For the seventh time in 20 years, The United Methodist Church will wrestle with the issue of homosexuality in a public church trial.
The Rev. Amy DeLong, a lesbian clergy member of the Wisconsin Annual (regional) Conference, faces two charges of violating church law and the possibility of losing her ministerial credentials this week. Her trial begins June 21 at Peace United Methodist Church in Kaukauna, Wis.
So the interesting question is “What happens if she is acquitted?” It would be a clear case of jury nullification. How will conservatives respond?
carl
The following quotation says it all.
[blockquote]”I still love the church. But my calling to serve the church will no longer come at the expense of denying who I am, and my love for the church will not supersede my love for my partner.”[/blockquote]
Got to keep those priorities straight.
No. 1: The consequence of an acquittal would have to be setting aside–de facto rather than de jure–the UMC’s rules on same-sex relationships. More broadly, it would raise serious questions about the enforceability of church laws in general. Maybe that’s putting it too broadly, but I can’t see any other result. Thus I agree with Mr. Lambrecht:
“It is important to have the trial in order to maintain the integrity of our church’s covenant and discipline,” Lambrecht said. “To ignore a violation of the covenant would be to devalue it and detract from the discipline and accountability we see as part of what it means to be United Methodist clergy.”
Also, there would be a problem in “deciding” this issue before the 2012 conference. Many Methodists would probably be aggrieved at allowing a legal decision to supplant the role of a broad cross-section of delegates weighing and voting on the church’s rules.
And, in the bigger sense, goodness gracious, thousands of Methodists must know what will happen–starting with an earthquake of a split–if they suddenly change their position on this issue.
The United Methodist Church includes a number of more conservative African conferences, and the 25 to 30+ percent of pro-gay US clergy are not going to win at Annual Conference. The Episcopal Church General Convention moved left after Mexico, Central America, and the Philippines formed national churches.
[blockquote]The Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book, says all people are of sacred worth but states that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” The book bans “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” from being ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. It also says that marriage is to be between a man and a woman and forbids United Methodist clergy from officiating at same-sex unions.[/blockquote]
It’s good to see that kind of clarity. A person who is in an extramarital sexual relationship is not fit for Holy Orders. TEC has no written doctrine stating that homosexual practice isn’t sinful, and of course the canons and BCP make no provision for marriage other than man and woman. TEC canons refer to orientation, and TEC rhetoric is about the blessing of relationships, but I’m not aware of direct language like “self-avowed practicing homosexuals”. The stuff going on in some TEC dioceses these days is clear antinomianism.
2012 will be interesting. At the annual meeting in June of the Upper New York Conference (which is an amalgam of several old and historic conferences, and equates to a diocese) six petitions calling for an OK for actively homosexual clergy and lay ministers were passed. None of the Methodists I’ve spoken to have any idea of this.
For the record, nine other petitions were tabled or withdrawn.
[url=http://unyumc.s3.amazonaws.com/6268C9AFAA944B68A9E3FF16E4B91A39_Summary revised pdf.pdf]Here[/url] is a list of the approved petitions in the apparently underutilized conference newsletter, and [url=http://unyumc.s3.amazonaws.com/856CD5BFBE3941EEBAD6BD015B499F94_resolutions addendum.pdf]here[/url] is a list of the petitions and other resolutions that were before that august body. The first six “P’s” on pages 1-9 were the ones passed. The rationales make for interesting reading.
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”
No. 4: “The Episcopal Church General Convention moved left after Mexico, Central America, and the Philippines formed national churches.”
An interesting and important point. Historians, take note.
The California-Nevada Conference, which is known to be one of the most liberal in the UMC, considered a battery of resolutions this last week. They can be found [url=http://tinyurl.com/3qssva3]here[/url].
I have yet to hear if they passed, but considering the makeup of the Conference I have to believe they did so overwhelmingly.
The liberal Methodists I know, though, are not all that bullish about changes at the national/international level. They also compliment me on TEC being “so much further along” than they are. I always chuckle and tell them to be careful what they wish for. The few conservative Methodists I know are not overly concerned either. I think there are several reasons for this. For one they’ve had to adjust to liberal Methodism just by being in this Conference. They also don’t have much in the way of catholic ecclesiology; I’m just not sure being “in communion with heretics” matters all that much to them.
[blockquote]They also don’t have much in the way of catholic ecclesiology[/blockquote]
I think in that sense it’s not much different from TEC or a lot of other denominations. There is a general disconnect throughout America between a denomination’s stated theology and what the people in the pews think it right and true. Sadly, and so much worse, there is a similar disconnect among many clergy. Chicken or egg, here?