A United Methodist jury of 13 ministers ruled Saturday that the Rev. Karen’s Dammann’s professed lesbian relationship did not go against church teachings; she will be allowed to continue her ministry in the church.
I couldn’t be more pleased with my church. The debate, however, is far from over. I recognize that this will cause some divisions within the church as it has for the Episcopal church. But a vote against Damman would have caused equally deep divisions, and I was comtemplating the future of my own continued membership had the jury voted against her.
So I’d like to hear from others, specifically those who are currently Methodists or at least grew up in the Methodist church.
Methodist here (although from Catholic schooling, if it makes a difference), and I couldn’t be happier. I’m proud that the Methodist faith has come to this decision, and especially that even the opposition doesn’t seem (at least from that article) to be too hard of heart.
Speaking as a lapsed Methodist, I am sick to death of idjits making mountains out of molehills and idiotic scandals out of non-issues.
Man, don’t we have enough REAL problems to worry about? Is someone’s life out there so trouble-free that the idea of a lesbian minister just makes him freak right the hell out, or what?
I’m another Methodist who’s pleased with the decision, although I’d be more pleased to hear the church reversed itself on the issue of “practicing” homosexuals in the ministry. I know that there are those in my own church who are not at all happy with it, however.
Since there is probably no way the church as a whole will be able to come to a consensus on this issue, I’d be satisfied with them backing away from it altogether for the time being. I think it would be possible for the church organization as a whole to agree to disagree about it, and to just make no statements at all about the fitness of gay ministers.
I’m pleased with the decision, but I think it’s important to note that it does not signal a new direction for the UMC as a whole. If anything, it signals the likely contentiousness and anguish of the upcoming General Conference.
Like most American Prostestant “national” churches, the UMC is often divided on geographical lines, with the north and the urban being more liberal and the south and the rural being more conservative. So the fact that a lesbian minister would be found not guilty in metropolitan Seattle, by a jury of other ministers from the Northwest, is not surprising. But I can guarantee the verdict would have been different in, say, Texas.
This just brings the UMC one step closer to where the worldwide Anglican community is: looking at a church-wide schism. I give the church credit for discussing the issue openly and honestly, and I give the jurors credit for voting their consciences in an act of jury nullification* – an act I, as a lawyer, generally abhor. But I see no way to reconcile the moral belief that homosexual acts are wrong with the moral belief that they are not wrong, and I am skeptical about the chances that my church, or any other church, will be able to continue to put a band-aid on this issue much longer. So I was pleased with the verdict as an specific thing, but, in a larger sense, it concerns me, because I see it as the crux of an issue that very likely will tear the church apart. The General Conference will be very interesting; I simultaneously wish I were going, and am very glad I’m not going. If that makes sense.
Jury nullification is finding a defendant not guilty of a crime or act that he or she is pretty clearly guilty of, because you belief the law itself is wrong and should not be enforced.
And the Methodist church will still be the same, regardless… Catholic-Lite. With their robes and alter festoonations… only thing missing is confession.
Not to get off on a legal tangent, but I believe it was the responsibility of the jurors to decide based on their conscience and not a strict view of church law. This wasn’t a court of law and I even hestitate to call them jurors. I believe they were there to demonstrate that there is disagreement within the church on the church’s policy on the ordination of gays and lesbians. It would have been a topic of discussion at the general conference had the trial not occured, but the visibility is even greater now.
And if6, nothing against my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, but there are plenty of distinctions between the two denominations, chief among them the ability of woman to serve as ministers. And no, the United Methodist church, thankfully, won’t be the same; that’s what all of this is about.
I have really, really mixed feelings about this. I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Therefore, I can not be in favor of openly gay or lesbian ministers, especially if that forms a spike which drives the United Methodist Church apart.
On the other hand, my pragmatic side has never understood why homosexuality is the ULTIMATE sin(I have had friends, not neccessarily Methodists, who seemed to think adultery was bad, divorce was bad, but being gay was REALLY BAD and possibly contagious) Also, gays as a group need to be reached out to, and how can we as a church reach out to gays and simoultaneously publicly deny them the ministry?
Well, hopefully you will never be asked, as a juror in any type of court, to vote in favor of something that offends your conscience. That’s where the rubber hits the road on the issue of jury nullification: How can you find a person guilty of a law you think is unjust?
No, it was not a court of civil law. It was a court of ecclesiastical law – a church court, applying church law. So go ahead and call them jurors, because that’s what they were. She was judged by a jury of her peers for alleged violation of church law. Just because it was ecclesiastical law, applicable only to adherents of the church, doesn’t mean it isn’t the law in that limited context. It is.
Well, I don’t think they had to put the woman on trial to demonstrate this. I think any Methodist who’s been following along is quite aware that there is disagreement within the church on this issue – vehement disagreement. Which was kind of my point: Anyone taking this verdict as a sign that the church is NOT deeply divided on this issue doesn’t understand how polarized the church is on it, and to what extent that polarization falls along geographical lines. I’m glad they acquitted her, too; I’m just worried about how the general conference will go.
Jodi’s point about the difference between the north/urban and the south/rural Methodist churches is very valid. I am a member of a small church in a southern town with a population of around 3,000. A few years ago I was very close to the minister. In addition to our church, he also was the minister of a smaller rural church. One evening a member of that smaller church brought a little black girl to church. The main benefactor of the church objected and my friend did what was right and that was when the stuff hit the fan. At the next conference my friend was sent to another church and a woman took his place. Well that just would not do. Many of those that were strong supporters of my friend were against having a lady preacher and she lasted only two years. When I saw what was happening I left and have only attended twice since. She was replaced by someone that was raised nearby and fits in just fine. The pity is that basically these people are fine persons. 99.9 of them believe exactly what the church tells them to believe. Because of my religious liberalism many find it hard to call me a Christian. I can’t find too much fault with that, but I do find it hard to figure how they reconcile some of the things they do with the teachings of Christ.
Concerning the OP, I do not have to go back to visit to find out what their feelings are about a lesbian minister. Regretfully, I also know what my friend would think about her.