by Sandy » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:55 am
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?