Judical Council decisions are outrageous

I am grateful for the faithful witness of the Rev. Beth Stroud and other LGBT United Methodists during these difficult days. Our denomination is resisiting the movement of God toward full inclusion and reconciliation. Decisions (1027 and 1032) issued recently by the United Methodist Judicial Council are outrageous. They demonstrate that this Judical Council is determined -- no matter what --  to discriminate against LGBT United Methodists.   

Decision 1032 is the worst. Other rulings about sexual orientation issues will be embarrashing to almost everyone when they read them 2o years from now. Decision 1032 --which permits pastors to deny church membership based on sexual orientation, and perhaps for pretty much any reason -- is embarrashing now to anyone who has a basic grasp of the English language.

The ruling hinges on our understanding of the word "may." Read what the Judicial Council has said:

Paragraph 214 [of the Book of Discipline] states: "Eligibility – The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may [emphasis added] attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . . ” The operative word in connection with the phrase "become members in any local church in the connection" is "may." Decision 930 established the premise that "shall" cannot be used to replace "may" in the Discipline. Thus the General Conference has determined that any person “may” become a member of any local church in the connection.

This is a most amazing and twisted way to interpret the word "may" in this circumstance. The council's argument makes no sense.

Yes, the word "may" is permissive, but in this case the subject of the verb "may" is clearly "all people," not the pastor or local church. It is "all  people"  who  may "become members in any local church in the connection."

The Judicial Council's argument that the Discipline does not say "shall" is nonsensical. What sense would it make to substitute "shall" for "may".  Then the sentence would read: "All people shall attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . ” 

Obviously the two alternatives here are not "may" or  "shall," but "may" or "may not."  If the Book of Discipline does not mean to allow "all people" to choose to join our churches, it should say, "All people may or may not ... become members in any local church in the connection . .  . ”

I do strongly agree with one statement in Decision 1032: "may means may." Yes, it does. And "all people may ... become members of any local church in the connection ..."  May means may.

In Decision 1027, the Judicial Council argues that Beth Stroud's orginal trial was fair because she was not discriminated against due to her status. This is what the Judicial Council says about this:

The lack of a definition for “status” does not deny Rev. Stroud due or fair process. She can and has asserted that her ministerial office has been jeopardized because of the fact that she is a practicing homosexual and has argued that such action violates constitutional provisions to ensure the inclusiveness of the church. We hold that ¶ 304.3 is not directed at the status of being a homosexual or having a particular sexual orientation. No provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from the ordained ministry of The United Methodist Church. Rather ¶ 304.3 is directed towards those persons who practice that same-sex orientation by engaging in prohibited sexual activity. Likewise, persons who have a heterosexual orientation who practice that orientation in prohibited ways – by not practicing fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness as required by ¶ 304.2 – are subject to chargeable offenses. Regulation of practice does not violate the “status” provisions of the Constitution.

To say that some clergy are denied the joys and comforts of human love, marriage and family while others are permitted such is discriminatory. Straight clergy are required to be faithful. Gay and lesbian clergy are required to be celebate. What about this isn't a double standard?

So today some of us are appropriately outraged. May our outrage fuel the struggle for justice, inclusion, and reconciliation.

Comments

[BigBrad]

Beth Stroud should have expected this verdict. It is made clear in the Book of Discipline that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Why, then, would a homosexual make the decision to seek ordination in the United Methodist Church?

I agree with the ruling, as unfortunate as it must be on her part. I do, however, disagree with not allowing homosexual persons as members of the church. I think the church should allow all people, sinners and saints, in the membership of the church. I simply cannot imagine Jesus denying someone the basic rights of joining a church.

I pray for unity within our church through a return to basic scriptural teachings.

[Jonathon Norman]

i agree with you dean. "may" used in this context within the english language has everything to do with permission giving and not with denying.

and if the wording were "shall" in the context they are speaking of it would imply that "all people" would be members of the umc, which makes no sense.

jonathon

[Jay]

1027 wasn't a surprise. 1032 was.

Are we connectional or congregational? A connectional system understands that the broader church sets the policies for membership, participation, etc. It's in congregational polities that the pastor and a select few set the policies for each individual congregation. What this does is leave membership requirements up to the sole discretion of the pastor. Thus, a pastor could refuse membership for any number of reasons (which, if we remember Savannah, does put us squarely in the tradition of Wesley, doesn't it?). This creates more problems than it solves folks.

What bothers me more is that we have created a system which bacically does not allow much oversight of clergy unless there are glaring failings. Let's face it, we have a tenure system by which it is almost impossible to deal with issues that fall on the fringes of chargeable offenses. 1031 and 1032 only serve to make it more difficult to deal with ministerial ineptitude and theological disagreement.

[Jan Rivero]

With Decision 1032, the judicial council has not only pushed us closer to the demise of the connection, but has also said that we no longer want to be ecumenical, honoring the baptism and membership of members of other denominations, because paragraph 225 accepts transfers of members from other denominations; but now a local church pastor can opt not to do that. We have taken more than one small step backward as a church.
Furthermore, it seems to me that this ruling is not about homosexuality. It is about authority, who has it and who doesn't. What this ruling has said is that each pastor now can exercise her/his own authority. No longer do we hold scripture as primary authority, or even our Book of Discipline; neither do we hold that our connectional system, as exemplified in the Episcopacy, has authority. Now the authority solely rests in our local church pastors. There is nothing connectional about this.
May God help us.

[Jim]

Dean,

Thank you for your continued attention and ability to describe these important matters so well. It is challenging to discuss such emotional issues without disparaging those who disagree.

Your eloquence is a very good example when I feel like cursing, insulting and upsetting the tables of the temples of those who would deny God's grace to our brothers and sisters. God speed to you.

May it be on Earth as it is in Heaven.

[gavin]

my sentiments are shared & much in line with jay. i don't know if wesley or charles would be too happy with this hierarchical system that is formed/forming

[ColeWake]

Most people know how I feel about the Stroud decision, but I wasn't suprised by it.

I agree that is was the other ruling that is outrageous. But I guess were a church of 'Pastor Knows Best' now. Maybe a merger with SBC is on the horizon.

[Jonathan Marlowe]

Dean,

It is one thing to say that one disagrees with the Judicial Council's decision. It is another to call those decisions outrageous. Such inflamatory rhetoric does not lead to civil discourse or healthy dialogue.

ColeWake, your sarcastic suggestion that a UMC merger with the SBC could be on the horizon is not helpful either. If the judicial council had issued a liberal decision, would it be helpful for those who disagree to suggest that a merger with the Unitarians is on the horizon? Of course not.

I ask that we all continue these important discussions with respect towards those who may disagree. I think we would all be better served.

[the_methotaku]

As usual, you said something I wanted to say but was hurting too much to say.

[Stephen]

I guess what bothers me most is that the Methodist Church ascribes to be a Episcopal formed church and not a congregationally formed and led church such as the SBC. The decisions were mixed...
1027 upholds the Episcopal system and the first restrictive rule
1032 dismisses the Episcopal system and the first restrictive rule

Strange days indeed
Stephen

[the_methotaku]

The answer, of course, is that the Judicial Council has been packed with conservative activitsts whose guiding 'principle' is homophobia.

[John in Jackson]

Dean,
For all your guffawing and grumbling and outrage, the United Methodist Judicial Council made their decision on what the entire laity of the UMC, including the congregation that you serve, has decided to be the "laws" of this denomination, not what you, me, Jonathan, Cole, Billy Graham, Billy Ray Cyrus, or any other single living human being thinks. To blast the JC as "determined -- no matter what --  to discriminate against LGBT United Methodists" is not really a statement against them, it is a statement against the majority of the UMC laity. I take offense to that statement as a member of that laity!

The FACT is that Romans 1:26-28 says: Ryrie Study Bible, Red Letter KJV
{Life Application Bible NKJV}

Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly {shameful}, and receiving in themselves that recompence {penalty} of their error which was meet {due}.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,"God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient {fitting};

My INTERPRETATION of this scripture is that a person lusting after another person of the same sex is not natural in the sight of God and is condemned by God. That also seems to be the interpretation of a majority of the UMC laity. If you do not interpret this scripture as I do, that is between you and God. But I remember and I hope that you do too, it is a narrow gate that leads to Heaven.

As for the Virginia ruling, when the laity of that particular church feels their pastor is acting inappropriately, they will act accordingly.

"The ruling hinges on our understanding of the word "may."
This sounds vaguely like:" That all depends on what the definition of "is" is." from the trial of Impeached President William Jefferson Clinton.

[Jim]

" it is a narrow gate that leads to Heaven."

One that thankfully is bridged by the GRACE of Jesus for ALL who have sinned and fallen short, not through our works and not through judgement of our brothers and sisters.

[Luke Wetzel]

A wonderful analysis.

The "may" discussion is bizarre. I hope the seven members of the Judicial Council thought long and hard about the implications that Jan Rivero discussed a few comments back. I have a feeling that they didn't. Or I should reverse and say that I hope they didn't. It would sadden me to no end to know that some of our elected leaders would knowingly strike at what makes us strong.

This ruling tears at what holds us together administratively as the battle that is being waged tears at what holds us together spiritually.
May God help us, indeed.

-Luke

[Joel Thomas]

I don't think it can any longer be said that gays and lesbians are welcome in the United Methodist Church. It can only be said that there are people who are faithfully working to make them someday be welcome.

I found the membership decision particularly appalling and a horribly dangerous precedent.

Interestingly, as I read the decision, I can now deny membership to supporters of the Confessing Movement, Good News or IRD because it is only my good faith judgment as to whether or not a person is spiritually mature enough for membership. God's grace is irrelevant; only my peronal beliefs matter.

I believe this decision almost insures that the 2008 General Conference will be the most acrimonious ever held. A line has been drawn in the sand.

[Rick in central PA]

Today, in light of yesterday's JC decisions, I am ashamed, simply ashamed, to be a member of the United Methodist Church.

I don't even have words to describe the pain I feel on behalf of our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. The UMC is clearly closing the door of the church to them. No, that's not how it will be spun, at least officially. But in practice, it is precisely how it will be interpreted.

Monday 31-October-2005 will be remembered as a sad day in UMC church history.

[Rick in central PA]

Today, in light of yesterday's JC decisions, I am ashamed, simply ashamed, to be a member of the United Methodist Church.

I don't even have words to describe the pain I feel on behalf of our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. The UMC is clearly closing the door of the church to them. No, that's not how it will be spun, at least officially. But in practice, it is precisely how it will be interpreted.

Monday 31-October-2005 will be remembered as a sad day in UMC church history.

[Andy B.]

Dean,
There is real pain in your post today. Pain that I share. I find myself seeking a tangible form for my lament. Perhaps on Sunday I will lay my stole on the altar as a way to say, "Until all can wear it, I will not." I don't know, what do you think?
- Andy B.

[Henry Curry]

Dean,

I, too, am distressed by the decisions of the Judicial Council, and agree that the decision in the Virginia Conference case is, potentially, the most outrageous. I would strongly urge that the Methodist Church now drop its promotional campaign of proclaiming the Church to be one of "Open hearts, Open minds, Open doors." We apparently are no loger such a Church and to continue to advertise ourselves as such is nothing but hypocricy.

[John Wilks]

Well, Rick, I'm sorry for your shame. But I am hopeful for the first time in a long time about our future.

Dean,

The problem with your "double standard" arguement is that the Scripture affrims that double standard.

To all- call it homophobia if you like, but this is all about one thing, and it ain't sex. It is about the Bible. It is all about how we understand the authority of the Bible. Period. That is the real entirty of this debate.

You cannot have a denomination stay unfied and vibrant with as broad a divergence in the view on Scriptural authroity. A house divided cannot stand.

Do you think most conservatives enjoy these rulings even if we agree with them?

I for one do not. And there are many standards which the Bible imposses that I wish it didn't. But I live with them by faith.

Those who cannot live by faith with those passages of Holy Writ which they dislike should reconsider their their desire to remain United Methodist.

Because what I see in those two dicisions is a return to a very old guiding assumption of Christian churches- when we disagree with the Bible, the Bible wins.

[Douglas Asbury]

Friends,

Regarding Judicial Council Decision 1032:

We need to be careful here before we too quickly join Susan T. Henry-Crowe in her dissent from the majority ruling.

Some weeks ago I made my position clear on this blog regarding my disagreement with the Rev. Ed Johnson in his refusal to accept a partnered gay man into membership in his congregation, and I will not repeat my argument here.

However, the Judicial Council’s Decision 1032 deals with not only pastoral authority to receive persons into membership or to refuse membership to persons for cause, but also pastoral responsibility to make judgments regarding people’s readiness to join the church, subject to the provisions of the Book of Discipline. The Council affirms both that pastors have such authority and that they must exercise such responsibility under the terms of their ordination.

For the sake of argument, I invite you to consider what you would do as a pastor in a similar circumstance, but the person presenting himself (for the sake of argument, this will be a man) for membership is an outspoken racist who is not shy about telling you as a pastor nor anyone else that he is an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. This man who presents himself for membership also makes strongly racist remarks not only about persons of races other than his own Caucasian race but, in fact, about people in the very congregation he intends to join.

The Social Principles 162.III.A. proclaims that “we recognize racism as sin.” As pastor preparing this man to take the membership vows, you confront him with regard to his racism with all the biblical, theological, and doctrinal resources you can muster. However, this man’s attitudes seem intractable, yet, for various reasons, he still intends to take membership vows to join your church.

Do you allow him to take the vows and to become a member of your United Methodist Church? Or do you say that, because he is a “self-avowed, practicing racist,” he cannot be accepted as a member until he repents of this sin and demonstrates to you and the congregation that he will be faithful to the vow in which he states he “renounce[s] the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject[s] the evil powers of the world, and repent[s] of [his] sin”?

To be consistent, you must rule in this case as you would in the Ed Johnson case. If you do not accept the practicing racist, then you admit that Ed Johnson had the right – under the current Discipline - not to accept the practicing gay man. This is especially true since the provisions of the Social Principles are not “church law,” and therefore binding, whereas “immorality” on the part of a lay member is within a section that makes it more than just “advisory,” as the Social Principles are; and since “homosexual practice” is a chargeable offense for clergy, it can also rightly be considered to be included under the “immorality” category in the chargeable offenses for laypersons that can ultimately result in the person being removed from the membership rolls. Why should a pastor receive a member who is already openly committing a chargeable offense and who further indicates that he or she will not refrain from doing so?

Now that I have made my point in that regard, let me make a very different point.

If, in fact, pastors have authority and responsibility to make such judgments regarding a person’s readiness to assume membership vows, and if pastors also are charged with monitoring current members for chargeable offenses that offend not only their fellow Christians but God as well, then perhaps all pastors need to take these responsibilities more seriously, and even life-long members need to begin to clean up their acts if they want to remain members in good standing of their local United Methodist Churches.

When it becomes clear that pastors are going to hold people accountable for their membership vows or else make life very difficult for those members who violate the provisions of the Discipline by bringing charges against them for such unrepentance, I believe it’s very likely we would see General Conference move so quickly to legislate policies that would accord well with the “open hearts, open minds, open doors” promotion that it would make our heads swim.

So perhaps we need to thank the members of the Judicial Council instead of maligning them, and begin to apply their ruling with gusto to awaken the Church to its broader implications and the need to make some adjustments in our polity. While some would rejoice in a renewal of the practice of “calling sin ‘sin’,” they will do so, I believe, only until it’s their ox that is being gored. After that, we’ll all have to find our way back to Christ together.

Doug Asbury

[Wes Stanton]

Doug Asbury's comments reflect my one point of agreement with JCD 1032: the possibility that a person we all agree is an unrepentant and dangerous sinner would seek for abusive reasons to join the church. As a pastor, I believe I ought to have some sort of discretion to withhold membership from someone who sought it with malicious intent. However, wishing that the Discipline gave such discretion doesn't change the Discipline.

The Judicial Council was clearly (even outrageously) "reaching" to interpret the "may" as permissive language about the pastor's discretion, rather than about the prospective member's freedom to choose membership. In contrast, the dissent cites Par. 4, the fourth Article of the UM Constitution, the very article of the Constitution after the terms of merger and the Articles of Religion & Confession of Faith.

Par. 4 declares that "All persons ... shall be eligible to ... upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any church in the connection." All persons -- upon taking the vows -- eligible -- in any local church in the connection. Here there is not one single "may" to be misconstrued.

Always, always, the Judicial Council has held that the Constitution trumps the GC-legislated provisions of the Discipline. Always. Where there's contradiction between Constitution and later provisions, the Constitution prevails. Where the Constitution sets a definition (say, for example, listing those lay persons who are to be members of the Annual Conference), the later provisions of the Discipline may not expand upon the constitutional provisions. In this decision, that's exactly what the Judicial Council did.

Further, JCD 1032 opens the door for lone-ranger pastors across the denomination to bar just about anybody from membership on the flimsiest of grounds ("I just didn't feel like they were genuine").

JCD 1032 should be reversed as a poorly conceived decision, conflicting with the principles clearly set forth in the UM Constitution. In time, it will be reversed. In the meantime, it should not make us "ashamed to be United Methodist," but it could stand to make us angry.

[Chris Lihou]

A good exposition by Doug Asbury. However, by the same token, there was a Baptist minister recently who expelled all the Democrats from his congregation. Only when the Associated Press ran the story and the Baptist Church was held up to ridicule was his decision reversed by the Church and the minister relieved of his post. Now the Methodist Church has established that it will stand solidly behind a minister who denies membership in his/her Church to a Republican or a Democrat or someone who gets a speeding ticket. I personally await with glee the inevitable inappropriate application of this outrageous decision by some misguided minister somewhere. I shall personally call the story in to the Associated Press.

Regarding those up above here in this blog who are wont to select quotes and passages from the Bible, claiming them as the inviolable Word Of God, I have a quotation for you from Leviticus:

25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have,
shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."

25:45 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

25:46 "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever."

There is no way to construe this passage from the Holy Bible except as an endorsement and encouragement of the institution of slavery, and a guarantee that the children of slaves shall be slaves "for ever," as "an inheritance" for the children of the slave owners.

This therefore means that the United Methodist Church, which affirms the equality of the black American children of slaves with the white American children of slave owners, and refuses to condone the practice of slavery, is flying in the face of God's Word. The whole UM church is in grave error by NOT observing the tenets advocating slavery clearly stated in God's Holy Bible.

Naturally this is nonsense, and so are the quotations from Leviticus and Romans, about same-sex relations, so dear to the hearts of bigots, and closeted homosexuals afraid of their own suppressed impulses. (Methinks these ladies doth protest too much.) Nothing is more comforting to the brain-dead and stony-hearted than some dogma which requires no exercise of conscience or thought.

Perhaps what we are observing all around us is the triumph of the Christian Taliban and their joyless mullahs-in-Christ. What will they advocate next - crushing homosexuals under brick walls? And veiling women? And a ban on all music?

I think I'll become a Buddhist.

[Chris Lihou]

PS: To John in Jackson: You are so carried away by your prim and smug efforts to be covertly insulting to Dean Snyder:

"Dean, For all your guffawing and grumbling and outrage, the United Methodist Judicial Council made their decision on what the entire laity of the UMC, including the congregation that you serve, has decided to be the "laws" of this denomination,....."

that you reveal your lack of knowledge of basic English vocabulary, which you nevertheless sling hither and thither with wanton abandon. "Guffaw" means "Hearty laughter." I hardly think Dean is "laughing heartily" in his posting.

Before you pretend to intellectualism, you should try to develop a vocabulary sufficient to express whatever it is you are trying to say.

To all the other bloggers who have kept the tone here civilized and objective: Please forgive my descent into personal attributes by reprimanding John in defense of Dean. He needed it.

[John Stopple]

Now that local pastors can withhold membership for whatever sin a person might be unrepentant of, I think it's time that we put the SUV owners on notice that they are no longer welcome in our congregations. Any vehicle that doesn't get at least 30 mpg should not be in our church parking lots or owned by anybody who is a member. God made us stewards of this earth and using these vehicles is not taking care of God's earth.

So sell your SUV's or don't come to church.

(My cheek is really sticking out if you can't tell.)

[Wabi-Sabi]

I saw something like this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. ..

Since Pastors now have unquestionable authority regarding membership in their churches, what should be the membership status of someone who has failed to keep his oath of attendance, fails to tithe, has not repented for putting a mentally challenged person to death, and continues to wage war causing the deaths of thousands?

hmmm

[andrew weaver]

IT TAKES A RENEWAL GROUP TO BURN A CLERGY WOMAN AT THE STAKE.

TAKE ACTION--WRITE BISHOPS NOW. HERE IS EXAMPLE. THIS IS A TOTAL OVERREACH BY RIGHT-WING. THE BACKLASH FROM THE MIDDLE WILL BE A TIDAL WAVE. STAY TUNED.

Dear Bishop Weaver:
As you know, the Judicial Council has just released a number of decisions related to the cases on their Fall docket.
I am asking you and the other members of the Council of Bishops to ask the Judicial Council to reconsider Case 1031 (Virginia case placing pastor on involuntary leave of absence) and Case 1032 (Virginia case on right of pastor to refuse to take people into membership).
The Council of Bishops has voted at least twice before to have Judicial Council decisions reconsidered. As you know, Judicial Council decision #910 reversed decision #904 and decision #930 modified decision #920.
There are many grounds upon which decisions 1031 and 1032 of the Judicial Council can be challenged. I trust that many United Methodist bishops will be deeply troubled with these rulings and will be able to determine the strongest grounds for reconsideration.
Please use the considerable moral authority you have as the episcopal leaders of our church to do all in your power to reverse this alarming decision.

Yours in Christ,
Rev. Andrew J. Weaver, Ph.D
NEW YORK CITY

[Joel Thomas]

All United Methodist bishops should be truly alarmed at the membership decision in particular. Unless they are totally tuned out, I can't see how they can miss both the horrible precedent that has been set and the fact that their decision totally nullifies the "open hearts, open minds, open doors" campaign. If the Bishops haven't thought through what the membership decision, left to stand, will mean with respect to the 2008 General Conference, then they better start thinking soon. The membership decision in particular amounts to a gigantic "no gays need apply" message that is both unjust and extremely hurtful.

[Ciona]

I am deeply, deeply sad. Holy Spirit, rain on us, please!

And I simply know not what else to say.

[Gramina]

Cole -- I don't think the UMC can merge successfully with SBC, unfortunately. SBC has a non-discrimination policy in place:

"All employees are protected from unlawful discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, marital status, citizenship status, veteran status, or disability."

Right now, I wish the church would take a page from big business. I suppose there had to be *some*thing even corporate America could get right.

[Douglas Asbury]

No, no, Gramina. "SBC" as in "Southern Baptist Convention," not as in the communications company. (Or was your tongue also firmly in your cheek?)

[Nancy Smith]

I received an email from a young woman working as a US-2 in a campus ministry. She asked,

"I just wondered why you're United Methodist? So many days I find it hard to be a progressive person of faith remaining in the
United Methodist Church, I feel my call is to work toward inclusivity in our church but some days I wonder why United Methodism."

I replied before I learned of the Judicial Council decisions. I've watched this battle since the early 70's. It's one thing for me to "hang in there" with the UMC and cry out "How long, Lord, how long?"

But I am troubled about even unintentionally giving hope or inspiration to this young woman, a recent college graduate. I do not want to "inspire" her to waste her life on this denomination!

We spend so much of our ministry encouraging the young to stay and fight the good fight -- is that the opposite message that we should be giving?

Just some thoughts,

Rev. Nancy R. Smith, Deacon
Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds -- Proven to be a lie by Judicial Council Decision #1032

[Douglas Asbury]

There will always be some who feel called to remain within an institution and to work for change and others who feel called to leave one institution behind and either find another institution to support or work in community with others to develop yet another alternative. The important thing is to follow the leading of the Spirit, which blows where it will. People who are born from above are like that Spirit (John 3).

[John Wilks]

Chris Lihou,

YOur parallel between slavery and sexuality is a very poor one because the act of homosexual foreplay and intercourse remains unchanged.

But the sort of slavery which the Old Testasment allowed (never endoreses, mind you, but allowed) looks nothing at all like teh barbaric slave trade of the modern colonial era. YOu cannot compare the two.

A slave in the OT could own property even to the point of wealth, take a spouse, had rights to raise their own children, could bargin for their release, could and frequently were adopted by the master and made a part of the family. None of that happened on the plantation. The American brand of slavery did not at all meet the Bible's very high standards of how people should be treated and nothing in the Bible can rightly be used to justify the horrid practice of our recent past.

In fact, having been one of the working poor up until two years ago, I would argue that a slave who's owner kept the Mosiac law had a better shot at upward mobility than does the American lower class.

So your comparrison is nothing but a weak attempt at making straw men and holds no water. You are just looking for a way to vilify your ideological enemies and to gin up emotional outrage.

[Joel Thomas]

While the OT did call for good treatment of slaves, their freedoms and opportunities were nevertheless impeded. Further, not all slave owners followed what Scripture taught. And further than that, because the Graeco-Roman system of slavery was often barbaric, once Jewish lands came under Roman control for example, harsh treatment of slaves often spilled over into even Jewish homes.

[John Battern]

I want the readers of this blog to know that there are many United Methodists who are relieved beyond words by the JC decisions. See the Wesley blog for numerous comments affirming the decisions. The majority of UM's value God's word over human feelings and experience. Why do you think for the past 20+ years the GC has proclaimed that homosexuality is incompatible to Christian teaching?

I don't understand why any person who feels so deeply hurt by these decisions would want to stay in the UMC. I'm not suggesting that they should leave, I'm just wonder why they remain associated with a demonination that causes them such shame and pain?

[Bob Lusk]

There is a lot of righteous outrage against this decision.

Where is the righteous outrage over sin?

The fellow could have repented of his sin, but he chose not to. He alone made that choice.

His beef is with the Bible, and with his conscience, and ultimately with the Author of our salvation.

[Jeffrey Pugh]

For those of us who have gay children and have come to understand the issue in terms deeper than a superficial reading of the sacred scriptures the shame and pain we feel comes from the fact that we cannot truly say to our children that the church of their childhood, the church of their baptism, confirmation, and first exposure to the stories of Jesus Christ is their home. They know that to be a lie.
For those of us who watched our children grow up and struggle with their sexual identity it is not as simple as some on this board make it. Some will make their appeal to scripture, however, as shown above this does not necessarily bring us to the heart of grace. I have been a part of this church since my birth, and I am not leaving. I will be there to bear witness to all those who say to my daughter that she is not worthy.
Perhaps in some way this will further the discussion beyond where we have been stuck for so long. Perhaps it will even be like it was when the first followers of Jesus came to the realization that the boundaries that they were trying to draw between the "pure" and the "impure" were not God's intention, and that God's grace was open to those considered unclean by the first Christians. Peace.

[John in Jackson]

Chris,
Thank you for giving me what I needed.
Oops, I misused a word (I should have used BELLOWING).
Your scripture from Leviticus doesn't say that slaves MUST BE HELD FOR ETERNITY, their owners had the choice to hold them or to release them any time they wanted to. Every verse you quoted clearly said, "shall"-giving a choice, not "must." It is interesting that you could only attack one word of my grammar, but none of my points.
P.S. I was hardly call this-
I take offense to that statement as a member of that laity! "-
"covert," you must have meant to type the word "overt".
I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.

[Karen Booth]

Dean writes ... "Other rulings about sexual orientation issues will be embarrashing (sic) to almost everyone when they read them 2o years from now."

Everyone who? Christians from the Global South, for example? Perhaps some progressives need to get their heads out of their parochial sand.

I welcome the denomination-wide discussion over pastoral authority and meaning of membership that these two JC decisions have begun (or maybe continued.)

Some of the most difficult battles I experienced in the local church were over the issues of pastoral authority - either lay people thought I had too much (if I made a decision they didn't like) or they complained I exercized too little (if I didn't make someone else do what they thought should be done.)

For example, I think most lay people would be quite surprised to learn that pastors are given full and total authority to decide how and by whom church facilities are used. One of my clergywoman friends got into serious trouble with her congregaion when she permitted a group protesting Desert Storm to use the church for prayer.

The "meaning of membership" discussion is also long overdue. Is it an inclusive do-gooder club that anyone can join or a covenant community with some minimal expectations?

Neither the pastoral authority nor the meaning of membership issues got much in the way of clarification at the seminary I attended - Drew.

[Rick]

Thanks for your great comments on the JC decision. I don't know why I hadn't discovered this blog earlier, but am grateful for your reasoned voice re: United Methodism.

On Sunday I was installed as pastor of a United Church of Christ congregation. In that act, the ordination credentials I was pressured to surrender in the UMC were restored by a church that welcomes me as an openly gay man and pastor. The service was profoundly moving for me, especially as many supportive UMC pastors were in attendance. So... to read about the JC decisions the next morning was surreal, timely, and seemed very personal. Despite a lifetime in the UMC, degrees from Asbury Seminary, and a personal world shaped largely by Methodist preachers and congregations, the current tone of the UMC toward gay and lesbian persons makes me very grateful to be somewhere else. The idea of excluding gay persons from ministry already seems laughable to my teenage children and their peers - I don't think it will take long for their generation to turn things around and make them right.

[Riley Case]

Lord, deliver us from the hysteria. Because the Virginia-Ed Johnson case involves homosexuality we are blinding ourselves to what the Judicial Council ruling is really about, the pastor's obligation to determine readiness. Ed Johnson may or may not have done the right thing in his decision to delay membership to the gay couple involved, but that is not the central issue.
Several years ago a couple wanted to have their wedding in our church. When they discovered the fee differences were considerable between members and non-members, they indicated their interest in becoming members. I was happy to discuss it with them, giving a very short review of what membership was about. They were ready. I then suggested I was not willing to do this immediately but indicated I wanted them to spend time with the church and with me to understand what this decision was about. For one, it would be good if they would attend services a few times to see if this was really what they wanted. Further, I wanted to question them about their relationship to Christ and what it means to be loyal to the church. To shorten the story, they wanted to be members but had limited amount of time to spend on further discussions, or even to attend the services. Under those circumstances, I suggested, it would be better to wait until after the wedding to pursue membership. I can't remember the end of the story (whether they got married in the church or not--I am positive they never pursued membership) but I do remember that they thought I was being unreasonable (and probably intolerant and prejudiced). If the
Bishop Kammerer way of thinking prevailed, if the couple believed themselves ready to take the vows I had no right to refuse them. Indeed, my refusal could lead to charges and the possibility that I might eventually lose my pulpit. This new and novel interpretation of the pastor's duties (or non-duties in this case) runs counter to our prevailing tradition and practice from the time of the first Discipline. There has never--that is, NEVER--been a time when pastors were not making decisions about readiness, past or present. For a long time prospective members were made probationary members and received only when it was determined that the probation had been properly fulfilled. For a long time members were questioned about their conversion experience, not only whether they had had one, but also whether it was authentic. I remember when a pastor refused membership to a tavern owner. It may or may not have been a good decision but no one questioned his right to make it. In our present day some churches require membership classes, others are questioned about their doctrinal commitments, or their life-style choices. To say that the church (and the representative of the church, the pastor) has no right to determine readiness is to place authority totally in the mind of the prospective member, who determines for himself or herself what the vows mean and what faithfulness to the vows entails. If this attitude were to prevail we would have total chaos.

[andrew weaver]

INFORMATION ABOUT BLOGGER RILEY CASE WHO DEFENDS JC RULING ON THIS SITE

BY
DR. ANDREW J. WEAVER
UNITED METHODIST CLERGY
RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST
NEW YORK CITY

Riley Case is a retired member of the North Indiana Conference of The United Methodist Church. He is on IRD's UMAction advisory board, a member of the board of directors of Good News and a contributing editor for Good News magazine, and assistant executive director of the Confessing Movement, as well as a regular contributor to its newsletter and a designated official spokesperson.

Mr. Case openly advocates for schism in The United Methodist Church (Case, 2002). He views the church as being dominated by "a ruling elite" that "taxes the local church and then distributes the funds by political and ideological intrigue." Among the intrigues he sees is the Ministerial Education Fund (MEF), which was established by the 1968 General Conference in an effort to meet the need for the recruitment and education of persons for ordained ministry. The fund now supports programs for theological education in United Methodist seminaries, scholarship assistance to United Methodist candidates for ordained ministry, the Course of Study to train Local Pastors, continuing education, and other programs critical for the development of clergy for local churches.

The MEF is distributed though a covenant formula by which 25 percent is retained in annual conferences for their programs of education and professional support, while the remaining 75 percent is given to the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, three-fourths of which is used to directly support our 13 United Methodist theological schools. The Discipline of The United Methodist Church requires that every dollar be spent on the current educational expenses of students (Henderson, 2003)..

Mr. Case and the IRD (UMAction, 2003) are seeking to move the MEF toward a voucher system, administered by individual annual conferences, which would divert United Methodist dollars from the denomination's schools of theology to independent theological seminaries and other denomination's institutions. The Association of United Methodist Theological Seminaries opposes the proposed "voucher" system for many reasons - most importantly because it would hurt United Methodist seminaries and their United Methodist students. Schools with smaller endowments count on the MEF for their very existence. For example, 80 percent of the budget of our only predominately African-American theology school, Gammon Theological Seminary, comes from the MEF. Mr. Case's proposal would effectively destroy Gammon.

Mr. Case and the IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy, 2001a; UM Action, 2000; Tooley, 2003) repeatedly use the "Big Lie" propaganda method to justify their assault on the UMC. It goes like this: The decline in membership in the UMC and other mainline churches is the fault of "liberals" who got the church involved in social action. Mr. Case recently wrote in the Good News magazine that United Methodism "is in the midst of a 100-year decline. The years of the decline correspond exactly to the years that liberalism and institutionalism have dominated Methodism" (Case, 2003).

Mr. Case makes a fundamental error in logic. Correlation does not equate with causation. For example, there is probably a direct correlation between increased consumption of ice cream in Alaska and higher numbers of bank robberies. However, one would not try, hopefully, to suggest that eating more ice cream causes increased criminal behavior. The causal link is the weather. Warmer temperatures in the summer in Alaska produce more ice cream consumption as well as more outdoor activities, including bank robbing.

Demographic research shows that the reason for the decline in membership in mainline churches and the growth of conservative churches like the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God and smaller Pentecostal and Holiness churches has little to do with ideology and much to do with biology. Conservative church members have more children. According to several leading experts in the sociology of religion who published their scientific findings in the American Journal of Sociology:

"A combination of higher birth rates and earlier childbearing among conservative women . . . explains over three-fourths of the observed change in Protestants' denominational affiliations for cohorts born between 1900 and 1970. Most of the rest of the observed change is caused by falling rates of switching from conservative to mainline denominations; differential apostasy plays a 22-32 small but significant role. Remarkably, because it has not increased over the past 50 years or so, switching from mainline to conservative denominations as the focus of the leading explanations explains none of the decline of mainline denominations" (Hout, Greely & Wilde, 2001).

REFERENCES

Case, R (2002). It's time we talk about 'amiable separation'. The New Zion's Herald, 177(6), 21.

Case, R.B. (2003). Do renewal groups threaten the health of United Methodism? Good News Magazine. Retrieved on December 2, 2003, from www.goodnewsmag.org.

Henderson, B. (2003). The United Methodist ministerial education fund. Retrieved on December 2, 2003, from http://www.NWHillsUMC.org.

Hout, M., Greely, A., & Wilde, M. J. (2001). The demographic imperative in religious change in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 468-500.

Institute on Religion and Democracy. (2001a). Institute on religion and democracy's reforming America's churches project: 2001-2004, executive summary. Retrieved on September 30, 2003 from www.4religious-right.info/internal_ document_ird.html.

Tooley, M. (2003). Report to UM Action board of directors. UM Action News. Retrieved on December 2, 2003, from www.ird.org.

UM Action. (2000). 2000 news reports: UM action

UMAction. (2003). "Reform agenda: A reform agenda for United Methodists." The Institute on Religion and Democracy. Retrieved on December 1, 2003, from www.ird.org.

[DavidN]

Dr. Weaver, like all research, and the statistics they generate, there is room for substantial error if the research has a limited scope. For example, in my medium sized congregation, there have been 10 children of parents my age that no longer attend UMC churches. Six attend three different non-denominational churches, four attend no church at all. In my Annual Conference I have determined that this is not just a phenomenon of my church. The large non-denominational churches, conservative, that have grown in the last twenty years are not growing because of babies. They are growing because of poeple from mainline denominations leaving. Congregations with 100 members twenty years ago now have 5000, and that ain't just biology. I wonder if this growth in non-denomination churches in the last twenty years is similar in other parts of the country?

[andrew weaver]

DEAR PASTOR DAVID,

WE ARE NOT DOING ALL WE CAN TO WELCOME SINNERS LIKE US INTO THE HOUSE OF GOD. THAT IS TRUE. OVERALL THE STATS AS AVERAGES OF VERY LARGE AVERAGE DO GIVE ACCURATE BIG PICTURE.

SEE BELOW FOR LOCAL STORY IN OTHER DIRECTION FROM YOUR EXPERIECE.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005
"Cathedral of Hope votes overwhelmingly to join UCC"
Good news for the United Church of Christ is being reported today by United Church News:

The 4,300-member Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas, has voted overwhelmingly to seek denominational affiliation with the UCC.

On Oct. 30, during a congregational vote, 94 percent of voting members answered “yes” to the question, “Shall the Cathedral of Hope affiliate as a member church with the United Church of Christ?” The congregation’s decision now awaits response from the UCC’s North Texas Association, which is the denomination’s setting charged with taking up a request for “congregational standing.”

“The Cathedral of Hope and the United Church of Christ seem like a natural fit,” said the Rev. Jo Hudson, an ordained UCC minister who serves as senior pastor and rector of the Cathedral. “The United Church of Christ has long been at the forefront of societal change, most recently, of course, by becoming the first mainstream denomination to support equal marriage rights for same-gender couples. Their values are our values, and we look forward to joining in partnership and continuing the work for which God has called us together.”

Ironically, at a time when UCC leaders are conceding that an estimated 20 congregations are likely to leave the denomination in response to a decision in July by the UCC’s General Synod to affirm same-gender marriage equality, the 1.3-million-member church also is attracting interest from existing congregations in unprecedented numbers. In October alone, six existing churches joined the UCC, which may be a single month’s record.

Cathedral of Hope’s decision comes amid speculation that two other large-membership churches will consider joining the UCC in 2006.

In Minneapolis, the 2,000-member Plymouth Congregational Church has planned forums about the UCC in anticipation of a May 2006 congregational vote. And, in Tulsa, Okla., the Higher Dimensions Family Church – a charismatic, integrated mega-church founded 25 years ago by Oral Roberts Evangelistic Ministries – has made known its interest in UCC affiliation. The church’s founding pastor, Bishop Carlton D. Pearson, has indicated his enthusiasm for the UCC at recent gatherings of the denomination’s Northern California – Nevada Conference and Kansas – Oklahoma Conference.

Click here for the full story.

Welcome aboard!

Posted at 14:59 in United Church of Christ | Permalink

[John Wilks]

Joel,

You are correct on all counts. And in all counts, the problem was never what the Bible said about slavery, but the failure of people to obey the Bible. Which, by the way, is the problem in both these cases.

[Bob Lusk]

No doubt about it, the mainline churches are failing because of a lower birth rate.

[Jan Rivero]

Bob Lusk makes the assumption that the man was asked to repent of his sins. I feel compelled to set the record straight. He was not asked this. He was not invited to membership classes. He was not given the opportunity to even know what the questions asked of members are.
The assumptions made about this case are staggering.

[Jan Rivero]

Bob Lusk makes the assumption that the man was asked to repent of his sins. I feel compelled to set the record straight. He was not asked this. He was not invited to membership classes. He was not given the opportunity to even know what the questions asked of members are.
The assumptions made about this case are staggering.

[John B]

Rick,

How is it that a gay man has teenage children? Did you adopt or did you have a relationship with a woman? If the latter, when did you decide to leave this woman and join with a man? Either way, it doesn't sound like the Bible I read. "And a man shall leave his mother and a woman shall leave her home and the two shall become one." Maybe you crossed that verse out in your Bible.

[Rick]

John, I don't want to encourage thread drift, but I'll just say briefly that I got my kids the 'old fashioned way.' Yes, I produced my chidren heterosexually but I am and always have been gay. My journey through United Methodism, Asbury Seminary, Good News, etc. has brought me ultimately to the UCC where I am especially happy to be this week following the JC rulings. I see on your blog you've said the act of coming out "is like a pig bragging about being the worst smelling hog in the barnyard." Nevertheless, if your questions are sincere you're welcome to read my 'coming out story' by clicking on my name below.

[Karen]

I'm in a loving, committed 15 year relationship with a wonderful woman. God has blessed our relationship, bringing us both to a vital Christian faith.

My partner's family was Jewish but basically non-practicing. I grew up in the Methodist Church but had struggled. I certainly had no relationship with Christ. My partner had lots of questions about Christ and Christians over the years. Trying to answer those questions, opened my heart. My family's witness, particularly my Dad's, opened my partner's heart. We're now committed to Christ and active members of our local UMC.

The General Conference decisions and legal rulings hurt deeply. We have no protection in the UMC. Our pastor at our church when we joined was very supportive. We had a new appointment and this pastor signed an open letter calling for all conferences to uphold the "incompatable" lingo. He apologized to me and said it was a mistake but did not publish a retraction.

As I understand this ruling in the Virginia case, my partner and I could be subject to rejection if we transfered our membership in another UMC and no DS or Bishop could protect us.

Another consideration that I have is that my partner is a relatively new Christian. I feel a responsibility to protect her. I don't want her faith to suffer due to these evil rejecting actions taken in the name of God.

We are struggling over this but will probably leave the UMC. I love the Methodist church but it does not love me. I admire those like Beth Stroud that can remain in and work for reform but we need to protect ourselves and grow our faith in a safe sanctuary.

[Kelly Hahn]

I just don't understand how you can reconcile unrepentant behavior (on the part of the gay choir member seeking membership) with becoming a part of a body of believers who have given themselves to follow Jesus in holiness. Over and over you ream the decisions (including Stroud's) as discriminatory, but you do not seem to be concerned that active participation in a lifestyle prohibited by scripture makes it necessary to exclude.

I sense more of a bleeding-heart sympathy than a concern for biblical understanding and application.

Kelly Hahn
Asbury Seminary

[Bob Lusk]

Jan Rivero,

When a person is to be admitted into a UMC church, he or she is asked if they "earnestly repent' of their sins.

I have never heard any other questions asked of a prospective member....

And notice that no specific question is asked about any particular sin.