The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church will consider language in the Book of Discipline on human sexuality. Such language is painstakingly considered and debated at each quadrennial meeting of General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body. Delegates to the 2008 General Conference rejected proposed changes to the United Methodist Social Principles that would have stated that church members disagree on homosexuality.
A legislative committee majority report had recommended that delegates delete the reference that the church “does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching” and adopt the statement, “Faithful, thoughtful people who have grappled with this issue deeply disagree with one another; yet all seek a faithful witness.” The revision also would have asked United Methodists and others “to refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to a new insight.”
In the Baltimore-Washington Conference, Bishop John Schol was asked to rule whether a human sexuality-related resolution was properly before the conference session because it established “a new and different standard on sexuality from the Discipline." Both the conference resolution and the church’s Social Principles acknowledge that “sexuality is God’s good gift to all” and that responsible stewardship of this gift is required. The Baltimore-Washington Conference's resolution goes further to state that people “may be fully human” only when the gift of sexuality “is acknowledged and affirmed by themselves, the church, and society.”
Bishop Schol ruled that the resolution was in order and declared the paragraph in question was a statement of belief and did not contradict the Discipline or establish “a new and different standard on sexuality.”
“The Social Principles are not church law and encourage prayerful, studied dialogue,” the bishop said.
In another sexuality matter, the Judicial Council will review a Detroit Conference decision concerning the Reconciling Ministries Network, an unofficial organization promoting the full participation of people of all sexual orientations in The United Methodist Church. During the conference session, an individual asked a question about local churches identifying themselves as reconciling congregations. Bishop Jonathan Keaton ruled that he was not going to address the question because the matter did not deal with conference business. Paul Thomas, the conference director of communications, characterized the situation as “an attempt to call out people and churches involved in the Reconciling Ministries Network.”
COMMENTS:
It troubles me that the United Methodist Church - my denomination - cannot settle an issue, at least for a while. There always seems to be agitation related to the issue of homosexuality in the denomination.
There are essentially three groups within United Methodism:
1. Those persons who agitate for a liberal political and social agenda.
2. Those persons who seek to maintain current stands on political and social issues.
3. Those persons who are focused on the ministry and witness of the local church in the lives of individuals in their communities.
4. Those persons who are focused on maintaining what they have in their local church.
I place myself in group #3 attempting to disciple group #4, but find myself forced into group #2 in response to group #1. Does that make sense?
These political and social issues in my opinion distract our denomination from the important work that is to be done in the local church. The agitation by those who push for a liberal agenda simply make my work harder.
The tactic is simple. The agitators will continue to poke and prod for an inattentive moment in an unexpected area. Their interest is not the local church, but in justifying themselves and their agenda.
When we try to be all things to all people, we will find ourselves to be of no value to anyone.
