer, Bishop Grove, in the article above makes reference to a statement issued by the trial court (jury). Here is the text from that statement:

"The only charge brought against the Rev. Karen T. Dammann is 'practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,' under Paragraph 2702.1b relating to the Judicial Complaint of Bishop Elias Galvan. While sustaining the specification that Rev. Karen Dammann is a self-avowed practicing homosexual, we, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented by church counsel to be clear and convincing that Karen Dammann has engaged in any 'practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings.' We cannot sustain the charge.

"We, the trial court, reached our decisions after many hours of painful and prayerful deliberation, and listening for and to the word of God. We depended on the prayers of the whole church, which undergirded our process. We depended on the leading of the Holy Spirit.

"We have made every attempt to be faithful to the Book of Discipline in its entirety. We have taken very seriously the mandate to presume innocence unless there is sufficient evidence to bring a different verdict. The church's obligation is to present clear and convincing evidence to sustain the charge. We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.'

"We did see in the Discipline many declarative statements. An example is: 'Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination.' (Section 6 of The Ministry of all Christians, section VI, 'Called to Inclusiveness,' Paragraph 138, p. 93, second paragraph)

"Although we, the trial court, found passages that contain the phrasing 'incompatible with Christian teaching,' we did not find that any of them constitute a declaration.

"We realize that the church is divided regarding issues of homosexuality. We, as the trial court, are far from unanimous regarding biblical and theological understandings.

"The beginning sentence of 'Our Theological Task,' Paragraph 104, Conclusion, p. 85, says: 'Doctrine arises out of the life of the Church - its faith, its worship, its discipline, its conflicts, its challenges from the world it would serve.' In this spirit, we have engaged in this judicial task."​