Imagebearer’s Weblog

The Only Evangelism That Works: Be An Imagebearer

Kay-Waiting for Adoption

image of Kay
Kay – 6 Years Old is one of the photographs that we have displayed at First United Methodist Church Hillsville of Children Waiting for Adoption. 
   

Kay loves classical music and listens to Bach every night before going to sleep. Her favorite foods are macaroni and cheese and marshmallows. She enjoys playing on swings and picking flowers. If she could visit anywhere it would be the zoo.

 

 

 
Region: WesternCall 1-800-DO-ADOPT for further information.

Photograph by Tonia Wilson

July 15, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

California United Methodists react to same-sex ruling

How can this be when it explicitly goes against The Book of Discipline? If we are held to one standard and not all then we will fall. A house divided against itself can never stand.

Ronnie

Jul. 9, 2008     

NOTE: Photographs are available at http://umns.umc.org.

A UMNS Report
By Marta W. Aldrich*

On the heels of a California Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to same-gender unions, two United Methodist legislative bodies in California have approved gay-friendly statements that are stretching the denominational promise of “open hearts, open minds, open doors.”

The church’s California-Pacific Annual Conference, convening June 18-22 in Redlands, approved three measures that support same-gender couples entering into the marriage covenant. Each “encourages both congregations and pastors to welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture and pastoral care for these families,” according to a June 27 letter to the conference from Bishop Mary Ann Swenson and other conference leaders.

That same week in Sacramento, the California-Nevada Annual Conference approved two measures on the same issue, including one that lists 67 retired United Methodist clergy in northern California who have offered to conduct same-gender marriage ceremonies. The resolution commends the pastors’ work in offering continued ministry.

The statements are the strongest yet on the issue by California United Methodists and have drawn cheers from gay rights advocates, who say the church and its pastors should extend to same-sex couples the same level of support it provides heterosexual couples.

Others say the conferences are on the verge of breaking a Scripturally based covenant with the rest of the 11.5 million-member worldwide denomination. The United Methodist Church, while affirming all people as persons “of sacred worth,” considers the practice of homosexuality “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Its policy book, called the Book of Discipline, prohibits its pastors and churches from conducting ceremonies celebrating homosexual unions.

The denominational statements were affirmed last spring during split votes by General Conference, the church’s top legislative body. The assembly, which met April 23-May 2, convenes every four years and represents United Methodists worldwide.

That same month, California’s high court overturned a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, making California and Massachusetts the only U.S. states to allow gay couples to marry. California began to issue licenses June 16.

Pastoral choices

The actions by United Methodist leaders in southern California reflect the struggle by pastors and churches to minister to same-sex couples in the wake of actions by both the General Conference and the state’s high court, according to the Rev. Frank Wulf, pastor of United University Church, a United Methodist/Presbyterian congregation in Los Angeles.

“This recognizes that our pastors and our churches are already struggling with these decisions,” said Wulf, who helped to author the resolutions. “It’s an attempt to honor the choices they make.”

One resolution reads in part: “While we recognize that we are governed by the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, we support those pastors who conscientiously respond to the needs of their parishes by celebrating same-gender marriages, and we envision compassion and understanding in any resulting disciplinary actions.”

The second resolution acknowledges the May 15 court decision, and the third opposes a November ballot initiative in California that would reverse the court ruling and amend the state constitution to bar gay marriage.

In northern California, the California-Nevada Conference voted to support both the court ruling and the pastoral alternative offered by some retired clergy. “Some of our clergy will choose not to perform same-gender marriages, for various reasons, but would like to keep a continued ministry with families and loved ones of same-gender couples,” the resolution states. “…Retired clergy in our conference are now available to perform the marriages as an aid to the congregation and pastor. …”

Bishop Beverly Shamana, who presides over the conference, declined to comment on the action. Responding to an elder’s call, she has sent a ruling to the denomination’s top court on the question of how the conference can authorize and commend its clergy to conduct an act that might violate church law. The Judicial Council is expected to consider her ruling when it convenes in October.

Ongoing conversation

The latest developments in the California conferences trouble United Methodists who view such actions as a challenge to both Scriptural authority and the church’s covenant through its Book of Discipline. They note that General Conference has repeatedly affirmed its stance on homosexuality and homosexual unions.

“We’ve made it clear we adhere to biblical teaching and Christian tradition,” said the Rev. Eddie Fox, director of evangelism for the World Methodist Council. “Ninety-eight percent of Christians around the world believe marriage is between one man and one woman, so we’re not out of step in our ecumenical relationships with Christians around the world.”

At the most recent General Conference, Fox helped lead the effort to keep the church’s stance on homosexuality intact. He argued that “God created the maleness and the femaleness” and that this “order of creation is, at the very heart, one of those essential doctrines for us in our church.”

“If we don’t have a clear, consistent statement on this, it will result in confusion in our church,” Fox said in a July 7 interview with UMNS. “These are the Social Principles for the whole church, not for one church.” The Social Principles, contained in the Book of Discipline, detail the church’s position on homosexuality and other social concerns.

The Rev. Maxie Dunnam urged all pastors and churches to act on the church’s definition of marriage instead of secular definitions. “The church is called to be prophetic in opposing that in the culture that is clearly out of step with what our United Methodist Church, the church universal and the Christian faith affirms,” said Dunnam, chancellor of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky.

“I would hope that people would recognize the pain that their action will cause for the whole church, especially as we seek to be a global church.”

The Rev. John McFarland was among California-Pacific members who questioned the wisdom of the body’s decisions and the processes being used to discern God’s voice.

“This topic is not being debated based on Scripture,” said McFarland, pastor of Fountain Valley (Calif.) United Methodist Church. “It’s being debated primarily on experience without regard to tradition, reason and Scripture.” Scripture, tradition, experience and reason are the four themes cited by Methodism’s founder, John Wesley, as illuminating the Christian faith.

“Even though wonderful and caring people practice same-sex behavior, the discussion does not end there. What concerns me is how far we’ve gone from trusting the Bible as the Word of God,” said McFarland. He noted that 2 Timothy 3:16 says “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness.”

Interpretation vs. authority

Proponents of conference actions suggest the issue is not biblical authority, but biblical interpretation.

“It is our UM tradition to interpret Scripture with attention to its context and purpose,” said the Rev. Sharon Rhodes-Wickett, pastor of Claremont (Calif.) United Methodist Church.

“We create misunderstandings when we choose some texts to be understood as literal and others not,” she said. “We once excluded women as clergy based on Scriptural authority; we once justified slave-holding based on Scripture. We’re doing the same thing now with regard to homosexuality.”

Wulf said the church’s unity does not necessarily lie in the unanimity of practice in all things. “We are fallible human beings, and our covenant is imperfect. We all know that because we get together every four years to adjust it,” he said of the church’s General Conference.

“To those of us in the West who feel a calling to offer a different kind of message to same-sex couples, there is a sense in which the whole church wants to hem us in and prevent us from following that calling,” Wulf said.

“… We know the world is in flux, particularly on this issue,” he said. “So we do this–not as an act of disrespect to the people of Africa or the people of (other parts of the United States)–but as a way of speaking the Christian Gospel compassionately to a group of people who deal with this every day.”

*Aldrich is news editor of United Methodist News Service.

News media contact: Marta Aldrich, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.

********************

United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org

July 15, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

SLAVERY, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND “NOT BEING OF ONE MIND”

From The Confessing Movement of the United Methodist Church

HAPPENINGS AROUND THE CHURCH
 
By Dr. Riley B. Case
 
SLAVERY, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND “NOT BEING OF ONE MIND”

  
 
 
The church is divided over the question of the practice of homosexuality.  There is no question about that.  While the church has stated that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, many have disagreed.  While some would like for the church to remove the restrictions and simply bless the practice of homosexuality, others, including many moderates, would like for the church to find a “middle way.”  One “middle way” would be simply to admit the church “is not of one mind” on the matter of the practice of homosexuality and so to state it in our Discipline.  The “not of one mind” petition is what failed to pass at the General Conference.
 
At this point, it would be worth considering what happened the other time the church was so bitterly divided over a moral question, namely, on slavery in the mid-1800s.
 
There is no question about where Methodists stood on slavery in the early days.  John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury were horrified at the idea that one human being could enslave another.  The General Rules, the Disciplines, and early sermons made it clear that slaveholding was an abominable sin against God and human dignity and would not be tolerated among the people of God called Methodists.
 
Then Methodists got prosperous and, in the words of Orange Scott, the abolitionist, “aristocratic.”  Along with the secular world around them some Methodists, primarily in the South but in other places also, began to argue that it was not slavery as an institution that was so bad, but the mistreatment of slaves.  Christian slaveholders had a responsibility to win their slaves to Christ, and maybe even offer a form of education, but were not under moral obligation to free slaves.
 
Soon Methodists (as well as the rest of the country) were divided into three groups. Abolitionists made up the first group.  Slavery and whatever was associated with slavery was to be resisted and abolished, and as soon as possible.  All the moral weight of the church was to be poured into this effort (including the Underground Railroad).  At the very least slaveholders should not be church members.  Abolitionists, moral heroes today, were not seen as such in the mid-1800s.  They were troublemakers.  Their critical remarks of the church were seen as divisive. 
 
The next two groups were in the “we are not of one mind” category.  One group supported slavery.  This group argued that slavery was approved by Scripture, and insisted on “non-interference,” the principle that groups from far off should not interfere in local affairs.  Theirs was a form of modern multi-culturalism.  Cultural circumstances determined what is right and wrong and persons in the church should respect the beliefs of others.  What was sin for one group of persons was not necessary sin for others.  They argued that slavery was a political issue more than a moral issue.  This group claimed allegiance to the slave-permitting laws of the state rather than any moral law, especially if law was imposed by outsiders.
   
The third group might be called the moderates, although a better description might be, the “Compromised Middle.”  Included in this group were the people who either did not know much about slavery or, if they did know, did not desire to be greatly involved.  Others in this group, including many church leaders, did know about slavery and were concerned (rightfully so) about slavery’s potential for dividing the church.  They deplored the “extremists” on either side.  In the language of today, they believed the best way for the church to deal with slavery was through dialogue, understanding, hearing one another’s stories, getting to know each other, and finding the center of their togetherness in love.
 
With the moderates, or Compromised Middle, the primary concern–ahead of faithfulness to the Scriptures, moral justice, or the tradition of the church–was unity.  Many believed, or said they did, that slavery was a sin.  But a greater sin, evidently, was intolerance and divisiveness, particularly the intolerance and divisiveness of the abolitionists.  The Kentucky Conference in 1835 unanimously adopted a report condemning slavery as morally wrong while at the same time deploring “the interference of the abolitionists.”  It was compromise in the interest of avoiding conflict. 
 
The bishops, for their part, were the most compromised of all.  Not able to agree among themselves, they condemned extremists, deplored the controversy, and talked unity.  The bishops were particularly loath to criticize each other even when one of their own, Bishop James Andrew, was revealed to be a slaveholder.  When the issue could be avoided no longer and the General Conference of 1844 was prepared to pass a resolution suggesting that Bishop Andrew desist from exercising his office as long as he continued to be a slaveholder (which was itself a compromised resolution for the sake of harmony), the bishops proposed a resolution that the matter be tabled for four more years.
 
As with slavery then so with homosexuality today.  The church today is divided into three groups. The first group declares that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.  According to this group, this stand is consistent with Scripture, with the tradition of the church through the years, and is supported in large part by Christians around the world.  Even as slavery struck at the moral fabric of what Christian faith was all about, so with homosexual practice.  This group speaks of accountability and upholding the Discipline.
 
The second group believes homosexuality is a gift of God, or at least, is not inconsistent with Scripture. This group appeals to a number of different arguments: God has revealed new truth (a new revelation which evidently they alone have received) which informs them that the practice of homosexuality is not a sin after all; or, what may be considered wrong in some parts of the world (like Africa) is not necessarily wrong in some other part of the world (like California); or, loving, committed relationships and personal experience trump Scripture and tradition.  This group sees the first group as hateful and intolerant.
 
A third group, which one might call the “moderates,” want us all simply to get along.  They deplore the rigid approaches.  Much of their effort is spent speaking about dialogue, understanding, hearing one another’s stories, getting along, and finding the center of our unity in love.  They find attraction in the idea that perhaps it is best that we just admit we “are not of one mind” and let people do what is right in their own eyes. 
 
The bishops, like the bishops during the years of slavery, are themselves conflicted.  A number do not personally believe in the church’s stance, and their bias shows.  In some annual conferences, candidates for ministry are denied membership for being “rigid,” that is for holding with conviction what the church has always taught about homosexuality.  Regardless of what they might say among themselves, publicly they do not engage in debate with one another.  When the bishops speak as a Council of Bishops, it is to acknowledge that there is much pain over homosexuality, but the church should be loving in all things, show restraint, and move on to other more important matters.   
 
Very few people are satisfied with the present situation facing the United Methodist Church.  Those who would affirm the practice of homosexuality believe the church is rigid, intolerant, and hate-filled and has been manipulated by hate-mongers and right-wingers.  Those who support the Biblical view of homosexuality believe the church is on the edge of apostasy.  Those in the middle, like a mother whose children are out of control but who doesn’t know what to do, tell us we should all be nice to each other.  They appear to be, in the words to the church at Laodicea, “neither hot nor cold.”
 
The Methodist Episcopal Church had many things to be proud of in the nineteenth century.  How it dealt with slavery, however, was not one of them.  The resolution on Bishop Andrew led to a Plan of Separation, which was a form of amiable separation.  It was the northern conferences who, in the name of unity, passed resolutions against the plan.  Thus, when separation came, it was not amiable.  Battles over property and encroachment represent an ugly chapter in the church’s history.  The Methodist Protestants, who did work out an amiable separation, were able to reunite in 1877.   
 
What will happen to the United Methodist Church in the coming years over the issue of homosexuality?  There is not much encouragement in thinking that things will probably progress just as they have been:  continual political maneuvering, announced strategies to undermine the Discipline, ugly words spoken against brothers and sisters,  more rounds of dialogue that don’t solve anything, a compromised moral witness,  resolutions on unity that provide no help in bringing about that unity, conflicted bishops.  Those on the evangelical side of the issue are alarmed that some of our best families, our best prospective pastors, and even some churches, are simply opting out of the denomination.  Despite the church’s announced position, the church’s ambiguity has the effect of permission-giving to the acceptance of homosexual practice.
 
One must always hold out the hope that God will do some new thing.  If so, it will probably come through the moderates in the denomination.  But for the moderates, as well as all of us, it can no longer be business as usual.  The church’s response to slavery should teach us that.
 

July 15, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 935 other followers