Methodist minister marries gay son

[lucaspa]

Methodist minister won't surrender credentials in gay-marriage dispute - latimes.com

Once again we Methodists have to deal with the confrontation between a prohibition of the denomination (Book of Discipline) and individual conscience and relationship with God.

It is customary for minister parents to officiate at the marriage of their children. However, Rev Shaefer is forbidden to do so because his son is gay. In this case, he followed his conscience and his love for his son and did the marriage. For this he is punished.

As a denomination, we welcome gay and lesbian members, but deny them full participation and love. While we attest that everyone is a sinner, somehow being gay (not a choice) is given special treatment. If Rev Shaefer had committed adultery, no one would be considering revoking his credentials as a minister. Adultery, somehow, is not "inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle". But a monogamous, loving gay marriage is?

This makes no sense within the ideals of the UMC. This contradictory attitude cannot, IMHO, continue. Historically, behavior contrary to the ideals of a group at the minimum causes conflict, and eventually either the group is destroyed or the behavior is abandoned. As just one secular example, look what slavery -- behavior contrary to "all men are created equal" -- did to the USA.

At the last General Conference refused to discuss the issue. IMHO, the situation is not stable and it will not go away by ignoring it.

 

[circuitrider]

Yes, it is a shame in 1972 that the addition were made to the Discipline prohibiting same sex marriage. It has actually set up some real contradictions in the Discipline and cause some people like Schaefer to have to choose between the gospel and the Discipline.

Rev. Schaefer has been offered a ministry position by Bishop Carcano. If this would need Schaefer's ministry needs I hope he considers taking it.

 

[BryanW92]

Adultery, somehow, is not "inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle". But a monogamous, loving gay marriage is?

Really?? Is it acceptable for a UM pastor to commit adultery? Is it acceptable for a UM pastor to aid and promote adultery?

Remember that we are supposed to be welcoming to gays as members, so the issue is not with merely "allowing" adulterers to sit in the pews on Sunday morning. I'm talking about actual enabling and promotion of a sinful lifestyle. Do UM pastors do that for the heterosexuals who just want to "get a little strange"?

Or, if I came to you as married member of your congregation and confessed that I'm falling for a divorced woman in the church, and I know that she likes me too, would you counsel me to act on that and see where it takes me and that you hope that you can officiate at the wedding some day (after my divorce, of course)?

Don't claim that this is reducto ad absurdum either. It happened, except that my pastor detected it rather than me bringing it to him. Now, he was a strong LGBT advocate and believed in gay marriage, but he put the brakes on where I was going very strongly!

Sin is sin. Just because you think that "you are born this way" does not make it less of a sin. We are ALL born sinners.

 

[WiredSpirit]

Wow OP, from your title I thought we had some incest going on.

Matthew 7:5 GPV
"First remove your head from your own rear before worrying about what your brother puts in his."

 

[BryanW92]

I thought we had some incest going on.
"

All in due time. Be patient. Let's get gay marriage normalized in society first.

 

[talitha]

Pardon me - obviously I'm not Methodist, but I was raised Methodist, and my dad is a retired pastor in the UMC. If the pastor will not surrender his credentials - what's to keep the Bishop from appointing someone in his place and refusing to appoint him? He can keep the piece of paper, right?

 

[Creech]

Really?? Is it acceptable for a UM pastor to commit adultery? Is it acceptable for a UM pastor to aid and promote adultery?

Remember that we are supposed to be welcoming to gays as members, so the issue is not with merely "allowing" adulterers to sit in the pews on Sunday morning. I'm talking about actual enabling and promotion of a sinful lifestyle. Do UM pastors do that for the heterosexuals who just want to "get a little strange"?

Or, if I came to you as married member of your congregation and confessed that I'm falling for a divorced woman in the church, and I know that she likes me too, would you counsel me to act on that and see where it takes me and that you hope that you can officiate at the wedding some day (after my divorce, of course)?

Don't claim that this is reducto ad absurdum either. It happened, except that my pastor detected it rather than me bringing it to him. Now, he was a strong LGBT advocate and believed in gay marriage, but he put the brakes on where I was going very strongly!

Sin is sin. Just because you think that "you are born this way" does not make it less of a sin. We are ALL born sinners.

Great points.

 

[WiredSpirit]

Pardon me - obviously I'm not Methodist, but I was raised Methodist, and my dad is a retired pastor in the UMC. If the pastor will not surrender his credentials - what's to keep the Bishop from appointing someone in his place and refusing to appoint him? He can keep the piece of paper, right?

I imagine being officially defrocked (which, btw, he is now) it complicates things a little if he wants to continue to perform marriages or, say, serve a Disciples or United Church of Christ congregation.

There's nothing to say he can't be hired by an individual congregation though, and it looks like he's going to be at Foundry in Washington, DC. He was also offered a position in the California-Pacific conference.

Seeing that the attitudes at my own church in Indiana have softened to the point supporters aren't bashful about sharing their views anymore, I imagine we'll take a sizable step forward in 2016, at least allowing same sex marriage where it is legal.

 

[talitha]

So you guys see allowing same-sex marriage as a step forward? okay.. ttfn!

 

[BryanW92]

So you guys see allowing same-sex marriage as a step forward? okay.. ttfn!

No, we don't!! Some do, but they are in a very vocal minority.

 

[circuitrider]

So you guys see allowing same-sex marriage as a step forward? okay.. ttfn!

Yes Talitha, some of us do.

 

[circuitrider]

No, we don't!! Some do, but they are in a very vocal minority.

Actually Bryan it depends on what you mean by "minority." If you take only the US delegates to General Conference the majority of those delegates would allow same sex marriage. However the UMC delegates in Africa, largely, are more conservative and currently have kept this from happening.

In some conferences of the UMC the majority want the Discipline to change and in other conferences the majority does no want the Discipline to change.

The UMC isn not uniform.

 

[Amisk Dolcy]

Yep! Ministers and all Christians are wrestling with the Gay marriages issue.

The church leadership is also struggles with the problem. Which way should the Church denominational fathers, and the ministers in the pulpit vote?

That too will be the stormy question on Judgment Day.

Here is the second question that must be answered if the church fathers, the ministers in the pulpit and the man in the pew are to stand before the Judge of all mankind on judgment day. Remember we are not judged by Bishops, or Ministers of the local church nor our deacons.

The big question with answer remains: what does Scripture tells us about the Homosexual life style? That is the question that will haunt our conscience on Judgment Day.

 

[WiredSpirit]

No, we don't!! Some do, but they are in a very vocal minority.

Among people with the Methodist faith icon, it's 4-1 in favor in this thread. I'm not sure what you're seeing, but seeing how much support marriage equality has in a conservative state like Indiana, I can't imagine there's any possibility the opposition is the majority.

What is the attitude among our largest churches (COR, Granger, Ginghamsburg, etc.)?

 

[Basil the Great]

As civil gay marriage continues to spread across the United States, in an ever increasing number of states, one can see the day where the UMC could well split over this issue, with most of the Northern parishes supporting a change and most of the Southern ones standing firm. It could almost be like the Civil War all over again, except that thank God there would be no bloodshed this time.

 

[circuitrider]

As civil gay marriage continues to spread across the United States, in an ever increasing number of states, one can see the day where the UMC could well split over this issue, with most of the Northern parishes supporting a change and most of the Southern ones standing firm. It could almost be like the Civil War all over again, except that thank God there would be no bloodshed this time.

There is often talk of a split but it is easier to talk about than to do. It would be a very complicated thing to figure out how to split assets, agencies, properties etc.

 

[Historicus]

As civil gay marriage continues to spread across the United States, in an ever increasing number of states, one can see the day where the UMC could well split over this issue, with most of the Northern parishes supporting a change and most of the Southern ones standing firm. It could almost be like the Civil War all over again, except that thank God there would be no bloodshed this time.

Actually that's not the case.

If a split were to occur (er...or more likely "become official" at this point) it would be nowhere near a north-south split. It would be a mix of congregations in the same geographic locations. That's what is so messy about this issue. More likely it would be urban congregations with the exception being on the coasts where the support is strongest.

 

[circuitrider]

Actually that's not the case.

If a split were to occur (er...or more likely "become official" at this point) it would be nowhere near a north-south split. It would be a mix of congregations in the same geographic locations. That's what is so messy about this issue. More likely it would be urban congregations with the exception being on the coasts where the support is strongest.

True. And I don't know how we'd do it polity wise. Individual congregations can't by Discipline vote to leave and their property would revert to the UMC if they did.

I suppose individual conferences could vote to break away but each conference would have local churches for and against such a move.

As far as I know there is no Disciplinary procedure for any kind of split.

 

[VolRaider]

Among people with the Methodist faith icon, it's 4-1 in favor in this thread. I'm not sure what you're seeing, but seeing how much support marriage equality has in a conservative state like Indiana, I can't imagine there's any possibility the opposition is the majority.

What is the attitude among our largest churches (COR, Granger, Ginghamsburg, etc.)?

Make that 4-2. The Southern US conferences are on par with Africa.

 

[BryanW92]

Among people with the Methodist faith icon, it's 4-1 in favor in this thread. I'm not sure what you're seeing, but seeing how much support marriage equality has in a conservative state like Indiana, I can't imagine there's any possibility the opposition is the majority.

What is the attitude among our largest churches (COR, Granger, Ginghamsburg, etc.)?

A thread on an internet forum is not a representative sample of the people who sit in the pews on Sunday. We already know that the clergy tends to lean left in the UMC. If you look at all threads on the WP, you'll find that there aren't that many active posters but that quite a few have the donkey right next to the cross and flame.