Neoconservative-connected Evangelicals put the kibosh on plans for the National Association of Evangelicals to come out in support of serious efforts to curb global warming. However a prestigious group of evangelical leaders broke ranks with the White House calling for government efforts to address the threat of global warming.
Our good buddies at the neoconservative Washington think-tank, Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) are deeply involved in this issue. Watch for me to post some more on this issue, but for now let me say I've been seeing this coming for some time. As one who keeps and eye on IRD, I've noticed that they have been involved in critiquing the development of social justice policy by the National Association of Evangelicals, and that they have been developing counter-arguments against taking action on global warming and the environment, generally.
This saddens me, because as a Madison resident and a graduate of our University of Wisconsin, I have taken a good deal of pride in the work of Professor Cal Dewitt, an evangelical and an environmentalist who has worked for many years to convince his fellow evangelicals that God is calling them to be environmentalists. (Calvin DeWitt is quoted in the first Washington Post article linked above.) However, environmentalism is an inconvenience to the powers that be that control the ruling neoconservative wing of the Republican party. Let's pray that evangelicals will continue to break ranks with this power-hungry Washington gang.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Will 1032 lead to schism?
I'm thankful for the comments I've been receiving on this blog. One reader commented on my post about Bishop Kammerer's motion to the Judicial Council to reconsider their decision number 1032. Decision 1032 grants to pastors "discretion" to deny membership to whoever they choose, and declares that this "discretion" cannot be reviewed or challenged by District Superintendents, Bishops or colleagues. In the case then before before the Judicial Council, membership was denied to a person the Methodist Right calls an "unrepentant homosexual."
I suggested that decision 1032 is divisive and will give further impetus to formally divide the church to cause schism. Does this mean, as my reader suggests, that "the Methodist Left will push for schism if 1032 is not reversed"? I really don't know. I don't speak for "the Methodist Left," and I'm not sure anyone does. What I am saying is that 1032 continues down a road that has put more and more pressure on progressives in the Church. The Methodist Right is making it more and more clear that the Methodist Left is not welcome in "their church."
We went from 1784 to 1972 with no mention of homosexuality in Methodist (or EUB Disciplines). It was not until the 1980's that there was language in the Discipline that clearly barred "practicing homosexuals" from ordination. Then it was only 10 years ago that the blessing of same-gender unions was forbidden in the Church--that was the first time that LGBT laity (as opposed to LGBT clergy or aspiring clergy) were directly effected by anti LGBT policies. Not only that, the anti-blessing policy was the first to interfere directly with the ministry and and worship life of local United Methodist Churches and their pastors. As such it effected non-gay persons as well.
Decision 1032 is the first decision to legitimate, in church law, the exclusion of LGBT persons from membership, and the concurring opinion of Judicial Council Member Keith Boyette, published with decision 1032, suggests that LGBT persons who are already members may expect that they could lose their membership in the church if they do not "repent." IRD's Mark Tooley and Good News' James Heidinger now see the door open to begin church trials to remove LGBT persons from membership and have said so.
"Amicable separation" was first proposed by the Methodist Right at the 2004 General Conference. Confessing Movement leader, Bill Hinson, painted this proposal as a compassionate way to end the suffering of progressive and LGBT Methodists under official church oppression. It appears that their intention is to put more and more pressure on progressive Methodists in order to force them out of the church--there doesn't seem to be much that is "amicable" about that.
Where I stand personally: Schism just doesn't seem right to me. I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ, and think it is a shame that we divide the church. On the other hand, what am I to do if I find my membership is forcibly removed from me? Can the Judicial Council really exclude me from the Body of Christ--or will the Spirit find a way to reconstitute that broken body somewhere else? The early church really began to grow after persecution drove them out of their first home in Jerusalem.
I suggested that decision 1032 is divisive and will give further impetus to formally divide the church to cause schism. Does this mean, as my reader suggests, that "the Methodist Left will push for schism if 1032 is not reversed"? I really don't know. I don't speak for "the Methodist Left," and I'm not sure anyone does. What I am saying is that 1032 continues down a road that has put more and more pressure on progressives in the Church. The Methodist Right is making it more and more clear that the Methodist Left is not welcome in "their church."
We went from 1784 to 1972 with no mention of homosexuality in Methodist (or EUB Disciplines). It was not until the 1980's that there was language in the Discipline that clearly barred "practicing homosexuals" from ordination. Then it was only 10 years ago that the blessing of same-gender unions was forbidden in the Church--that was the first time that LGBT laity (as opposed to LGBT clergy or aspiring clergy) were directly effected by anti LGBT policies. Not only that, the anti-blessing policy was the first to interfere directly with the ministry and and worship life of local United Methodist Churches and their pastors. As such it effected non-gay persons as well.
Decision 1032 is the first decision to legitimate, in church law, the exclusion of LGBT persons from membership, and the concurring opinion of Judicial Council Member Keith Boyette, published with decision 1032, suggests that LGBT persons who are already members may expect that they could lose their membership in the church if they do not "repent." IRD's Mark Tooley and Good News' James Heidinger now see the door open to begin church trials to remove LGBT persons from membership and have said so.
"Amicable separation" was first proposed by the Methodist Right at the 2004 General Conference. Confessing Movement leader, Bill Hinson, painted this proposal as a compassionate way to end the suffering of progressive and LGBT Methodists under official church oppression. It appears that their intention is to put more and more pressure on progressive Methodists in order to force them out of the church--there doesn't seem to be much that is "amicable" about that.
Where I stand personally: Schism just doesn't seem right to me. I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ, and think it is a shame that we divide the church. On the other hand, what am I to do if I find my membership is forcibly removed from me? Can the Judicial Council really exclude me from the Body of Christ--or will the Spirit find a way to reconstitute that broken body somewhere else? The early church really began to grow after persecution drove them out of their first home in Jerusalem.
The year of Mark
I missed posting on the lectionary for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany. I hope no one was counting on me for sermon ideas! This is the year of the Gospel of Mark, and it seems like we've been stuck in the first chapter of Mark for three weeks now, and we have one more week to go of that before we get to chapter two!
Chapter one is prologue and set up for the rest of the story. The first big controversy doen't happen until chapter two, but there are certain foreshadowings in chapter one. There is the passing reference to the arrest of John the Baptist. It seems, maybe, that John got in trouble because of his popularity and all the crowds that were coming from everywhere to rally to him in the desert. Now, in the later part of the first chapter, Jesus is beginning to go down that same road--gathering huge crowds to him attracted by his ability to heal the sick, and hearing his preaching the coming of the Rule of God.
I agree with John Dominic Crossan who suggests that Jesus was a threat because he provided the crowds an access to God that did not go through "the proper channels" (through the brokers of power). The "proper" religious channels were under control of the Roman puppet rulers, the priestly class, of Jerusalem and all their clients (those who depended on the patronage of the powerful). John the Baptist provided the masses with "a baptism for the repentence of sins." No need to go to Jerusalem and enrich the Temple system--just go to the river and wash. John preached the coming Rule of God--and what will become of Roman rule then? John is arrested, and Jesus goes down the same road. Is it any wonder Jesus is headed for trouble in chapter two?
And then there is the big secret announced in verse one of chapter 1, the secret that the demons keep wanting to cry out--Jesus is the Son of God! Why is that such a secret? Ceasar had public artworks erected everywhere (the mass media of the day) to proclaim that he was the Son of God (Augustus was the son of the divine Julius Ceasar!) Best to keep that secret, Jesus. You'll be in trouble with Ceasar if he should ever hear that one!
Chapter one is prologue and set up for the rest of the story. The first big controversy doen't happen until chapter two, but there are certain foreshadowings in chapter one. There is the passing reference to the arrest of John the Baptist. It seems, maybe, that John got in trouble because of his popularity and all the crowds that were coming from everywhere to rally to him in the desert. Now, in the later part of the first chapter, Jesus is beginning to go down that same road--gathering huge crowds to him attracted by his ability to heal the sick, and hearing his preaching the coming of the Rule of God.
I agree with John Dominic Crossan who suggests that Jesus was a threat because he provided the crowds an access to God that did not go through "the proper channels" (through the brokers of power). The "proper" religious channels were under control of the Roman puppet rulers, the priestly class, of Jerusalem and all their clients (those who depended on the patronage of the powerful). John the Baptist provided the masses with "a baptism for the repentence of sins." No need to go to Jerusalem and enrich the Temple system--just go to the river and wash. John preached the coming Rule of God--and what will become of Roman rule then? John is arrested, and Jesus goes down the same road. Is it any wonder Jesus is headed for trouble in chapter two?
And then there is the big secret announced in verse one of chapter 1, the secret that the demons keep wanting to cry out--Jesus is the Son of God! Why is that such a secret? Ceasar had public artworks erected everywhere (the mass media of the day) to proclaim that he was the Son of God (Augustus was the son of the divine Julius Ceasar!) Best to keep that secret, Jesus. You'll be in trouble with Ceasar if he should ever hear that one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)