Re: E-mail about the UMC
Today I received an e-mail with a question included. Anonymous asked, "What is the United Methodist Church's official stance on homosexual ministers (to me this means professed lifestyle). " Despite rumors, the UMC does have official positions regarding homosexuality.
Concerning clergy who are openly homosexual, the UMC discipline says the following:
Concerning clergy who are openly homosexual, the UMC discipline says the following:
While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. (From the Book of Discipline section dealing with the ordained ministry, Paragraph 304.3)Concerning the practice of homosexuality in general, the UMC discipline says the following:
Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons. (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004)A comprehensive position on all aspects of this issue can be found here. It has become somewhat of a stereotype that the United Methodist Church has "accepted" or "condoned" homosexuality. This is an incorrect assessment of reality. It is true that the issue has become somewhat of a hot topic within the denomination due to a liberal and quite vocal minority wing of the church. However, with each Methodist conference the language of the discipline becomes stronger against the practice. Has there been failure within the denomination in certain areas? Yes. I acknowledge that. But the argument that the UMC supports homosexuality and has "gone liberal" is incorrect. A denomination is no more than its discipline, and at leat the UMC discipline seeks to actually wrestle with the issue instead of either denying homosexuals basic human decency or denying the issue altogether.
3 Comments:
Sean,
I thank you for giving a more in-depth explanation of exactly what the Methodist Constitution (or "Book of Discipline") says concerning homosexuality, especially as it pertains to ordination into the clergy.
However, I'm confused now, because just a week ago, I heard on the radio (and have since found innumerable articles online) about the UMC's reversal of a previous ruling it had, one in which Rev Irene Elizabeth Stroud was convicted of violating the Methodist's Book of Discipline and had been told to step down. If it clearly states in the BoD that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" should be prohibited from being ordained or appointed to serve in pastoral positions, why is the church reversing it's decision? I realize the decision could still be appealed, but if even the Methodist's own guidelines state (at least by my observation) very clearly that homosexuals are not to be appointed/ordained into ministry, why the controversy? People like Ms Stroud
believes that such a prohibition violates the church's constitution, but how can that be if it so very clearly states the contrary? Is the UMC as a whole blind to the obviousness of the violation, or is it just a particular sect of the Methodist church, or am I missing something entirely? Just curious as to your take on the situation!
Jeremy,
I was not aware of this particular case. I'm sure that not a week goes by without somewhere something similar to this is happening in this country. This particular case seems to have caught the media's attention.
I cannot speak with authority on this case since I do not know all of the inner workings. But from my reading from multiple articles it appears as though the overruling of the original decision that banned her from ministry was due to supposed mishandlings of the trial by the original committee. Supposedly the committe did not meet requirements of both church law and rulings of the denomination’s top court because of something to do with some lay persons' involvement in the decision. According to a letter written by Retired Bishop Joseph H. Yeakel, named to oversee the case, "The transcript of the meeting of the Committee on Investigation indicates that the committee did not have the necessary voting members present as required by The Discipline, paragraph 2703.2, which reads as follows: "Seven members or alternates seated as members of the committee shall constitute a quorum".... As a result, the committee is left with only six voting members which does not meet the quorum requirement."
This does not mean that the Church has failed to uphold its discipline. Instead, it appears to be legal "loop-holing" on behalf of the defendant. The case will go to the Church's highest court where it will mot likely result in her banishment from ministry.
What does all this mean? This particular case, coming from the liberal Northeast region of the US, is an example of how the liberal wing of the UMC is trying to maneuver around Church policy and undermine the discipline. Anyone who has ever paid any attention to the affairs of the UMC of late know that this wing exists and is extremely proactive. Up until the last couple of years, the conservative majority of the Church has been unnervingly silent. But efforts are being made to further solidify the language of the discipline and restore the integrity of the denomination. I heard from one very involved minister in our own conference that this renewed effort to combat liberalism will likely lead to yet another church split. I personally am torn about this possibility. While a split would be somewhat "cleansing" in a sense it is still yet another fragmentation in an already fragmented American church. Liberalism in America is here to stay and will fight in whatever denomination it can. The Methodists are targeted specifically because of their emphasis on inclusion (not doctrinal) and because they are a mainline entity in the American church. The way to combat liberalism is to stand on the authority of God's Word, not another split. You can split until you have a thousand different denominations, but liberalism will still persist as long as you remain weak on truth.
This is my commentary on this issue. I am limited in my knowledge of it and this is the best I can offer. All I know is what the discipline says. I can only hope that those in charge of making the judicial decisions have the sense and the gumption to uphold it.
A UMC Pastor in Virginia was just removed
for refusing to accept a "gay" transfer into
his congregation.His fellow pastors voted
3 to 1 for his removal!
3
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog