Para. 2702.3 & 2703.3 of UM Discipline

[revanneosl]

Hello my friends,

I am looking at Part VI, chapter 7 of the Book of Discipline, specifically at the paragraphs pertaining to charges and ecclesiastical trial of a layperson. I was surprised to discover that there seems to be no limitation to who may bring a complaint. I am relatively unfamiliar with this area of church polity, so can somebody with more knowlege advise me: is it really true that any person can make an official complaint against a UM layperson in violation of one of the provisions of para. 2702.3?

 

[revanneosl]

Oh hey nevermind. Looks like the answer to my question will eventually be on the front page of the Washington Post.

 

[Anto9us]

UMC may charge Sessions about the children separation?

 

[revanneosl]

It's looking like it. Usually these sort of complaints are reconciled at either the Pastoral Consultation level, or at the Superintendency level. If AG Sessions will accept counsel, and repent, then a trial could be avoided.

 

[Anto9us]

This is not a good way for Methodists to MAKE THE NEWS...

 

[hedrick]

That's the nature of a connectional church. Also PCUSA and others. Recall that in the battles over gays, pastors have often been accused by someone in a different part of the country. This would be an unusual kind of disciplinary case though.

 

[Anto9us]

I don't really think anything will come of the Sessions deal; and I still have hopes that come April 2019 there will be some sort of compromise that will avoid a split -- it will just be really hard to keep all Methodists together -- but it might be done.

 

[hedrick]

A compromise is only possible if conservatives are willing to continue in a denomination where gays are accepted somewhere else in the denomination. I had previously said that this compromise had failed in all other denominations, I'm not so sure that is true. ELCA and PCUSA both accepted what is in effect local option. Many conservatives weren't happy, but I think some moderate conservatives would have had to have accepted it for it to pass.

What is true is that the same compromise now proposed by the bishops (local option) has failed in the past in the UMC. But maybe with a split imminent, enough moderates will support it.

 

[Anto9us]

A compromise is only possible if conservatives are willing to continue in a denomination where gays are accepted somewhere else in the denomination.

There might be enough moderates that would accept that.

 

[hedrick]

There might be enough moderates that would accept that.

Would you feel more comfortable with a plan that separates the groups, so conservatives have a conservative DS and bishop?

 

[Anto9us]

I think so. Non-gay-accepting conservatives have a right to know that their pastors, DS and Bishop would be of their sentiment; and gay-accepting moderates and liberals have a right to know that their pastors, DS and Bishop would align with their views. But you asking and me answering just now makes me feel incredibly strange, and more awkward than 'comfortable'.

 

[bekkilyn]

So what about all the churches that are mixed conservative/liberal and everything in between? Would we then need to make sure there is a like-minded pastor for each political sub-group within the church, and then how are the smaller churches/charges to afford to keep all of these pastors?

It's yet another reason why it's ridiculous to split over something that is not core theological doctrine.

 

[Anto9us]

It IS ridiculous; it is one of Meldenius' NON-ESSENTIALS, imo, but ridiculous or not, a split might happen.