UMC decision regarding LGBT+ marriage and clergy

[Luce NDs]

The mainline, liberal, Protestant UMC defeated the LGBTQ agenda and affirmed the biblical vision for marriage and sexuality. This demands our applause.

The UMC's about 50 years old. Identified with liberal Protestantism, the UMC also includes a representation of classical, evangelical Methodists committed to traditional mission.

Those conservative members are calling the UMC back to evangelism. While liberalism has hit most mainline denominations, the UMC's evangelicals promote orthodox theology, and stand opposed to moral laxity.

Jae despises anything strange and different ... and thus generation of fruitcake ... and this fierce self hatred that creates heavenly fallacy ... just so the essence of unity would experience it as passover, through, under, beside, para lilith ... meta foreth, blossoming as the word flows ... black incubus? On the other side ... opposing holes where the darkness retreats ... shamelessly and formless for a Nous Dei ... reminding me of the French Song ... a hummer of Gaels ...

Imagine Eve Angels as Gabriel speaking of darker things in the shades of knights ... down times as in Kubler-Ross ... mimicked by the silent Greek MU ... that's Ur man ... homunculus? That grey area between the glans of the brain and the abstract zones ... a stretch of neurons?

 

[Redbaron]

The mainline, liberal, Protestant UMC defeated the LGBTQ agenda and affirmed the biblical vision for marriage and sexuality. This demands our applause.

The UMC's about 50 years old. Identified with liberal Protestantism, the UMC also includes a representation of classical, evangelical Methodists committed to traditional mission.

Those conservative members are calling the UMC back to evangelism. While liberalism has hit most mainline denominations, the UMC's evangelicals promote orthodox theology, and stand opposed to moral laxity.

The organization now known as the United Methodist Church may be about 50 years old, but its roots are much deeper. The previous organizations now part of the UMC have had their fair share of schisms. In the mid- 19th century, in both Methodist and Baptist churches, there were schisms over slavery. The 'Evangelicals' of the day thought that enslaving people was just wonderful, God's gift to cotton plantations. In the 1930's, the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, finally reunited, as the southern Evangelicals finally realized their positions, firmly based on scattered Biblical citations, were in error. (The Northern Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention, both stemming from the same time in the mid 19th century, for similar reason, by the way, have yet to reunite).

There is a chance that the UMC may eventually reconcile. I just hope it doesn't take them another 80 years to do so.

 

[Luce NDs]

Comparative religious studies as multi etudes may assist in where the spirit of love, hate, curiosity and Joyce have slipped off the giggle in the abstract that reality denies ... in essence? After that calmer passions ... rendered down to compassion for the printer's gnomon ... and the phonetics run wild when the subjective is stirred ...

I know I drift across the boundary of abstract and absolutes ... it causes elimination in the fixated due to cast (missal) ration fears ... more schism! The sol-body connection is cloudy like a field of lamb das ... bi-gornes? Then there is Gorky Park ... a place for the Rush'n to arrest ...

 

[mgagnonlv]

GiancarloZ and BetteTheRed highlighted one of the major problems of centrally ruling a worldwide denomination. It is hard to agree on a path for evolution that works for all the world. So because we can't agree on how change should occurs, then no change occurs. Total immobilism.

Over the years, we have seen that in the Roman Catholic churches, where we had a mass in Latin that didn't change... until Vatican II, when all the world suddenly had to change at the same time, whether they liked it or not. The United Methodist Church will not change because it could not agree on how it should evolve. For instance, could UMC delegates from Africa vote to allow same-gender marriage when gay marriage – or even "showing gay tendencies" – is illegal in their countries? I wonder. Another consideration: I haven't seen if votes were counted by order, so we could know how many lay delegates and clergy delegates voted on each side. While lay people can vote on principles (even on phony ones), clergy have much more to gain or to lose from decisions of the UMC conference. After all, unsatisfied lay people can vote with their feet, clergy can't move as easily.

Is the future in a breakup of that church? Maybe. And maybe that's for the better. Or maybe the future lies in some kind of lose governance like that of the Anglican Communion? The Anglican Communion has many flaws and its governance is sometimes frustrating, but basically, Lambeth is only a consulting body and the ruling powers stops at the national or sometimes even at the "provincial" level (Canada has 4 ecclesiastical provinces). So maybe the UMC could decide that its World Conference becomes an advisory body to regional churches. That way, the US branch of the UMC could decide on its own to be LGBTQ friendly while the African branch could go the traditional way, and no Conference above that would prevent either group to decide otherwise.

I don't know much the UMC, but in a way, if the US branch were to fly on its own or if a breakaway movement were to be created, it might be good on the long run for its lay members and maybe even for the Church as a whole. For lay people, it would show in the face of all that these congregations are LGBTQ-friendly, for priests it will allow to "go public" on their welcome to all people. And in the long run, it would help provide a decent image of the Church of God as a loving place rather than one of judgement.

As for having yet another denomination on the map, maybe that would preclude other associations, like full communion between the progressive branch of the UMC and the Episcopal Church, or full communion between the traditional branch of the UMC and the Anglican Network (i.e. traditionalists). I'll pray that all of these moves happen in a respectful way.

 

[chansen]

I took a strangely keen interest in that UMC General Conference. I have been in contact with a superintendent in the Pacific Northwest from when I took my concerns about Berserk to him and the PNW bishop. Dale seems to be a good guy. I wrote him in the middle of the conference for his thoughts, and he predicted exactly what would happen: The Traditional Plan would pass, but parts of it would be unconstitutional.

The funny thing is all the divinity schools used by the UMC we're for the One Church Plan. The UMC is a denomination that fundamentally disagrees with its own schools. It's been taken over by a bunch of bigots who have leveraged African support to wrestle control of a vehicle that was arcing toward acceptance of LGBTQ pastors and same sex marriages.

I don't think much movement will happen until their next GC, but some might leave. At least one jursidiction said they will openly violate the new rules, which, after the unconstitutional bits are possibly removed, will have no teeth.

This fight isn't over.

 

[Jae]

When the UMC gathers every four years for its GC, conservatives have enjoyed greater representation because more representatives come from theologically conservative African and Asian churches.

Liberals saw the denomination's trend towards a biblical ethic. They who fought for the UMC’s acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda grasped that their chances dwindled each year.

UMC liberals knew they needed to force a vote on these issues fast, hence 2019's special GC. The meeting in Missouri stemmed from debates held at every GC since 1972.

 

[Luce NDs]

Who impressed the a' freak 'n fear with western bigo tree?

Thus reason departs us ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

I took a strangely keen interest in that UMC General Conference. I have been in contact with a superintendent in the Pacific Northwest from when I took my concerns about Berserk to him and the PNW bishop. Dale seems to be a good guy. I wrote him in the middle of the conference for his thoughts, and he predicted exactly what would happen: The Traditional Plan would pass, but parts of it would be unconstitutional.

The funny thing is all the divinity schools used by the UMC we're for the One Church Plan. The UMC is a denomination that fundamentally disagrees with its own schools. It's been taken over by a bunch of bigots who have leveraged African support to wrestle control of a vehicle that was arcing toward acceptance of LGBTQ pastors and same sex marriages.

I don't think much movement will happen until their next GC, but some might leave. At least one jursidiction said they will openly violate the new rules, which, after the unconstitutional bits are possibly removed, will have no teeth.

This fight isn't over.

Holy s**t. That is a church-process-educated answer. Hugs.

(If I am the only one sitting here wetting myself with laughter, well, beat me with a noodle.)

 

[GiancarloZ]

It's truly a disadvantage of cross-cultural denominations.

My crystal ball sees a schism.

The vote was fairly close, from what I understand. It was heartbreaking to so many people and certainly a retrograde step when considering today's social context. I agree with Bette - wondering if the division occurred across cultural lines - as has been discussed for other church issues with cross-continent representation.

The cultural matter has so many layers. What happened with the UMC and what's happening in the Anglican Communion is a direct consequence of colonialism.

 

[GiancarloZ]

The Anglican Communion has many flaws and its governance is sometimes frustrating, but basically, Lambeth is only a consulting body and the ruling powers stops at the national or sometimes even at the "provincial" level (Canada has 4 ecclesiastical provinces)

The Anglican Communion, though more loosely connected, also is having its own share of problems regarding LGBTQ+ matters. I'm not sure if they'll be able to find common ground.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Wouldn't it be just sort of interesting if we could all just drop gender as a conversation?

Really...what does a penis do that is magical?

 

[GiancarloZ]

Wouldn't it be just sort of interesting if we could all just drop gender as a conversation?

Really...what does a penis do that is magical?

I do agree with you regarding the West and Western culture while recognizing, as a Freudian, that a penis has lots of things to say and to silent
But in regard to all the non-Western world, I'd say their non-straight or non-gender-conforming people need to climb their own ladders within their own cultural contexts and heritages.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Once there is no penis-focus, then the questions get easy. Should loving adults be able to commit to legal relationship? Should they be able to form legal families adding progeny in legal ways? (natural, adoption, surrogacy, etc.)

 

[Jae]

For the last 47 years, liberals have fought for the relaxation of the UMC’s teaching, which is the "Book of Discipline."

The denomination's discipline asserts that practicing homosexuals can't be ordained as ministers, even as it's to be recognized that all persons are individuals created in the imago Dei.

It also promotes marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and states that homosexuality is incompatible with missional teaching.

 

[chansen]

Why are so many Christians so worked up about the activities of penises that aren't attached to them or doing anything to them?

When someone is teaching at the front of the room, my first thought is not, "I wonder if this professor likes other penises or if he is a vagina man?" I simply don't care. The only reason to care about the sexuality of someone is if you have, or are thinking about having a sexual relationship with them. End of list. If sex with someone is off the table, why do you care who they prefer to have sex with? Why are you contemplating their sex lives?

While you're busy demanding people confirm they prefer sexual contact with the sort of genitals they don't personally possess, consider the possibility that *you're* the pervert.

 

[Pinga]

Wouldn't it be just sort of interesting if we could all just drop gender as a conversation?

Really...what does a penis do that is magical?

Oh, i want that laughter emoji @Mendalla

 

[GiancarloZ]

Once there is no penis-focus, then the questions get easy. Should loving adults be able to commit to legal relationship? Should they be able to form legal families adding progeny in legal ways? (natural, adoption, surrogacy, etc.)

My particular answer is yes. The point is that I don't think we should decide how non-Western peoples answer that.

 

[Jae]

Once there is no penis-focus, then the questions get easy. Should loving adults be able to commit to legal relationship? Should they be able to form legal families adding progeny in legal ways? (natural, adoption, surrogacy, etc.)

Once there is no penis-focus... er, can we just do away with people's genitalia like that? God gave people their genitalia. Don't you think God had a good reason for that.

 

[GiancarloZ]

Once there is no penis-focus... er, can we just do away with people's genitalia like that? God gave people their genitalia. Don't you think God had a good reason for that.

Maybe a biologic/reproductive one, but if we stick to biological and evolutionary facts we shouldn't do 90% of what we do nowadays, and our lifestyle should be very different. Being a Christian is about living in the freedom of the Gospel, being saved by Grace and bearing fruits of this saving faith. I don't think it's about rules and certain ways of living. Accepting and affirming LGBTQ+ people is part of the mandate of loving thy neighbor.

 

[chansen]

From my atheistic perspective, it's part of my "who the hell cares?" mandate.

The only reason we're talking about the sex lives of so many people is because Christian nutcases won't shut up about it and want their preoccupation with naughty bits codified.