(Please note that this article provides important background information for the posted article below–KSH).
Retired United Methodist clergy in northern California and Nevada could face disciplinary charges if they perform same-gender marriage ceremonies in the wake of a California court ruling that allows gay couples to marry, their bishop says.
While the church’s California-Nevada legislative assembly approved a resolution in June commending retired clergy who have offered to perform such ceremonies, Bishop Beverly J. Shamana has issued a ruling declaring the statement “void and of no effect.”
“While the resolution is a commendable gesture to the congregations of the conference in offering the pastoral counsel of a number of retired clergy to persons contemplating same-gender marriage under the laws of California, it steps over a disciplinary line when it commends these clergy to the congregations for the purpose of ”˜performing same gender marriages or holy unions,’” Shamana wrote in her ruling of law.
Meanwhile, an organizer of the retired clergy said the bishop’s ruling would not deter the pastors from performing the ceremonies.
“The denominational statements were affirmed in a split vote last spring by General Conference, the church’s top legislative body that meets once every four years.”
Well, I suppose that all votes that are not 100-0 are “split.” Perhaps the author meant “close,” which I suppose this one was, but wasn’t it about 60% in favor of maintaining traditional teaching, practice, and legislation?
I find the Methodists–in their mainline UMC expression–a fascinating case study, especially when compared with TEC. The Methodists are diverse, divided, and, to a large extent, theologically liberal (at least in the sense of the early-20th-c. liberal/fundamentalist divide). And yet they have carefully considered these controversial topics, analyzed and debated them thoroughly, and pronounced themselves unprepared, as of now, to go as far as TEC has gone.
I can’t help admiring this rather underappreciated middle-American denomination.
If you attend a UMC General Conference, you will see reflections of the not-so-distant TEC past: rebellious bishops and noisy radical allies of the theological Left chipping away and keeping up the pressure to recast the entire denomination in their image, even staging and assisting huge and disruptive assembly floor demonstrations. They know the middle ground is slowly shifting in their direction, and it’s only a matter of time….
w.w.
Believe it or not, I admire TEC more than the UMC, and I have been a member of both. At least there are a few TEC bishops who are willing to publicly stand up for orthodox belief, even if they get booted for it. None of the UMC bishops are willing to forcefully criticize other bishops for anything any more. Tim Whitaker of the Florida Annual Conference was the last to voice any public criticism and he has now gone silent.
Shamana is an ultra liberal and nothing will happen to any clergy that perform same sex marriages in her annual conference. As of the end of General Conference 2008, the bishop backed slate of liberal candidates for the Judicial Council were all elected so the fix is in for any appeals of clergy and bishops violating the Book of Discipline.
Regarding Shamana, a little Googling provided the following:
[blockquote]When Shamana, 60, grew up in Pasadena, her given name was Martin. When she married, it became Anderson. After 10 years, she divorced. Shortly before her ordination in 1979, she chose a name for herself–Shamana.
“I wanted a name that transcended time, space and ethnicity. I wanted a name that was universal,” she said. “I said, ‘I don’t want any name that has “son,” “him,” “he” or “man” anywhere in it.’ I wanted a female name. Then I get this name–Shamana–that starts with shaMAN and ends with MANa and has ‘man’ in the middle of it! God has a sense of humor, doesn’t she?” [/blockquote]
If you want to get a sense of how Methodist discipline is done these days Google “Karen Dammann” and prepare to be amazed. IMHO you can stick a spork in the UMC, it is just as done as TEC, it’s only lagging a few years behind.
“If you attend a UMC General Conference…”
I hope to end my days without ever having attended ANY official church conference, convention, or council, actually. And if I could get out of faculty meetings, I’d quit them too.
“you will see reflections of the not-so-distant TEC past: rebellious bishops and noisy radical allies of the theological Left”
Well, sure.
“chipping away and keeping up the pressure”
But are they in fact “chipping away”? Do the data (votes) support that conclusion?
Remarkable, isn’t it, that the center has held this long. Again, compare to TEC. Why the differences? One would have thought that UMC might have been more liberal, more apt to go in the direction of the UCC, and sooner rather than later.
No. 3: I know virtually nothing about all this, but I do find it interesting that the article states that
“The United Methodist Church, while affirming all people as persons ‘of sacred worth,’ considers the practice of homosexuality ‘incompatible with Christian teaching.'”
Would TEC ever say that?
Just as important, would TEC ever try to state what its fundamental principles are and then try to deduce actual conclusions and judgments (like whether or not to affirm the election of bishops) from those guiding norms? I see two denominations very close in history and theology but with fascinating differences right now in substance and method. Why?
“Its [the UMC’s] law book prohibits its pastors and churches from conducting ceremonies celebrating homosexual unions.”
Compare to TEC.
And:
“The Rev. Ronald Greilich, who asked Shamana for the ruling of law, said he was pleased with the bishop’s conclusion.”
Given the UMC’s liberalness, including their addition of “experience” to our three-legged stool, how is it that they’ve maintained a more-traditional position even to this degree, compared to TEC?
David — thank you. I am adopted into the Methodist fellowship, and i find them underappreciated and fascinating, too. The fact that liberalism is not eradicated root and branch among her leadership is not as troubling to me as i am intrigued by how her sense of fidelity and faithfulness has held while so many similar communions (koff) and polities around her in the American landscape have succumbed. Two-thirds to three-fourths is the consistent vote for traditional understandings of pastoral chastity, and stuff like RCRC only stays on the docket through careful maneuvering by the reappraisers in the UMC — they show by their actions it would never hold on through a straight-up vote.
And our African bishops are already taking center stage, with their plurality only a matter of one or at most two General Conferences. I find God actively at work in many Methodist congregations, even if their judicatories tend to be time-serving 60s-hold-out enclaves as is so often the case across the mainline/oldline spectrum . . . but they aren’t driving the bus, just waving their arms out the windows and bringing down the gas mileage a bit.
I tend to think that those who were heading down TEC’s road saw the wreck by the side of the road and detoured. If nothing else, TEC is showing quite vividly what “liberalism seizes the day” looks like. Other denominations are taking heed.
Knapsack-
You may have missed it but the UMC hierarchy is taking steps to insure that the Africans cannot affect the Book of Discipline. The 2008 General Conference recommended reordering of the UMC to create different General Conferences by geography. Each would be potentially governed by its own Book of Discipline. Sounds a lot like TEC provinces doesn’t it. Even without a crystal ball you can tell where that will lead.
One of the things I found fascinating during my journey through United Methodism is how the cleritocracy uses Wesley’s Arminianism to justify all manner and sort of radical social activism to the point where it becomes salvation through works (although that is not what Wesley advocated). The other thing I found quite strange is that Wesley’s sermons have something akin to canonical standing. I think Methodists view them as their own Apocrypha.
There is something about the adoption of the name Shamana (and her explanation of its ironies) that sums up the sheer fruitcakeness, the Californiazation of the present liberal mentality. (Oh, all, right, I take the California thing back) For some reason, she overlooked that fact that “sham” is also part of her name. Oh, the irony etc. Larry
“Gay rights advocates say gay rights are God-given civil rights that the church should support as a matter of conscience and that the church, in its quest to be more inclusive, should extend to gay couples the same levels of support it provides to heterosexual couples.”
This is a quote from the article and here lies the problem, the gay activists are insisting on this being a “rights” issue. Civil rights have nothing to do with God’s word. God is not malleable as society always has been. God does give absolutes, such as the Ten Commandments. These are not options or granting of “rights”. These are commands that we shall do if we wish to remain in God’s grace. Asserting our so called rights puts us in a position of dictating to God what the rules should be. Last time I checked, God had not died and left us in charge. Society has denied God and has tried to take charge of life. In the end, God will have the last word.