One GC delegate states her case

Posted on by

The other day I lamented the fact that a bishop did not explain his reasoning in rejecting the official doctrine of the church.

Today, I want to point to a blog post by United Methodist elder Becca Clark, who agrees with the bishop’s position and takes the time and space to explain why she takes the stand she does.

I need to pray, think, and find time to write carefully before I respond. In the meantime, I’d be interested in your thoughts and responses as Christians and United Methodists. (Others are welcome to comment, too, but I think most of my readers fall into one or both of those categories.)

Related articles

9 thoughts on “One GC delegate states her case”

  1. John,

    Thanks for sharing this. I know blog posts aren’t great to communicate fully on any subject, but it seems the author made a good many generalizations and backed up very few things she supports. She sort of just assumes the truth of her various points (example: what science does or does not prove regarding one’s orientation).

    I think you do well to carefully and prayerfully reflect before responding.

    Thanks brother,
    Dale

  2. John,

    I’m calling foul. Her hermeneutic requires the deauthorization of Scripture based on the fact that our culture has moved too far away from the original culture of context. That is the logical equivalent of saying that we should go ahead and jump since we’re this closets the edge.

    I welcome those with better arguments.

    I believe the conversation must take place, but Rev. Clark’s particular hermeneutic starts in a place that assumes the repeal of one of the Articles of Religion.

    When we begin to abandon those principles, it is the beginning of the end for the UMC. I’m not opposed to that if it is God’s will — but that is not the message I get when I pray.

  4. Thanks for sharing this, John. My initial thought is this: Is one acting with integrity when he or she asks to serve on a committee in order to further a predetermined agenda? Don’t get me wrong. We all have biases, and I fully expect people serving on the committee to have a bias either to reverse the denomination’s historic stance or to reinforce it. I think very few will go into the process with a truly open mind. The best we can hope for is that people go in with enough humility to say, “This is where I stand, but I know I may be wrong, and I pray God will reveal to me where I need to change.” It is entirely another matter to say, “This is where I stand, and I am going to do everything in my power to push this agenda.” The blog you cite says the latter with gusto. The author has asked to serve on the committee in order to work to change the church’s stance. You simply cannot speak of the current stance as a sin that makes your skin crawl as it oozes icky, then proclaim a commitment to dialog and holy conferencing. That is equivocation of the highest order. (BTW, The same is true of the many I am sure who have asked to serve on the committee so that they might champion the cause of preserving the current stance.) There can be no conferencing or dialog among parties who are absolutely certain they are correct; only among those who are open to the Spirit’s guidance, even and often to unexpected ends.

  5. Well said Billy. I fear that the open mindedness on this issue is long gone. As an Episcopal refugee I have seen this before. The pressure will continue to build until the policy is changed. Or failing that, simply ignored. That will be followed by an unwillingness to impose discipline and then it goes downhill from there. There is no reason to believe the UMC can weather this any better than the Episcopal chuch which has seen dramatic decreases in membership and is mired in lawsuits across the country among various splitting factions. The ELCA is going through the same thing. Split after split.
    I believe the upcoming conference could be very interesting.

  6. Just a couple comments on her quadrilateral rationale. First, the idea that homosexuality in the ancient world was limited to cultic practice and the abuse of children is widespread but it is simply wrong. One need only read some of the primary sources (such as Juvenal’s second Satire or Plato’s Symposium; Plato is of course well before the New Testament, but Juvenal is writing and the end of the 1st century AD) to realize this. Second, I’m puzzled how one could claim that the tradition of the church has only spoken on what we now call homosexuality in the last 40 years. I can only assume that anything before Wesley doesn’t count as “our tradition” for her purposes, which is hardly a tenable position (and I also wouldn’t be surprised if one could dig up some sermons from New York Methodists in the mid-19th century obliquely directed at folks like Walt Whitman). There’s been lots of Christian condemnation of homosexuality for the last 2000 years and there’s been lots of scholarly ink spilt about it in recent decades. I’m sure if you dug around you could find some fiery Puritan preaching against people like Shakespeare writing love poetry to other men and this has always been an issue in cenobitic monasticism, for obvious reasons (witness Alan of Lille’s De Planctu Naturae in the 12th century for a famous example; I think there’s also mention of it in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers).

  7. Will God’s Will prevail at General Conferance. Is this argument truly about the Will of God or what. Maybe this sounds a little off-center, but if we want to be the church that represents Christ. With the general outlook of the majority of people, in this country, could God be getting ready to let us enjoy what we have created. How does this church really stand for me, when I seem to find that the truth of Christ is not fit for our society today. I am drawn to the idea that the blood of Christ is no longer for the sin of the world, but more like splattered on the frame of the door way and so all inside are not touched by the plague of death. Thus anyone is safe until the commandments were delivered. My God forgive our words, because inspite of all words-when I go before God, what good will it be for me if I turn to you after being judged and say, “But YOU said that God never really meant what He wrote.” I am afraid that “Whoops” is not going to help much.

  8. I believe she stated her case eloquently and I completely agree with her. I admire her willingness to stand up for what she thinks is right and i am inspired by her example to do the same. I too regret, turning down a same sex couple for marriage. I believe I would perform the wedding now if asked but I would not seek to become a martyr in the process. I would probably perform it privately and not in the churches I serve since it is against the rules and many of my members would disagree with my doing it.

  9. In 2008, changes to paragraph 161 were made by the Church and Society Committee, but the minority report was adopted by General Conference. Considering the decreased number of delegates from the Western and Northeastern Jurisdictions while the number of delegates from Africa has increased, it is extremely unlikely that a majority can be created to make the changes that people like Becca Clark and Grant Hagiya would like to see.

Comments are closed.