United Methodist bishops want to let pastors, conferences decide on LGBT clergy

[redleghunter]

Title:
United Methodist bishops want to let pastors, conferences decide on LGBT clergy
Religion News Service (RNS)
By Emily McFarlan Miller

Excerpt:

CHICAGO (RNS) — The bishops of the United Methodist Church have endorsed a plan that would allow individual pastors and regional bodies to make their own decisions on whether to perform same-sex weddings and ordain LGBT people as clergy.

The Council of Bishops recommended the One Church Plan, on Friday (May 4), after nearly a week of meetings in Chicago, according to a council press release.

“The Council’s prayerful deliberation reflected the diversity of the global denomination on the matter of homosexuality and many other matters,” Bishop Ken Carter, president of the Council of Bishops, said in the release.

“The Council affirms the strength of this diversity and our commitment to maintain the unity of the church.”

drawing to a stalemate at a contentious meeting of global delegates at the 2016 General Conference in Portland, Ore.

Remainder of the article here:

United Methodist bishops want to let pastors, conferences decide on LGBT clergy - Religion News Service

Opinion piece on this move from Mark Tooley:

Excerpt:

The debate that has roiled the United Methodist Church is a conflict not only about truth telling and covenant, which would entail the topic of “conscience,” but something fundamental to Methodism, something that constitutes its DNA.

We have within the UMC competing and contradictory visions of holiness of heart and life.

Yet holiness is the fundamental organizing principle, the trajectory, and the goal of Methodism, even in its modern forms. Wesley founded a movement to “spread scriptural holiness across the land,” and that same drive was retained by both the EUB and the Methodist Church. Holiness is at the heart of Methodism. It is our DNA. In fact, it’s the reason we exist at all.

[...]

Within the last few decades a newer vision of holiness (and I do think that there are Wesleyan emphases within the progressive wing of the UMC, even if they have reinterpreted the language of Wesley) has arisen and within that vision is calling for the ordination of persons in same-sex relationships and marriage services for persons of the same gender. This is done in the name of inclusivity, embrace, and a concept of the Church as a place of radical welcome. It is, however, a departure from traditional Wesleyan norms as it has redefined key Wesleyan understandings of basic biblical terms such as love, welcome, sin, conversion, and salvation.

Redefining shared core terms, however, is the end of unity. Professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, has written that, “shared belief systems [make] people intelligible to one another.” We have become unintelligible to one another while talking about what makes Methodism Methodist.

As I have told progressive friends, I get it. I see their argument. And, I can see that it also stems from Wesley’s radical call for any and every sinner to “come to the Gospel feast.” One key difference is that it does not call for the transformation of persons away from sin as traditionally understood, but rather toward a community of radical welcome (which is itself a form of transformation).​

Remainder of OPED here:

https://juicyecumenism.com/2018/05/...ous-exit/?mc_cid=c5194215bd&mc_eid=688ab137ca

 

[Liza B.]

I predict now that the United Methodist Church will either suffer a further fracturing or go the way of so many mainline churches that have taken similar stances.

Also. God help us.

 

[redleghunter]

I predict now that the United Methodist Church will either suffer a further fracturing or go the way of so many mainline churches that have taken similar stances.

Also. God help us.

Did you see the part where they discussed changing the Book of Discipline. Nothing like having a fluid church discipline.

 

[hedrick]

This is done in the name of inclusivity, embrace, and a concept of the Church as a place of radical welcome. ​

​

Partly. But you don't ordain clergy and bishops just for welcome. You also don't do it because of the culture or any of the other things I've seen. You do it because many people don't think there is a moral difference between sex and marriage involving the opposite sex and the same sex.

 

[redleghunter]

​

Partly. But you don't ordain clergy and bishops just for welcome. You also don't do it because of the culture or any of the other things I've seen. You do it because many people don't think there is a moral difference between sex and marriage involving the opposite sex and the same sex.

When you say moral, what is that based on with regards to this division in the UMC? The Scriptures are clear, their Book of Discipline is clear. What changed?

Perhaps a UMC member could elaborate.

 

[hedrick]

Did you see the part where they discussed changing the Book of Discipline. Nothing like having a fluid church discipline.

It was added in 1972. There was disagreement at the time. It was obvious at the time that positions were going to be changing. That sort of guarantees a fluid Book of Discipline.

 

[redleghunter]

It was added in 1972. There was disagreement at the time. It was obvious at the time that positions were going to be changing. That sort of guarantees a fluid Book of Discipline.

Perhaps a UMC member can shed light on how morals change over time.

 

[creslaw]

Perhaps a UMC member can shed light on how morals change over time.

I think you start by inventing alternate interpretations of Scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

​

Partly. But you don't ordain clergy and bishops just for welcome. You also don't do it because of the culture or any of the other things I've seen. You do it because many people don't think there is a moral difference between sex and marriage involving the opposite sex and the same sex.

Exactly. For those of us who believe in it, our motivation is not so shallow as a desire to be popular. Look around at this forum, full inclusion of gays in ministry is hardly popular among fervent Christians.

 

[Albion]

I cannot imagine how this One Church Plan would be understood by anyone on any side of the issue to be a compromise.

 

[FireDragon76]

It was added in 1972. There was disagreement at the time. It was obvious at the time that positions were going to be changing. That sort of guarantees a fluid Book of Discipline.

In reality it was probably a stopgap measure to try to shut up an emerging controversy.

Many people may be unaware it was a United Methodist church that gave refuge to a Metropolitan Community Church congregation after their own place of worship was burned down in New Orleans in 1973, which until the Pulse attack, was the worst massacre of gays in US history. Every other church in New Orleans at that time refused to offer assistance in allowing funerals to be held for the gay men that were killed when a church service was firebombed at the Upstairs Lounge.

I mentioned Mr. Roger's on another thread. He was gay affirmed even back in the late 60's, as a mainline Presbyterian. He just didn't want to geopardize his ministry by being too open about it. Many mainline Protestants simply bid their time until societal attitudes changed and they could broach the subject with people in the pews. But that doesn't mean they were not already rethinking things themselves.

 

[FireDragon76]

I cannot imagine how this One Church Plan would be understood by anyone on any side of the issue to be a compromise.

Like alot of other mainline churches approach, it's an "agree to disagree" stance that will probably leave few people happy and will undoubtedly lead to some people leaving.

 

[Albion]

Like alot of other mainline churches approach, it's an "agree to disagree" stance that will probably leave few people happy and will undoubtedly lead to some people leaving.

On second thought, there probably is something in it for the opponents of change to the extent that it agrees, I assume, that the bishops and districts which choose not to change will not be forced to do so by the larger church. That failed to hold up in TEC, but things may be different in the UMC where the sides are more evenly balanced.

 

[Anto9us]

It seems surreal to me that the local UMC church I will go to tomorrow is even a part of all this, but of course it is, by connection to Global United Methodism.

What is the Methodist Church UNITED FROM? From the slavery issues that held on for decades and decades, when there use to be The Methodist-Episcopal Church South. Culture changed. NOBODY is "pro-slavery" anymore except those who profit from human trafficking. Culture changed even though the Bible has statements that can be construed as condoning slavery.

Just like before, culture changed Methodism from being "a movement within the Anglican Church" to its own Methodist Church -- for that change we can thank our existence as a nation -- Church of England was not too popular in America after we declared our independence and began a Revolutionary War.

I have posted before in the Wesley's Parish sub-forum (For Methodists and Nazarenes) that I have my misgivings about the globalism of Methodism; it includes many African people, very conservative, who would NEVER go for any "gay-accepting/gay-affirming" business at all.

Albion said "the sides are more evenly balanced" (than the earlier situation in Episcopal Church) -- but it's only more balanced in American, European and Australian Methodism. Because of the African contingent -- a global change to "gay accepting" has very little chance of success, about nil.

I don't know what to think about the ONE CHURCH MODEL here -- I think it is more about preserving the existence of UMC corporately -- rather than any 'moral' solution or biblical solution.

There is the Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodists, and the Church of the Nazarene as personal options to me if a stance is taken by UMC that I cannot live with. I don't want to be negative, but I am inclined to think a split/schism is inevitable.

 

[hedrick]

On second thought, there probably is something in it for the opponents of change to the extent that it agrees, I assume, that the bishops and districts which choose not to change will not be forced to do so by the larger church. That failed to hold up in TEC, but things may be different in the UMC where the sides are more evenly balanced.

I'm not sure how much this is true. One Church is local option. I haven't seen details, and it may be that they aren't available yet. But it appears that local option can be used at any level: congregation, annual conference, jurisdiction. That means that churches that don't accept gays aren't protected from being under a gay bishop. They are protected from being forced to conduct gay marriage, and I'd hope having a gay pastor.

One of the other models would permit churches to move to a different annual conference or jurisdiction to avoid this.

 

[Anto9us]

I can envision really a split into three different churches -- one, like in One Church Model, is globalism for the sake of globalism, unity for the sake of Unity; a corporate "don't rock the boat"-ism

The other two identified purely by the homosexuality issue.

What would they call the gay-accepting section of Methodists after this split --

THE FLAMING METHODIST CHURCH?

How bout the non-gay-accepting ones -- would they be

THE QUEER-HATIN' METHODIST CHURCH?

I hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure how much this is true. One Church is local option. I haven't seen details, and it may be that they aren't available yet. But it appears that local option can be used at any level: congregation, annual conference, jurisdiction. That means that churches that don't accept gays aren't protected from being under a gay bishop. They are protected from being forced to conduct gay marriage, and I'd hope having a gay pastor.

One of the other models would permit churches to move to a different annual conference or jurisdiction to avoid this.

Could be. I realize that without having more familiarity with the UMC polity, I am instinctively referring to the Episcopal Church precedent even though I know the two situations are not identical.

 

[Anto9us]

I, for one, greatly appreciate the contributions of hedrick and Albion in this matter. Though not Methodists, their comments are very apropos (sp?) and Episcopal and Presbyterian history in like circumstances is quite germane to the UMC current ongoings.

 

[Choir Loft]

* * * *
Excerpt:

The debate that has roiled the United Methodist Church is a conflict not only about truth telling and covenant, which would entail the topic of “conscience,” but something fundamental to Methodism, something that constitutes its DNA.

We have within the UMC competing and contradictory visions of holiness of heart and life.

Yet holiness is the fundamental organizing principle, the trajectory, and the goal of Methodism, even in its modern forms. Wesley founded a movement to “spread scriptural holiness across the land,” and that same drive was retained by both the EUB and the Methodist Church. Holiness is at the heart of Methodism. It is our DNA. In fact, it’s the reason we exist at all.

[...]

Within the last few decades a newer vision of holiness (and I do think that there are Wesleyan emphases within the progressive wing of the UMC, even if they have reinterpreted the language of Wesley) has arisen and within that vision is calling for the ordination of persons in same-sex relationships and marriage services for persons of the same gender. This is done in the name of inclusivity, embrace, and a concept of the Church as a place of radical welcome. It is, however, a departure from traditional Wesleyan norms as it has redefined key Wesleyan understandings of basic biblical terms such as love, welcome, sin, conversion, and salvation.

Redefining shared core terms, however, is the end of unity. Professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, has written that, “shared belief systems [make] people intelligible to one another.” We have become unintelligible to one another while talking about what makes Methodism Methodist.

As I have told progressive friends, I get it. I see their argument. And, I can see that it also stems from Wesley’s radical call for any and every sinner to “come to the Gospel feast.” One key difference is that it does not call for the transformation of persons away from sin as traditionally understood, but rather toward a community of radical welcome (which is itself a form of transformation).​

Nowhere in the above article nor in all the posts that followed did I discover so much as an iota of concern about what God has to say about all this....

Apparently nobody cares much.

For those who are curious, I suggest a romp through the pages of the Good Book with the goal in mind of how God defines holiness, transformation, sin, salvation and conversion. Then again those who are afraid of what may be found there may be reluctant to open the book. I completely understand.

There is no mention in the UMC about sin or repentance. Hasn't been for quite a while. I know. I sat in their pews for a number of years and watched as the whole enterprise began circling the drain. It's all about inclusion, except for the Almighty. He's out, by the way - replaced by the dictates of the In Crowd.

As to what pleases God or what doesn't, apparently everybody assumes He who sits upon the Great White Throne is politically correct with regard to the current American version of licentiousness. If the UMC can't figure a way to justify sin, then they redefine it or simply ignore it.

If a Methodist leader is afraid to tell someone they may suffer the Second Death because such words may cause them to stop attending meetings and thus decrease the expected donations, then what sort of spiritual guidance is at work?

If a Methodist leader is afraid to make a political stand and speak truth about the sitting POTUS or the tendency of America to go to war without just cause because of fear their 501(c)3 exemption might be pulled, then what sort of moral compass is being employed if any?

"If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in Christianity, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that their very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it."​

- Charles Finney

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and the flesh."
- Jesus as quoted by Mathew 6:24

The Methodist church is Ichabod now....

If the reader wishes to discover a walk with Jesus, he or she will have to look elsewhere. The UMC is in the dark about such things. Devoid of divine guidance and revelation they are creating their own inspiration out of the sludge they are using as a recipe for success. The confection they present to the world will taste good in the mouth of everyone who tries it, but make the stomach sick with the cancer of debauchery.

"...'as I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die..."
- Ezekiel 33:11

The UMC has abandoned God, turned its back upon holiness and that which pleases Him. Affirming a gospel other than what is given to us in the Bible is forbidden and not profitable for anyone.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

 

[redleghunter]

An update on the UMC statement on sexuality:

“At the 2016 General Conference, the Council of Bishops proposed the formation of a Commission on a Way Forward to examine and possible revise every paragraph of the Book of Discipline concerning human sexuality. A special General Conference on Feb. 23-26, 2019 will take up proposals related to church unity and homosexuality.” (http://www.umc.org/topics/topic-human-sexuality-homosexuality)

Apparently they meet in a few days for a special general conference:

A Special Session of the General Conference of The United Methodist Church takes place February 23-26, 2019 in St. Louis, Missouri. The purpose will be to receive and act on a report from the Commission on a Way Forward based on the recommendations of the Council of Bishops. The Commission was authorized to examine paragraphs in The Book of Discipline concerning human sexuality and to explore options to strengthen church unity.

2019 Special Session of the General Conference – The United Methodist Church