Voting based on what it says not how it might be used

By John Meunier on

Richard Heyduck has a novel position on Amendment 1 to the UMC constitution. Heyduck believes that once passed, the amendment will be used by some to try to force changes in UM rules and doctrine regarding homosexuality. But, that alone is not going to determine his vote.

Knowing then, that consequences I think wrong might flow from passing this amendment, I’m still inclined to vote for it. I’m not basing this on my confidence on the maturity of discourse and argumentation in the UMC. I’m afraid my confidence in that is very low. I’m also not basing my position on a commitment to the gospel of inclusion. While I think there is a proper biblical concept of inclusion, I cannot see that what goes by that name in most discussions today has much connection with such an account. Rather, the gospel of inclusion, as I hear it preached, sounds much more like a version of modern individualism than the gospel of Jesus. …

Instead, my inclination to vote for it is that as far as I can tell from my submission to the authority of the bible and orthodox Christian theology it is simply true. We United Methodist Christians do believe that Jesus died for all. We do believe that God calls all people to die to sin and live to holiness.

In a debate dominated by politics and suspicion of the nefarious motives of those we call our brothers and sisters in Christ, I find Heyduck’s position quite a witness of faithfulness.

Advertisement
Posted in: In the News, Methodism

3 Responses

  1. Craig L. Adams

    I missed Richard’s piece, so thank you for quoting this. I’ll post Richard’s blog entry to my Facebook profile.

    Honestly, why does everything have to be about homosexuality?

  2. tnrambler

    John, thanks for the link to Richard’s posting. Like Craig, I have linked to it through Facebook.

  3. Jim

    Thanks for this. I agree, Christ died for ALL and lets us that language. Let’s bring everyone to the table and then discuss other issues from there.