A big BOO to the United Methodist Church for its decisions yesterday to defrock a lesbian minister, reinstate (with back pay) a Virginia minister who refused membership in his congregation to a gay man, and reject a declaration that there is a “difference of opinion among faithful Christians regarding sexual orientation and practice.”
The last point is the one that bothers me most. Does rejection of that declaration mean that the UMC is saying that people who hold different opinions on the issue cannot also be faithful Christians?
No, it means they aren’t methodists. You should be ashamed of yourself for demogoging this issue.
It’s unclear to me from the Washington Post clip on which this post comments what exactly the rejection of the declaration means. According to the Post, the “court said the declaration was a ‘historical statement without prescriptive force’ and had no bearing on church laws.” This, to me, means the UMC Judicial Council considers the statement factually true but irrelevant in terms of church teachings.
I think this position is either a little naïve or a little hypocritical because obviously some UMC members — some members of all Christian denominations — have a “difference of opinion … regarding sexual orientation and practice.” However, regardless of how I feel about the decision, UMC can do what it wants.
Also, to criticize a question about whether the declaration means “UMC is saying that people who hold different opinions on the issue cannot also be faithful Christians” as demagoguery seems overblown. I think that it’s fair question to ask, given the dodgy nature of the reason given for why the declaration was rejected.
As the Washington Post has reported it, the rejected declaration would have acknowledged that there is a “difference of opinion among faithful Christians.”
I think the United Methodist Church already made it clear that it has a stance on homosexuality.
As I read it, this declaration would have acknowledged that not all Christians agree. Certainly there are many people who consider themselves Christian who don’t consider homosexuality to be a sin. The UMC appears to be unwilling to acknowledge that they are Christians.
If they’d said, “There is a difference of opinion among faithful Methodists regarding sexual orientation and practice,” then I’d agree that the UMC was saying they weren’t Methodists. I’m not sure I’d think that was any better, but I then, at least, it would be their prerogative.
Okay, I can’t find more details about the declaration anywhere. If the Judicial Council rejected it simply because it was procedurally useless, and not because of the content, then fine.
In some sense, I suppose, it’s fine either way; if there is a God, how He or She feels about sexual orientation is unlikely to be changed by declarations passed or rejected by any worldly organization.
one day i will stsart a church it will be called “a church of place to go” and the only purpose will be to provide a place to go for people who need a place to go that is not the place they are in. and of course people will start trying to create belief systems and silly things like that and start excluding people from the place to go but by then it will no longer be a place to go because people don’t want it to be that so i will issue my one decree and that will be “please leave and come back in two days” and when they come back the place to go will be gone.
ps this is goign in my novel!
I don’t know why, but that reminded me of a Philip Larkin poem I just read for class.
http://www.poetryconnection.net/poets/Philip_Larkin/4798
I did a bit of searching for additional details myself yesterday and couldn’t find anything. I think the UMC Judicial Council probably rejected the declaration because of the content but cited procedural reasons as the official explanation for the decision to avoid controversy. However, I don’t necessarily think the council members decided to reject the declaration because they believed content was untrue. I think they probably made the decision because adoption of a declaration that states there is a “difference of opinion among faithful Christians regarding sexual orientation and practice” would imply UMC supports the position, even though the statement does not mention Methodists directly.
It’s obviously a subtle difference but I think one that’s worth consideration.
heeeeeeeey juuliaaaaaaaaaa
http://www.rsalsbury.co.uk/rd.htm