The United Methodist Church Judicial Council Upholds Church Law

[Mike S]

http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/consecration-of-gay-bishop-against-church-law
Church law requires all clergy persons to dedicate themselves to “the highest ideals of Christian life,” the decision said, including “their commitment to abide by and uphold the church’s definition of marriage and stance on homosexuality. An openly homosexual and partnered bishop is in violation of those minimum standards.”

The decision further found that an openly homosexual and partnered bishop may be charged with disobedience to church law, along with other bishops and clergy persons who actively participate in the consecration of a bishop who has been found to be a self-avowed practicing homosexual through a judicial or administrative process.

 

[Christ_empowered]

that's reassuring, considering what's happened in some other mainline denominations. do you think it'll be the same in say, 20 years?

 

[Mike S]

that's reassuring, considering what's happened in some other mainline denominations. do you think it'll be the same in say, 20 years?

I don't think it will solve the problem. The church will uphold the church law, but many of the liberal congregations may split rather than remove the non-conforming clergy.

 

[ezra]

problem is many of the clergy choose the ministry as a career the old Methodist stayed with the Bible

 

[Mike S]

Actually, CE, the Methodist Church has gone through something similar in the 1800s, over slavery. The Methodist Episcopal Church Book of Discipline contained very strong language against slavery, and against clergy owning slaves. In 1844, with the abolitionist movement having a strong influence in the church, many southern conferences split from the church, founding the Methodist Episcopal Church South. Then, as now, there were elements of the church that wanted to change doctrine so as to more completely conform to the values of the secular world, and there were ill advised efforts at compromise to maintain unity. The split was inevitable, but the separate branches rejoined in the 1930s...slavery still condemned by the church.

 

[Silmarien]

Then, as now, there were elements of the church that wanted to change doctrine so as to more completely conform to the values of the secular world, and there were ill advised efforts at compromise to maintain unity.

It'd be very interesting to have a conversation about just what the idea of "secular pressures" actually means, since in this particular context, I'm not sure if you're calling the abolitionists or the slave-owners the secularists! (I assume the slave-owners? Or maybe both.)

Case in point: I ran across a line by Alister McGrath about how an apologist should respond to feminists, and instead of going after feminism, he went after the secular influences of the misogynistic Greco-Roman world and pointed out how egalitarian the Gospel actually was. Which I appreciated, since I was already on the same page, but it was amusing to see the term "secular" turned around like that.

The tension between tradition and the drive for greater equality, and the question of who's following the Gospel and who's just listening to society, is always interesting. (Spoken as a social liberal, yes, but my little seeking adventure has led me to the gates of Byzantium, so... that's complicating everything significantly.)