Methodists Avoid Scism; Condemn Homosexuals

[Duke]

Originally posted by Homebrew
That’s not entirely true. As I’ve shown, they’ve strengthened the rules to allow pastors to be charged if they perform same-sex marriages or to be defrocked if they are homosexual and have an active sex life. They’ve voted to deny an addition to the Social Principles that acknowledges disagreement on the issue.

I took a look at the article (plus the article that article linked back to) and I agree with most of what you say. As for defrocking openly gay ministers however, the Dammann case seems to indicate, if precedent is followed, that they will not be defrocked–the Council did, after all, vote against that. Still, I agree with you, allowing something in practice but not in theory is wrong and troubling. The “addition” to the Social Principles is troubling, too, but it’s not binding. One of the Social Principles is also that those who drink and gamble are not welcome in the church. Damn place wouldn’t have anybody left!

Homebrew, I like you. You’ve supported me, and I appreciate that. I’m not part of the Methodist church anymore, and I’m not part of any church anymore, partly because I was sick of the homophobia I saw in some churches. I can’t square having gay friends, teachers, fellow travellers, or my position on gay rights, with that. So, I left. But, I want to support those who want to stay and fight. And, that goes for you too, Kalhoun. I don’t think we disagree on the cause, just the method.

[Homebrew]

@Duke

As for defrocking openly gay ministers however, the Dammann case seems to indicate, if precedent is followed, that they will not be defrocked–the Council did, after all, vote against that.

[url=“http://umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=17&mid=4506”]The Judicial Coucil said they lacked authority to overturn the previous ruling; but clearly stated that in the future, being a self-avowed “practicing” homosexual would be cause for being removed from office.

PITTSBURGH (UMNS) - The highest court of the United Methodist Church has ruled that it does not have the authority to review the findings of the Rev. Karen T. Dammann trial court.

**At the same time, the Judicial Council reaffirmed that a bishop may not appoint a pastor who has been found by a trial court to be a “self-avowed practicing homosexual.” **

[snip]

“Where the process outlined in Decision 920 culminates with a trial, and where the trial court sustains a specification that the clergy member is a self-avowed homosexual, the clergy member is no longer in good standing under Paragraph 325.1 and cannot be appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church as provided in Paragraph 304.3. No such clergy member could then be listed on the roll of clergy who are in good standing in the annual conference. The presiding bishop of the annual conference has both the authority and the responsibility to rule out of order any motion which would have the effect of listing such a person on the roll of clergy members who are in good standing.”

(bolding mine)

[Eyke]

@Kalhoun

@Eyke

Maybe I feel that if I can show by my actions that I’m just as much as a Christian as they are, maybe they’ll start to change their mind.

Are you “out” at church? Do you openly discuss your predicament with your pastor and fellow parishoners?

HWMBO and I are about as far as we can without screaming, “We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Used To It.” I’d like to have some dialog with the congregation, but the pastor is worried it’s going to do damage to the church (i.e. members leaving). He knew early on we were a couple and, at that time, said the church is not ready to deal with homosexuality, maybe the generation after this (i.e. my “grandkids”).

I wanted to to be the worship assistant, and in a meeting with other worship asst of both congregaions, he stated that he was worried my “alternative lifestyle” <grrr I HATE that term> would rub certain members the wrong way causing a drop in attendance. It was brought up that some in the congregation wouldn’t take communion if I were presiding. In that meeting, I discussed how my life has is not that much different from everyone else’s. I tabled that decision for some time to think and pray. Maybe I’m being wishy-washy, but militancy is not one of my virtues.

I have started a letter campaign in the two local newspapers, so my views, both in politics and gay rights, should be clear.

BTW we’ve been attending that parish for over 2 years. HWMBO is on council and were both on the altar guild. So acceptance, though not complete, is there.

[Kalhoun]

Thanks, Eyke. I’m glad you’re getting something for all the bullshit you have to endure. I don’t know how you do it. I’d have bid them a not-so-fond farewell a long time ago. And that goes double for the asshole parishoners who won’t take communion. Fucking babies.

Your pastor sounds like a total pussy. What would happen if you just ignored his advice about keeping quiet and had that dialogue with the parishoners? You and “H” are already holding prominent positions within the church. Would he break your rank or something? I doubt it. He sounds waaaay to wimpy to do anything at all. I’d go for it if I were you.

[Kalhoun]

@Homebrew

[url=“http://umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=17&mid=4506”]The Judicial Coucil said they lacked authority to overturn the previous ruling; but clearly stated that in the future, being a self-avowed “practicing” homosexual would be cause for being removed from office.

“Where the process outlined in Decision 920 culminates with a trial, and where the trial court sustains a specification that the clergy member is a self-avowed homosexual, the clergy member is no longer in good standing under Paragraph 325.1 and cannot be appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church as provided in Paragraph 304.3. No such clergy member could then be listed on the roll of clergy who are in good standing in the annual conference. The presiding bishop of the annual conference has both the authority and the responsibility to rule out of order any motion which would have the effect of listing such a person on the roll of clergy members who are in good standing.”

**Jodi, ** that sounds an awful lot like getting kicked out to me. No longer in “good standing” is a blatant slap in the face. **Oh, yeah…I feel the love. ** What a crock of bullshit.

[athelas]

@Miller

Is it just me, or is it pretty much only straight people who try to make this distinction?

Well, only straight people can be labeled homophobes for their valid religious beliefs, ne?

Where? And don’t give me any of that Leviticus crap, I’m sure Methodists eat pork and mix fabric in dresses.

Well, here is one.

Romans 1:26-7

@God

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another, Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So it’s not just in the OT, which could be explained away as being part of the old covenant that Jesus rendered unnecesary.

[Skammer]

@spectrum

We can all only hope that in ten years the UMC is as open, caring, progressive and Christian as the Episcopal Church.

It will also be just as dead, presumably.

[Homebrew]

@Skammer

It will also be just as dead, presumably.

One can only hope.

[jayjay]

@Skammer

It will also be just as dead, presumably.

Yes, it’s so sad to drive through our cities and towns and see all the empty Episcopal churches, moldering into rubble after the denomination was disbanded through lack of interest after all the cavedwellers left because of the gay bishop thing.

Are you really that disconnected from reality?

[tiny_ham]

@athelas

Well, here is one.

Romans 1:26-7

I enjoy your cite, **athelas, especially since the name of the page is ‘perverts’. :rolleyes: Love thy neighbor as thyself, eh friend?

Of course you realize that Romans 1 is the story of God’s punishment of people that reject him in all ways, not specifically for being homosexual.

Also, it refers to ‘lust’. Nowhere does God or Jesus say that man cannot LOVE or COMMIT to another man.

Suffice it to say that i’ve been a christian all my life, as is my entire family. And I believe, strongly in my heart, that any man or woman who loves the Lord with all their heart and mind and soul and loves their neighbor as themselves will get into heaven and be greeted with open arms by our Lord.

[Homebrew]

@athelas

Well, here is one.

Romans 1:26-7

Take it to Great Debates if you want, otherwise you can keep your mistranslated, closed-minded ignorant “IMMORAL PERVERSION” links to yourself, asshole.Oh look, there’s already a current thread on the topic.

[Miller]

@athelas

Well, only straight people can be labeled homophobes for their valid religious beliefs, ne?

No, not at all. There are any number of self-loathing homosexuals trying (and, generally, failing) to suppress their true natures because of the twisted dictates of their “valid religious beliefs.” It’s called “internalized homophobia.”

Incidentally, you misattributed (or failed to attribute) the second quote in that post. 'Twasn’t me who brought up Leviticus. I don’t much care what the pretext for the bigotry is. It’s still just as hateful, with or without divine approval.

@Duke

So, what choices does Jodi have here?

1. She can stay and fight ignorance from the inside.
2. She can leave.

Which do you think will change more minds? Which do you think has a better chance of succeeding in the fight against ignorance?

Leaving. So long as people of good conscience like Jodi are willing to put their church before social equity for homosexuals, there will be no impetus for her church to change.

And I don’t really see why leaving her church is such a big deal. Wasn’t the entire point of Protestantism that individual worshippers do not need the intercession of a religious hierarchy to have a relationship with God?

[The_Llama]

Oh, athelas , you crazy little christian. I have to admit, I am happy you found this. I had yet to find a new testament reference for such a thing, and I have to also admit that I’ve been wrong for quite a bit, saying that there aren’t any new testament references.

However, (you had to know there was gonna be a ‘however’) It’s interesting the cite you give me. The new testament, being such a lover of the run on sentence, makes some things very interesting. For instance, in that Romans cite, homosexuals are lumped in the same category as thieves and murderers, and these all are “worthy of death.” OK, so cite one tells me that it’s wrong, and gays should be killed.

I’m ignoring the Leviticus cites.

That Corinthians one is ambiguous at best, and there’s no way you can definitively point to that as anti-homosexual. In fact, those that will inherit the kingdom of heaven are the poor of spirit, according to Jesus. So I don’t even know what inherit the kingdom of god means.

And the timothy one… give me a break, not only are those that “defile themselves with mankind” lumped in with murderers and thieves and perjured persons, (hehe, that cracks me up), they are condemned for not following “any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” What’s that computer term? Recursive? Paul is saying that the doctrine is to be followed because the doctrine says so.

These cites are good to have, and I thank you for them, but they don’t even hold up to a quick glance.
Granted, I asked for cites, and you gave them, but you gave ones that, like Leviticus, require you to do things that you would never do in an intelligent, civilized society. (i.e. throw the gays in with the murderers and kill them.) Well, unless you consider Germany circa 1940 a civilized society.

PS, on previewing this post, I see a lot of angry people with athelas for posting that page. Don’t forget I asked for a cite, so it’s my fault not his.

[Eyke]

@Kalhoun

Thanks, Eyke. I’m glad you’re getting something for all the bullshit you have to endure. I don’t know how you do it.

For the most part people there are friendly. I think the human face of homosexuality helps with people to deal with us. There are a very small minority who are not comfortable. One in particular I try to “pass the peace” when possible. It’s my sublimital way of saying, “You must acknowledge me!”

@Kalhoun

Your pastor sounds like a total pussy. What would happen if you just ignored his advice about keeping quiet and had that dialogue with the parishoners? Would he break your rank or something? I doubt it. He sounds waaaay to wimpy to do anything at all. I’d go for it if I were you.

You’re not the first who mentioned he’s not with the program. Our Lutheran Concerned leader said that the pastor should not make the decision on whether the church is going to do the human sexuality study or not. Maybe the pastor is “too Lutheran” as in, “How may Lutherans does it take to change a lightbulb?” “CHANGE?? WHAT DO YOU MEAN CHANGE?!?!” In due respect, he is accepting of us and is going to Berkley Lutheran Seminary in CA (second career as he’s in his late 50’s) all hope is not lost.

After my reply to your questions, I did some nebulous thinking. Maybe a notice about dialog, sorta an “Ask the Gay Guys” placed in the bulletin.

Interestingly enough, a parisioner of another Lutheran church asked a guy who works here if he know any gay people. D thought of me and HWMBO. L said he wanted to be educated on this gay thing. So the 4 of us sat down and chatted about all kinds of things. L still has a problem with the concept of homosexuality. HWMBO said about why are there blacks and slant eyed people. We kinda ended on that note as it was 10pm (we started close to 8). I was relayed that L said to D, “But the blacks can’t help it.” Just could not grasp the analogy. L did say he wanted to discuss this more, so the hope is there that he’ll come to some terms. We invited them both to our annual PFLAG picnic. Nothing like dumping L in the midst of queers and allies.

[Homebrew]

@Eyke

After my reply to your questions, I did some nebulous thinking. Maybe a notice about dialog, sorta an “Ask the Gay Guys” placed in the bulletin.

Paging Esprix.

Oh wait, you mean in the Church Bulletin. Let me know how that goes. You ain’t in a Unitarian Congregation, my friend.

[Kalhoun]

@Homebrew

Paging Esprix.

Oh wait, you mean in the Church Bulletin. Let me know how that goes. You ain’t in a Unitarian Congregation, my friend.

No kidding! Keep us posted on that one.

I guess all you can do is be yourselves and hope for the best. It’s nice to know people are making an effort to understand, but it still amazes me that they feel they have to put all this “study” into it.

Out of curiosity, how long will you give it until you feel you have nothing to gain from a group that won’t accept you and your partner for who you are?

[Kalhoun]

@Kalhoun

No kidding! Keep us posted on that one.

I guess all you can do is be yourselves and hope for the best. It’s nice to know people are making an effort to understand, but it still amazes me that they feel they have to put all this “study” into it.

Out of curiosity, how long will you give it until you feel you have nothing to gain from a group that won’t accept you and your partner for who you are?

(This was directed at Eyke…sorry for the confusion)

[Otto]

@athelas

Well, here is one.

Romans 1:26-7

First, I don’t recall the prohibition against lying being thrown out by the new covenant, so lyingly attributing the words of Paul to God is a bit of a sin.

Second, why is it that the stupid fucking bigot asshole fucks who quote this verse ignore the first three words?

“Because of this…”

Because of this…"

Because of this…"

Anyone with a fucking brain in their heads, which in my experience excludes a large percentage of “Bible-believing Christians,” understands that “because of this…” indicates that the words that follow are an effect, not a cause.

Which means that the verses in question are describing a rather bizarre punishment for doing the things described earlier in the chapter.

Of course the bible is a work of fiction, but I for one would appreciate it if you and the rest of your fucking dickhead brigade would, if you’re going to cling to a work of fiction out of your own inability to make it through life without your crutch, would at least get it right.

[Eyke]

@jarbabyj

I enjoy your cite, **athelas, especially since the name of the page is ‘perverts’. :rolleyes: Love thy neighbor as thyself, eh friend?

Of course you realize that Romans 1 is the story of God’s punishment of people that reject him in all ways, not specifically for being homosexual.

And I believe, strongly in my heart, that any man or woman who loves the Lord with all their heart and mind and soul and loves their neighbor as themselves will get into heaven and be greeted with open arms by our Lord.

AMEN AMEN!
It never amazes me how the santimoneous hypocritical among us are so quick to use the Bible as a weapon for hate and discrimination.

I’ll have to go over to GD and peruse that thread Homebrew was kind enought to provide, thanks Homebrew! I’ll leave my debate of this particular passage for the GD thread. Suffice to say it was God allowing the Gentiles to engage in such behavior because they dismissed him and worship things they made.

[TVeblen]

This sort of thing is the reason I rejected organized religion a long time ago. FTR, I was baptised and raised a Methodist, which is not to single them out. The problem seems common to all churches, or any group of human beings, for that matter. The problem–which may well be mine, as a diehard loner–is a disconnect between actual religions and churches. In my perception, religions–faiths–are the substance. Churches, by definition, set themselves the test of expressing that substance organizationally. Pretty daunting task, that. It’s like herding eels to get any group of people to agree on the specifics of much of anything.
But to me, churches are carts pulling the horses. They’re like political parties, in a sense; means to measured against actual principles–and evaluated by actual practice. Doubtless it’s my lack that I don’t “get” the use of value-bound groups, so no judgment here on any individual choices made.
That said, the mere handling of homosexuality among Methodists seems mind bogglingly bizarre. A close vote that “there is no disagreement”, alongside talk of friendly schisms over the issue? Talk about technicolor denial.
For those of you who’ve chosen to hang tough through the process, best of luck to you. I can’t for the life of me understand why you’re doing it, because it seems like you’re having to teach your church how to actually practice Christianity. (Cart, horse.) Carefully scrutinizing people for offical rejection or acceptance is not love, and it is not what Christ taught.