Delegates to the 2008 General Conference on April 30 rejected changes to the United Methodist Social Principles that would have acknowledged that church members disagree on homosexuality.
Delegates instead adopted a minority report that retained language in the denomination’s 2004 Book of Discipline describing homosexual practice as “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
The adopted wording in Paragraph 161G also states that “all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God,” and that United Methodists are to be “welcoming, forgiving and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us.”
Delegates also approved a new resolution to oppose homophobia and heterosexism, saying the church opposes “all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation.”
They held the line this time. I have read that the number of African delegates is rising and is to rise substantially in the future – so this may have been the left’s best shot as demographics move the conference to the right.
If a church regards homosexual conduct as impermisible for Christians, how would it define “heterosexism”?
Given the newly elected, liberal makeup of the UMC Judicial Council, this resolution won’t make a whole lot of difference. To see what I mean check out these stories about a UMC church trial that happened a few years ago. It chronicles the local annual conference totally disregarding denominational standards. With the new Judicial Council I see this happening with more regularity.
#1. You are absolutely correct. This Conference the Ivory Coast was admitted for full participation in the 2012 conference. If it had been admitted for this Conference it would have been the largest delegation in the UMC. Nigeria was the largest delegation this year with 44 delegates. By comparison, the Virginia Conference is the largest US delegation with 30. Because the UMC Conference is a worldwide event all the delegations vote on amendments to the “Book of Discipline” which is the governing, authoritative document (next to the HS) for all in the UMC. It is doubtful that the liberals will ever gain the a voting majority as the US church is shrinking and the African and Asian churches are exploding in numbers.
[blockquote] Delegates also approved a new resolution to oppose homophobia and heterosexism, saying the church opposes “all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation.†[/blockquote]
So how then can the church tell them “no”? Indeed this gives away the store. It elevates behavior to the same status as race or other non-changable characteristics.
Well, that solves all the fuss then. Those who “follow the faith once given” go on over to the UMC and the liberal Methodists join their local Episcopal Church (if they are outside of Texas and Pittsburg). Problem solved and we can stop all the sniping at each other.
“It is doubtful that the liberals will ever gain the a voting majority as the US church is shrinking and the African and Asian churches are exploding in numbers” —Palagious [#4]
Then this is BIG. Despite ambiguous language in the nonbinding resolution, it sounds as though the admission of the Ivory Coast church (and the inevitable shrinkage of Liberal Protestant fiefs) may secure the United Methodist Church (and its governing rules) for Christian orthodoxy.
If telling a kid that he’s got no father — only an extra mom — because, well, Mom doesn’t really like boys isn’t “discrimination based on gender” then I’m a monkey’s uncle.
Deacon Mark — already happening in some areas; i get to explain to a few members at our UMC parish why so many of our new congregants like to kneel at the rail for communion and discreetly cross themselves, among other quirks (they don’t mind, it’s just not something they see much). We got four families over the last two years, lost one individual to the TEC parish that “donated” those families our way.
Irenaeus, it is very big. There was some effective push-back by liberals in national/annual structures, but they won no new ground, and the Judicial Council contingent bears watching, but they aren’t for sure liberals — they just aren’t the self-declared conservatives, who ran an uncoordinated campaign and tripped over each others’ feet. But the maneuvers to keep certain changes from going through this time will look short-sighted for lib/progs in 2012, because that’s when Nigeria, North Katanga, and Ivory Coast will represent a decisive block.
You know, the kind that lib/progs said through the 60s and 70s and 80s we should have: minority (hee hee) voices speaking for the Third World. That was when they could pick and bring the voices they wanted to GenCon and ask that those voices be “privileged.” Now that they represent themselves, and in meaningful numbers, conservatives are accused of racism for helping them speak (the cell phone phlap), which reminds me of Eastern European commissars reacting with horror to private mimeograph machines.
But the tide has already turned in the UMC, and be of good hope, ELCA, we’re coming for you with the next boatload! (TEC, keep bailing, but the triage doesn’t look good for y’all.)
UMNS takes notes from ENS, i guess — check this story out, and see how the outcome has no reference to the vote itself (which was massively in favor of the minority report), and the pictures used to create a totally different sense than a strict reading of the text.
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=3082929&content;_id={45E5D40C-0D18-46F7-B40B-BD2F0B9F528F}¬oc=1
And the African delegate is saying . . . well, the piece doesn’t say. Wouldn’t you like to know? I sure would. But it might have messed up the message that only a clutch of cranky old white haired guys are standing in the way of our youth and forward-looking folk.
This is very interesting, since the UMC here is very liberal, very “social action and justice,” mostly aging hippies and peaceniks and the liberal labor organizing crowd. Very Sixties Hillary. And rapidly shrinking in members.