How bad?

[graceandpeace]

Thanks for the input everyone.

So, what about reconciling ministries? Does that allow gay individuals to officially join a UMC?

 

[BryanW92]

Thanks for the input everyone.

So, what about reconciling ministries? Does that allow gay individuals to officially join a UMC?

Gay people can attend and join United Methodist Churches.

 

[circuitrider]

I would argue that we in the US do get that privilege. We are reaching a point in our history where there are as many or more United Methodists living outside the country as within it. So, we do have some latitude built into the Discipline that allows us to have a Discipline that is largely written with the US church in mind. But I don't see us going smaller than the national level with regard to allowing for differences in culture. If we did, we might no recognize where to stop. In my own conference, there is significant cultural difference from my last church in southern Illinois and my present church in rural central Illinois. And when I say significant, I mean that one can palpably feel it. So, your argument would be to have different rules for these churches, and I can't imagine anyone actually arguing that. Different ministries are appropriate, different ways fo doing ministry. But I believe that the Discipline needs to be and is sufficiently broad that the rules for ministry can and should be the same across the country.

I'm not arguing for a reduction below the jurisdictional level. I agree we have to keep some consistency.

We already allow this kind of latitude for all central conferences meaning only the US Jurisdictional conferences (the same thing in function as the Central Conferences) don't have this latitude.

I'm simply arguing for parity of rights between jurisdictions and not for a reduction of authority down to the smallest level.

 

[circuitrider]

Thanks for the input everyone.

So, what about reconciling ministries? Does that allow gay individuals to officially join a UMC?

As Bryan has said above, persons who are gay already can be members of UM churches.

What the disagreements are about are over same sex marriage and ordination. Currently United Methodist pastors cannot officiate at same sex weddings and currently self-avowed practicing homosexuality cannot be ordained in the UMC.

The most recent vote of the General Conferences was 61% to keep the current policies and 39% to change them.

Some persons have argued that if not for the growing very conservative vote from African delegates the vote would be much closer.

Given the current makeup of delegates I doubt the vote will change significantly any time soon.

 

[graceandpeace]

Thanks again for the input y'all.

That is confusing to me - to allow openly gay believers to join a congregation, but at the same time refuse to ordain or marry them? I mean, I know the risks for the denomination to take the next leap, so I get it...

It's not a huge issue for me, but I do have a loved one who might be gay (I don't know for sure) & I wonder if that is at least part of why they left church (not a UMC). I want them to be welcome wherever I attend.

There are no reconciling ministries UMC's near me...maybe if I join I can bring the matter up! I don't want to upset anyone...and I have been without a church home for months & I am eager to fit in...just hope if I do bring it up I will not receive harsh backlash...

 

[BryanW92]

Thanks again for the input y'all.

That is confusing to me - to allow openly gay believers to join a congregation, but at the same time refuse to ordain or marry them? I mean, I know the risks for the denomination to take the next leap, so I get it...

It's not a huge issue for me, but I do have a loved one who might be gay (I don't know for sure) & I wonder if that is at least part of why they left church (not a UMC). I want them to be welcome wherever I attend.

There are no reconciling ministries UMC's near me...maybe if I join I can bring the matter up! I don't want to upset anyone...and I have been without a church home for months & I am eager to fit in...just hope if I do bring it up I will not receive harsh backlash...

It shouldn't be that confusing. Churches are full of sinners. We have adulterers, liars, porn addicts. If we drove everyone away who would not give up their favorite sin, then the churches would be empty.

But, do you want your pastor to be an adulterer, a liar, or a porn addict? Your relative is as welcome as all the other sinners in the church (and that is everyone). "Reconciling Ministries" is not about welcoming gay people into the church. It is about welcoming them into the clergy. The UMC has drawn the line at that.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Here is an example of the way the issue is showing up in the life of the United Methodist Church:

Same-sex wedding brings shame in Alabama (John Archibald) | al.com

That it divides us can be seen from the way different people discuss it from different points of view in this thread alone. As for predicting the future, those unhappy with the church's social positions have sometimes left in the past, I predict more of the same in the future. In the past, those leaving were often the conservative members of congregations that simply slipped away to join what they considered more conservative (and I mean politically of socially, not theologically) congregations in response to what they declared to the the ultra-liberalism of the UMC. (Just read some old threads and you'll see some members of CF making that charge against the UMC as well.) For instance, about 2008 (a General Conference year of course), I had some members tell me that they were transferring their membership. They wanted me to know that it had nothing to do with me, but they didn't like what they heard I bishop preaching. (She would have been one who was in agreement with retired Bishop Talbot in the article above.) And, as a result of that over time, I have watched that much of what remains among the leadership of the church in the USA is more liberal than it was when I first began paying attention to such things in 1972 -- the year the line that the practice of homosexuality is "incompatible" with Christian teaching was added to the Discipline. And I am now hearing from my more liberal friends and colleagues that they are feeling forced from the church. This is because the influx of a more conservative attitude from the part of the UMC that exists outside of the country is beginning to actually have an impact on the voting at General Conference.

But again, all of this dissension is something that I rarely see taking place on the local level. But if you are concerned about the larger corporate entity, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't think we are finished with our self-imposed quadrennial fight amongst ourselves.

 

[circuitrider]

Thanks again for the input y'all.

That is confusing to me - to allow openly gay believers to join a congregation, but at the same time refuse to ordain or marry them? I mean, I know the risks for the denomination to take the next leap, so I get it...

A lot of us find it confusing. But what it amounts to is that the official position of the UMC is that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. That is reason not to ordain. But even though the official position of the church is that homosexuality is a sin the church has never attempted to keep sinners out of the church. If we started doing that our membership would have to be zero since we are all sinners.

Now, not all United Methodists agree with this position of the Church. But the way United Methodists decide its Discipline is through the process of the General Conference.

I also have friends and loved ones who are GLBT. So it is my hope that some day the UMC will change its position.

 

[circuitrider]

It shouldn't be that confusing. Churches are full of sinners. We have adulterers, liars, porn addicts. If we drove everyone away who would not give up their favorite sin, then the churches would be empty.

Agreed.

But, do you want your pastor to be an adulterer, a liar, or a porn addict? Your relative is as welcome as all the other sinners in the church (and that is everyone). "Reconciling Ministries" is not about welcoming gay people into the church. It is about welcoming them into the clergy. The UMC has drawn the line at that.

And of course here is where the disagreement is. Others believe that people are born gay. And that it is part of who a person is and not a comparable to adultery or addictive behavior but simply a state of being.

Reconciling Ministries is about welcoming LGBT persons into full inclusion in the church meaning anything a straight person could do in the church a LGBT person could do. (And for the record, no I'm not a member of RM).

 

[BryanW92]

And of course here is where the disagreement is. Others believe that people are born gay. And that it is part of who a person is and not a comparable to adultery or addictive behavior but simply a state of being.

Reconciling Ministries is about welcoming LGBT persons into full inclusion in the church meaning anything a straight person could do in the church a LGBT person could do. (And for the record, no I'm not a member of RM).

Everything is a choice. An adulterer would tell you that he can't control who he loves. So would a pedophile. Now I am NOT saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, but they use the same rationale to explain their behavior.

Even things we are born with can be overcome. I stuttered badly for 45 years, but I had to stand up at the end of my Walk to Emmaus and give a testimony of what I had experienced. I asked for a 5 minute reprieve from my disability and got it. And I never stuttered again. I preach in church now when the pastor is gone. I can talk on the phone. I can speak into a microphone.

Of course, there is also the authority of the bible itself. No, I won't quote Leviticus, but there is Romans 1:26-27.

But, even with that, I do support the inclusion of homosexuals as members of the church but I would never support their ordination.

 

[GraceSeeker]

It seems like this issue is popping up in everything I read this week. Here it is in another article:

Homosexuality, the Death Penalty and the Old Testament. . .

 

[GraceSeeker]

That is confusing to me - to allow openly gay believers to join a congregation, but at the same time refuse to ordain or marry them? I mean, I know the risks for the denomination to take the next leap, so I get it...

I cannot speak to "risks for the denomination," but I might give a rationale for the decision which we have made as a denomination.


I believe that the majority of the denomination is of the opinion that the practice of homosexuality is a sinful behavior.

It is one among many sins. We want our members to not be sinners and we don't want them to endorse sins, but we recognize that all are sinners. So, we don't exclude sinners from being a part of the church. If we did, there would be no members in the church.

Likewise, we recognize that the same is true of pastors. But, we do expect that pastors even if not perfect are going on to perfection. This is actually one of the questions put to each and every person who is ordained in the United Methodist Church. Another of the questions put to us is if the candidate has read and can commend our rules.

Now, if a pastor was to be ordained who engaged in something that the church saw to be a sinful behavior, then if he/she was going on to perfection that would mean be willing to confess that sin, repent of it, and leave it behind. Now, we can ask that of people with regard to lots of behaviors, but if the person does not even acknowledge it as sinful behavior, then there would be no reason to change the behavior. Most who practice homosexuality feel that the behavior is NOT sinful. Thus, they could not in good faith promise that they were going to commend our rules, nor could they promise that they were going on to perfection and refrain from practicing that which the church has identified as sinful behavior. They might claim that they were going on to perfection and not see a need to change in this area of their lives, but that would leave them a leader of the church who did not practice what the church taught. So, to me at least, it seems more honest to say to pastor that if they cannot (or perhaps more honestly, will not) keep our rule, than they are welcome to come in and be a part of the congregation with the rest of us sinners, but it is better if they not take on the role of leader in the church.

Similarly, if a person was addicted to any other sin so that they were to refuse to acknowledge it as such and not be willing to at least try to change his/her behavior with regard to it, as a member of the District Committee on Ordained Ministry who reviews candidate, I could not recommend them to be ordained. We do not demand that all candidates be perfect, but we are serious about understanding ourselves as called to be going on to perfection. They are not just words.

 

[circuitrider]

Of course the problem is that a very significant US minority disagrees with the Discipline's position on homosexuality. That is why the subject doesn't go away. Yes the Discipline is clear. But when anywhere from 30-40% (depending on who you read) disagree with the position of the church it makes for problems.

In a sense it is a problem with us deciding doctrine by majority rule. Our official doctrines are listed in the section of the Discipline controlled by the "restrictive rules" and cannot be changed other than by a very difficult constitutional process.

So the official position on homosexuality is not found in our doctrinal standards. It was added at a much later date and so it can be voted in (or out) by a majority rule. This means that the stage is set for a fight to get a 51% vote every four years to change a doctrine that really is not part of our official doctrinal standards which really cannot be changed.

As long as a third or more of the UMC feels the rule on homosexuality is wrong it will continue to be a problem just like it would be a problem if more than 1/3 of my church didn't want me to be pastor. It wouldn't matter that I'm here by appointment if a 1/3 of the people were against me being here it would be difficult and disruptive.

My hope is that we will some day find another solution to our differences on this issue rather than doctrine by simple majority rule.

 

[BryanW92]

My hope is that we will some day find another solution to our differences on this issue rather than doctrine by simple majority rule.

I agree. Changing the Discipline should require more than a simple majority of 50% +1 vote for anything that has biblical teaching against it. Even if there is a biblical case for AND against, the vote should be at least a 2/3 majority because we should never decide the meaning of scripture on a simple majority.

 

[circuitrider]

I agree. Changing the Discipline should require more than a simple majority of 50% +1 vote for anything that has biblical teaching against it. Even if there is a biblical case for AND against, the vote should be at least a 2/3 majority because we should never decide the meaning of scripture on a simple majority.

Frankly, it should have been such a vote to get it into the Discipline in the first place. We have our faith statements set at a very high bar for a reason, so they can't be easily tinkered with.

My understanding is that to change the doctrinal statements in the discipline requires a 3/4th vote of all the members of all the annual conferences.

But the rules on homosexuality ended up in the Discipline on a simple majority vote. I actually do think there is a Biblical case for and against either interpretation.

I think you and I disagree on what the rule should be Bryan. I understand that and I accept that people think differently about this.

My preference would be that the Discipline be silent on the issue since we don't have anywhere near consensus. But I realize that this would be viewed now as a step backwards for those who agree with our current position in the Discipline.

I see it as a shame that a doctrinal issue was allowed to be passed on a majority vote because, IMHO, it sets a bad precedent to get around the restrictive rules and do the same on other potential issues.

 

[BryanW92]

Frankly, it should have been such a vote to get it into the Discipline in the first place. We have our faith statements set at a very high bar for a reason, so they can't be easily tinkered with.

My understanding is that to change the doctrinal statements in the discipline requires a 3/4th vote of all the members of all the annual conferences.

But the rules on homosexuality ended up in the Discipline on a simple majority vote. I actually do think there is a Biblical case for and against either interpretation.

I think you and I disagree on what the rule should be Bryan. I understand that and I accept that people think differently about this.

My preference would be that the Discipline be silent on the issue since we don't have anywhere near consensus. But I realize that this would be viewed now as a step backwards for those who agree with our current position in the Discipline.

I see it as a shame that a doctrinal issue was allowed to be passed on a majority vote because, IMHO, it sets a bad precedent to get around the restrictive rules and do the same on other potential issues.

I made my position quite clear a couple posts ago.

My concern about the Discipline being silent on this issue is that silence is consent. Al Gore said it best when he spoke of "no controlling legal authority". Without that original vote to put it in the Discipline, we would have openly gay pastors in the UMC today. After all, we do currently look the other way at gay pastors in the UMC as long as they claim to be celibate and "non-practicing". Is that correct?

 

[circuitrider]

I made my position quite clear a couple posts ago.

My concern about the Discipline being silent on this issue is that silence is consent. Al Gore said it best when he spoke of "no controlling legal authority". Without that original vote to put it in the Discipline, we would have openly gay pastors in the UMC today. After all, we do currently look the other way at gay pastors in the UMC as long as they claim to be celibate and "non-practicing". Is that correct?

I disagree that silence is consent. But I understand why one could think so.

Silence would allow United Methodists of different views to be able to live by their understandings of the scripture on this issue. Choosing not to forbid someone else from doing something you won't do isn't consent. It is a recognition of the right to differences.

As an example, you might notice I'm a Democrat. I don't think anyone should vote for any Republican right now given what the party is doing. But you have every right to vote Republican if you want to. You don't have my consent you simply have a my recognition of your right to disagree with me.

Of course I am obedient to our Discipline even in this one area where I disagree with it.

 

[BryanW92]

As an example, you might notice I'm a Democrat. I don't think anyone should vote for any Republican right now given what the party is doing. But you have every right to vote Republican if you want to. You don't have my consent you simply have a my recognition of your right to disagree with me.

When I say "silence is consent", I'm not talking about you granting me the right to vote for whoever I choose. You lack the legal authority to control my vote.

The Discipline does have the authority to stop the leaders of the church from doing certain things. I'm saying that if the Discipline did not expressly forbid the ordination of practicing homosexuals, that would be interpreted as permission to do it. They would say, "there's nothing that forbids it, so it must be acceptable."

 

[BryanW92]

Silence would allow United Methodists of different views to be able to live by their understandings of the scripture on this issue. Choosing not to forbid someone else from doing something you won't do isn't consent. It is a recognition of the right to differences.

This particular issue extends to more than just understanding of scripture. We can disagree on eschatology or the nature of tithing in the New Testament and not rip our church apart.

But, the Bishop decides who we get as a pastor. I could attend a particular UM church for many years and watch it grow as I work and give and sacrifice for it. Then, the Bishop could send us an openly gay pastor. I (and many others) believe that he is an unrepentant sinner, so I have to choose to leave my church or to accept someone as my pastor who I do not believe is qualified.

If the UMC was a denomination where congregations owned their property and hired their pastors, then I would say that we could ordain gay pastors because they could serve congregations that accept them. But, we have no control over who we get as a pastor and I have experienced first-hand the destruction caused by a Bishop who sends a pastor who is incompatible with the congregation. My church is still recovering from that appointment, if it ever recovers.

I'm not saying that we should own our property or hire our pastors, but this is why the UMC should err on the side of caution on this issue.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I agree. Changing the Discipline should require more than a simple majority of 50% +1 vote for anything that has biblical teaching against it. Even if there is a biblical case for AND against, the vote should be at least a 2/3 majority because we should never decide the meaning of scripture on a simple majority.

Frankly, it should have been such a vote to get it into the Discipline in the first place. We have our faith statements set at a very high bar for a reason, so they can't be easily tinkered with.

My understanding is that to change the doctrinal statements in the discipline requires a 3/4th vote of all the members of all the annual conferences.

I attended the 1972 General Conference where the "incompatable" line was added to the Discipline. It came about specifically because there had been the response of the church in many places to turn away gay pastors, and those who felt this unfair were arguing what Bryan has mentioned below.

When I say "silence is consent", I'm not talking about you granting me the right to vote for whoever I choose. You lack the legal authority to control my vote.

The Discipline does have the authority to stop the leaders of the church from doing certain things. I'm saying that if the Discipline did not expressly forbid the ordination of practicing homosexuals, that would be interpreted as permission to do it. They would say, "there's nothing that forbids it, so it must be acceptable."

So, so everyone who came to the General Conference seeking to get more specificity in the Discipline on this topic. There were organized protests on both sides. At the time, I have to confess, I was caught up in a trend to grant more rights to everyone for everything -- we had just gotten through the 60s -- thus I was willing to be part of that movement even though I had never ever studied the issue.

Still the decision that was made while not required to be more than a 50% + 1 vote was an overwhelming 2:1 statement.

As for the 3/4 majority vote requirement on some issues, that is not for changing our Doctrinal Statement, but for when we seek to change our Constitution.