Out LGBTQ Bishop in the UMC!

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Thanks Sandy! I find that I still learn things from my Baptist colleagues too. But I also learn a lot from people in quite a few other denominations as well. We've compartmentalized ourselves. I've come to believe that each denomination has a charism a gift that they contribute to the whole body of Christ. But United Methodists are very clear that we aren't the whole body of Christ. We just hope to share our charism with others.

Again, I have on more than one occasion consulted the moderation staff about my presence. If they had a problem with me being here I'd not be here.

[Dave Roberts]

[Haruo]

Not to mention Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, atheists and Mormons.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Shawn Koester]

I'm rejoicing with my Methodist sisters and brothers for the election of their first LGBT bishop. I do have a question though, I know the anti-LGBT language in the Discipline was adopted in the early 70s but was the Discipline meant to be a form of legalism? I do believe that the United Methodist Church can maintain its unity in Christ Jesus and his Lordship amidst differences in in culture and tradition. There's to be unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials, and in all things liberty. For it is with freedom that Christ bought us. Schism breaks the Lord's heart and my heart. Churches and Christians shouldn't have the attitude of "I don't agree with everything you do, so I'm gonna go by myself, take our toys and not work with you anymore" Since Methodists in their early history were low church Anglicans, I fear if there is a schism, it is gonna look like the ACNA Anglican split. Relationships broken, churches divided and possibly much worse. Jesus, son of the living God, have mercy on our souls. Speaking from a Disciples perspective, it is ironic that in a movement based on the unity of all Christians, that we have had two schisms but no mergers. We had the Church of Christ break off from us in the 1900s due to women's ordination and instrumental worship, and we had the Independent Christians split off in the late 60s due to the restructure in '68. Some independents are beginning to regret the split over the restructure. There's a Stone Campbell dialogue going. I would like to be a part of that.

[Tim Bonney]

The Discipline was certainly intended to be Church law. But a fair number of Methodists would contend that for a while it started to be the habit of the General Conference to over regulate. Some changes to that came in recent years with less strict requirements about local church structure.

The 1972 statement on homosexuality in the Discipline is a strange aberration in that it is a doctrinal statement in the "rules" section of the Discipline rather than in our "doctrine" section.

The doctrinal statements in the Discipline are in what is called the "restricted section." It can only be changed by a super majority of the General Conference AND by a super majority of all the voting membership of all the annual conferences in the world. This has never happened.

So conservatives managed to get away with putting a doctrinal view in a non-doctrinal area of the Discipline that just requires a bare 1 more than 50% vote to pass (or remove) and that the General Conference can enact on their own.

I contend that this should not have allowed to have been considered valid as it is a way to circumvent our established doctrine.

You may be right that there may be a split. But we just don't know yet. A commission is being formed to look for solutions. We will see.

[Sandy]

So if you have doctrinal statements and rules in sections of the Discipline that can only be changed by a supermajority, and so aren't changed, and you have a rule that says the church doesn't ordain openly gay or lesbian clergy, but individual jurisdictions can do what they want, how does that get handled? It seems pointless to have a rule that any jurisdiction can simply ignore. And if that's the case, then why would the church risk a split if the jurisdictions can decide whether church doctrine is right or wrong in their own opinion? What does the restriction do, other than keep LGBT clergy from moving into a jurisdiction that follows the rule?

Since I've lived in Pennsylvania, I've had more contact with Methodists than anywhere before. We have a number of families in our school who attend UMC congregations, two in particular, both of whom are about as different from each other as you can get, and if it weren't for the logo, it would be hard to tell you were in a church of the same denomination. I visit both of them once a year or so, and speak on behalf of the school for a few minutes because they support us with some scholarship funding. One is a very traditional downtown church, that started a contemporary congregation in a fellowship hall/gym that outgrew the mother church. The other is a very typical "old country church" about nine miles out. I know both pastors well, and I can't imagine that they would be favorable toward a LGBT pastor or church staff member. Maybe the contemporary congregation would be more accepting, I don't know, but it doesn't seem like it. How deep does denominational loyalty run among Methodists?

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, all good questions. Basically authority in the UMC is diffused and spread out. The basic unit of authority to ordain clergy rests with the Annual Conference. Most clergy stay in the conference they were ordained in. It is surprising that a very high percentage of UMC clergy stay in the same Conference there whole career. So questions of ordination and decided there.

The Jurisdictions have sole authority to elect and appointed Bishops within their Jurisdiction and sole authority to discipline Bishops in their jurisdiction. They also elect persons to denominational boards and agencies.

The General Conference has sole authority to speak for the entire denomination and pass legislation that is placed in the Book of Discipline. (A legislative body)

The Council of Bishops acts as the coordinating body of the denomination in many ways acting as an Executive Branch.

The Judicial Council is our Supreme Court and can overrule the General Conference if they pass legislation that violates our Constitution.

So while the General Conference sets Church Law that all the bodies are supposed to follow, it is a bit of a gentleman's agreement that annual conference Boards of Ordained Ministry and Jurisidctional conferences will follow the laws set up by the General Conference for ordination or elevation to Bishop. However, apparently, there is no constitutional barrier for them not to follow all the rules, as we are now seeing.

I don't know what will happen. But what I see is that the progressive Methodists have been a few votes short of being able to welcome LGBTQ people fully into the Church for many years in the US with something close to a 40-60 or 45-55 minority. After fighting about this since 1972 many progressives are no longer willing to enforce General Conference regulations/laws that they believe are unjust and even unBiblical.

Interestingly one of the phrases used by the progressive camp for refusing to follow such rules is "Biblical Obedience." (As opposed to obeying the Discipline.)

I see two possibilities -

1. The Bishops's Commission on sexuality finds a compromise solution where pastor/churches in some combination can choose to either perform same sex marriages or not and conferences can choose to either ordain gay persons or not

Or

2. The denomination splits along progressive/conservative lines with what could be a north and south split undoing the merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (with the Protestant Methodist Church) in 1939 to form the Methodist Church. (Which later merged with the EUB to form the UMC.)

[Willis]

How can ppl who call themselves CHRISTians advocate allowing LGBT into positions of authority? This boggles my mind...and it ain't that hard to do. I want them to come to church, but that is so they can be saved, not to become my pastor.

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

[Willis]

Let me clarify my previous post. I would GLADLY welcome anyone to visit my church who is LGBT. However, according to the bible, that lifestyle is contrary to living a CHRISTian life. Apostle Paul said the idolators, adulterers, effeminate, g@ys, &c can't inherit the kingdom of God. Now, he then said such were some of you, showing God saves those who were once LGBT. But one can not remain in that lifestyle and be a CHRISTian,

[David Flick]

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[linda]

I would agree with Pastor Bonney that our regional UMC churches are getting very close to full approval of the LGBT movement or lifestyle.

But that reflects the numbers of members flying the coop, some landing in Wesleyan and Nazarene churches, independent charismatic (conservative) and SBC churches.

I would agree the liberals are indeed taking over the denomination, but it will be a hollow victory a people leave and churches empty.

But we enjoy our former UMC folks!

[Tim Bonney]

I don't see a takeover likely Linda. I see a split is more likely than anyone taking over. Southern Methodists are more conservative than their northern counterparts. The 6 US jurisdictions are quite different from each other. The SE, and South Central are the most conservative with the West and NE being the most liberal. The North Central is middle of the road leaning somewhat to the left.

If we don't split it will be because the UMC figures out some way to let there be some difference of interpretation on sexuality between jurisictions, conference etc. If there can't be differences allowed then there will likely be some kind of split.

Edit - Oh, and just to add, we are also losing a lot of people because we aren't allowed to perform same sex marriages too. The question isn't over people leaving over the issue. People are leaving on both sides because we've been discussing this for 40+ years.

[linda]

I agree geography matters, and matters much in the UMC.

Our region is very very liberal. We have churches who will do same sex marriages and so far don't see former UMC members there. So here at least the UMC is not losing members because they don't do same sex marriages. But I can show several families that have fled to more conservative churches. If all the conservative members were to jump ship, you could easily show percentages as "100%" for same sex marriage. But then again numbers could shake out in a year or so to "100% of 30 members are for same sex marriage" while another 70 people left for Nazarene, Assembly of God, and independent WoF churches along with the local SBC.

We went through this in the ELCA in the northern plains. Again, we were told it was not a takeover by the pro gay marriage and gay ordination side. But it didn't change the fact that so very many people left, and so many who stayed closed the pocketbook that schools are closing, ministries and missions have been drastically cut back, etc.

Personally I believe a split would be a better way to go than what the ELCA has done. Be clear, be up front, state what you believe, and go from there. The talk of not fracturing or dividing the Body of Christ is to this non UMC so much who ha. Body was split at the great schism, again at the Reformation, and with all the denoms today I don't see that as a valid reason to try to hold factions who see same sex activity as sin and those that support it together as a denomination.

I would applaud the integrity of either side pulling out and going it as a new denom. All I would ask is that the laity have equal voice in the splitting with the clergy.

Off topic, but re an old conversation between you and I, we now have a pastor who does Communion. What a blessing~

[Tim Bonney]

I'm personally not for the UMC splitting. We don't really need yet another set of special interest denominations. Also, I believe that if we were to split in 10-20 years the conservatives would be in the same boat we are in now because their church members will continue to have babies some of which turn out to be LGBTQ. They'll have the same fight all over again.

I'd rather we find a way to let pastors and churches choose if they are "Reconciling" (same was Welcoming and Affirming for Baptists) or if they choose the more traditional viewpoint. I can see several ways this could be accomplished.

Just so you know, the laity to have a big say in how this all turns out. First, as you've noticed, people vote with their feet. If they don't like the final outcome they will walk.

Also all our voting conference membership is made up of 50% Clergy and 50% Laity. That doesn't fit congregationalists expectation for the position of lay people in the Church. But it does give laity at least half the say. If you want a denomination that isn't led by ordained clergy than you don't want to join an episcopal denomination.

I'm very glad Linda that you've found a pastor and are again able to receive communion from the pastor!