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

[redleghunter]

More:

Summary of the sketches of the models

Here is a summary of the two sketches in process. Details may change based on the work of the Commission at its next meeting.

ONE CHURCH MODEL

• The One Church Model gives churches the room they need to maximize the presence of United Methodist witness in as many places in the world as possible. The One Church Model provides a generous unity that gives conferences, churches, and pastors the flexibility to uniquely reach their missional context in relation to human sexuality without changing the connectional nature of The United Methodist Church.

MULTI-BRANCH: ONE CHURCH MODEL

• This model is grounded in a unified core that includes shared doctrine and services and one Council of Bishops, while also creating different branches that have clearly defined values such as accountability, contextualization and justice. The five U.S. jurisdictions would be replaced by three connectional conferences, each covering the whole country, based on theology and perspective on LGBTQ ministry (i.e. progressive, contextual, traditional branches). Annual conferences would decide which connectional conference to affiliate with; only local churches who choose a branch other than the one chosen by their annual conference would vote to join another conference.

 

[hedrick]

There's actually a third model, which I think is more likely to pass: the Traditional Model. It leaves prohibitions again ordination of gays in place, strengthens enforcement, and makes it easier to leave. It is likely to lead to (and is probably intended to lead to), the three Northern jurisdictions withdrawing.

The Judicial Council has ruled some of the enforcement unconstitutional. My reading is that it is still sufficiently punitive that it would force a number of conferences and bishops to withdraw. However details are likely to change at the meeting.

It's probably not clear from your summary: the One Church model removes the prohibitions against ordination of gays, but doesn't require accepting them. It's roughly what the other mainline churches have done. While it's intended to allow coexistence, a number of conservative churches are organizing to withdraw if it's passed.

The multi-branch model (not the official terminology) isn't being seriously considered. It requires lots of constitutional amendments, and is thus impractical.

 

[redleghunter]

It's probably not clear from your summary: the One Church model removes the prohibitions against ordination of gays, but doesn't require accepting them. It's roughly what the other mainline churches have done. While it's intended to allow coexistence, a number of conservative churches are organizing to withdraw if it's passed.

I believe there were links to more information in the summary statement.

Edit here is the link:

Bishops' website spotlights One Church Plan | United Methodist News Service

 

[FireDragon76]

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?​

​

I don't think you understand the motivations of the average UMC pastor, their motivations are typically not so self-serving. I was raised in the Methodist church and all the pastors I had genuinely cared about people. Financial considerations were far down on the list, and at any rate, were not their decisions to make. Their job was just to minister.

Most people in our culture are quite aware of the disapproval and condemnation of gays by conservative Christians. The only thing that could be served by the sort of approach you describe, would be to risk alienating a gay person from Christ altogether. So consequently, most mainline churches take a far more nuanced and less abrasive approach to these issues.

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.

It's easy to be an armchair theologian like that and say irresponsible things, it's much harder to actually be involved and care about real people as a pastor.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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.


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

Decide? The Word of God has spoken on this issue. It's not going to change no matter how much people want to do what they want to do and pretend God approves.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

​

I don't think you understand the motivations of the average UMC pastor, their motivations are typically not so self-serving. I was raised in the Methodist church and all the pastors I had genuinely cared about people. Financial considerations were far down on the list, and at any rate, were not their decisions to make. Their job was just to minister.

Most people in our culture are quite aware of the disapproval and condemnation of gays by conservative Christians. The only thing that could be served by the sort of approach you describe, would be to risk alienating a gay person from Christ altogether. So consequently, most mainline churches take a far more nuanced and less abrasive approach to these issues.



It's easy to be an armchair theologian like that and say irresponsible things, it's much harder to actually be involved and care about real people as a pastor.

The bolded is flat out wrong.

NO ONE with even a scintilla of biblical understanding "disapproves and condemns the PEOPLE (engaging in homosexuality).

The condemnation is not of others, but in the Word of God against certain ACTIVITIES.

Jesus forgave the "woman caught in adultery" but he also said, "Go and SIN NO MORE". He never said, "What you are doing is great, and I approve". God had already spoken about adultery and he has already spoken about same sex behavior.

 

[FireDragon76]

The bolded is flat out wrong.

NO ONE with even a scintilla of biblical understanding "disapproves and condemns the PEOPLE (engaging in homosexuality).

The condemnation is not of others, but in the Word of God against certain ACTIVITIES.

Jesus forgave the "woman caught in adultery" but he also said, "Go and SIN NO MORE". He never said, "What you are doing is great, and I approve". God had already spoken about adultery and he has already spoken about same sex behavior.

The old "Hate the sin, love the sinner" stuff is well worn, few people can take it seriously anymore. People are more psychologically complicated than that.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The old "Hate the sin, love the sinner" stuff is well worn, few people can take it seriously anymore. People are more psychologically complicated than that.

It's only the truth. If they can't take the truth, well, that explains why there are so many preaching "what their itching ears want to hear".

ANYONE who is engaged in any variety of sexual sin, but thinks God is just fine with it because hey, this is 2019, is wrong.