Here is a direct link to Memorandum 1041 which reports and explains the refusal to reconsider decision 1032.
Here is a link to Decision 1032.
Note that this appears to have been a 5-4 decision with not only two bitter written dissents, but a bitter concurring opinion. The Judicial Council has failed to resolve the underlying issue, but instead has aggravated the controversy over homosexuality.
General Conference 2004 spoke clearly in its reaffirmation of bars to lesbian and gay persons in the ordained ministry. It appears now that having "won" that contest, Methodist fundamentalists are emboldened to remove lesbian and gay persons from church membership as well.
This is not an exageration, but rather one of the consequences of decision 1032 mentioned by Judicial Council member Keith Boyette in his concurring opinion to the original decision 1032. In that concurring opinion Boyette argues as follows:
To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and by those who dissent would result in the anomalous result that a person who could not affirm the vows of ¶ 217 being admitted to membership and then immediately being subject to discipline as required by ¶ 221. The Discipline does not require such a nonsensical result.
If one turns to one's handy Discipline and reads the paragraph 221 referenced by Mr. Boyette, one finds that the end of that road is either "repentance" or removal from membership either by church trial or voluntary withdrawl. The message of the Judicial Council to lesbian and gay United Methodists is "repent or get out."
Nor can one argue that this decision does not effect persons who attend moderate or progressive congregations that welcome lesbians and gays into membership. The trial process for lay persons is entirely out of the hands of local churches. Remember, folks, that in United Methodist polity the local church is NOT the basic unit of the church. One does not simply join the local church, one joins the United Methodist Church. The Discipline allows for anyone in or outside of a local congregation to bring charges against a lay member, a trial would be held not by the local church, but by the district--and all members of the local church in question would be excluded from serving on the trial court. One would not be judged by one's gay-friendly pastor and fellow congregants, but by strangers from other churches in the District in a proceeding presided over by the District Superintendant.
The Judicial Council has turned all "unrepenant homosexuals" in the church into "unindicted malefactors," into "criminals" who are only one formal complaint away from trial, conviction and removal from the membership of the church. For many this is a stigma that will be unbearable, and they will simply leave the church making trials unnecessary. For others this may be an opportunity for "voluntary redemptive suffering." Following the teachings of Gandhi and King they will stand firmly by the truth as they see it. If this is the law of the church, than the whole church must be brought to the realization of the consequences of their unjust and, yes, unChristian law. Let the church bear the burden of hundreds of trials! Actually, even one such trial is likely to prove to be a very heavy burden for the church indeed.
Such "voluntary redemptive suffering" would not be intended as suffering for its own sake. It would become redemptive as it would finally bring the church to the knowledge of the truth that lesbian and gay persons are God's children too!
2 comments:
No one doubts that LGBT are children of God, too. The issue isn't who they are but what they do. I'm glad you understand clearly the need for repentence or removal. Though I doubt the sky will fall so quickly, it does serve as a reminder that you are free to choose, as are others, who you wish to associate with. This isn't the end of the world for anyone. To continue forcing the issue with such clear terms spoken is what leads to discord and sin within the church. Leave it behind and move on with your life. There would be no point served in a trumped up martyrdom when you can seek to form your own communion with like minded fellows. You see, it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong anymore. The majority of members have expressed, and the judicial council has upheld, that the choice to behave in a way that they deem is incompatible with biblical teaching without a desire to repent is reason enough to worship separately. To continue to force the issue will only drive away those who respectfully disagree with you. The hard truth is you can't force anyone to accept you if they do not want to.
It is time to punt. Revisit the issue in another three generations and maybe something will have changed that permits reunion. For now live and let live.
j2,
it's fairly easy for us heterosexuals to tell a gay person to 'move on.' that's our heterosexual privilege. WE can move on and wait another 3 generations to be recognized by our community of faith - oh, wait! we're already recognized by our community of faith because we're straight!
and the 'it's not who you are but what you do' gambit is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? if this is really about what people do that isn't behaviorally christian, then why not also have trials and excommunication processes against liars, adulterers and gluttons, and people with quick tempers and those with intemperate tongues?
so. before we jump to remove the gays or force them to 'repent' of something they're born as (just as we're born straight) why don't we heterosexuals live as examples and put the motes out of our own eye and start serving up some removal/repentance for ourselves?
no?
didn't think so.
Post a Comment