| 1) HOMOSEXUALITY
(Five different legislative groups, mostly Church and Society)
Despite the fact that numbers of groups have indicated that homosexuality is not the most important issue before the 2008 General Conference, it must be noted that nearly 1,000 petitions involving at least seven different legislative groups have been submitted that relate in one way or another to the issue. From the evangelical perspective there is nothing to be gained by any Discipline changes. If we win on all petitions the church will still not be any stronger than it is now. Therefore the strategy is basically to avoid the losses.
The argument is based on appeal to Scriptures and tradition. The Bible is clear on the importance of faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness. The tradition of the church is clear. Behind the faithfulness stance stands the church in every age and in all places. Only in the tradition of Western liberal thinking has there been any challenge.
All arguments that appeal to "science" or personal testimony or inclusiveness or "new understandings" are irrelevant. None of these trump Scripture and tradition.
At the same time we make careful distinction between homosexual orientation and sexual practice. We assume "sexual orientation" does not necessarily imply "practice." Petitions that argue the church cannot discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" are extremely confusing.
Here is an issue with the potential of bringing irreparable damage on the church.
2) JUDICIAL INTEGRITY
(Judicial Council elections)
Evangelicals will support a slate of candidates for the Judicial Council but the reason is not because we want evangelicals on the Council but because we support judicial integrity and we want to support someone who will have it.
Whatever the arguments given for supporting certain candidates, the underlying issue is, once again, homosexuality. Progressives believe they might gain by judicial activism what they cannot gain by legislative action. Certain annual conferences and jurisdictions have used fanciful judicial arguments to undercut the church's clear stand. In the case of Karen Dammann (Pacific-Northwest) a jury unanimously ruled not guilty despite the fact that Karen Dammann had declared herself openly to be a practicing homosexual. There was no recourse. It only takes five votes for the Judicial Council to neutralize the church's clear stand.
We will need the help of overseas delegates for this election. This means we will need to support one or more Judicial Council nominees from overseas.
3) PASTORAL AUTHORITY
(Local Church)
Our church polity is based (like the U.S. government) on a balance of powers between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Every Discipline of every former branch of the UM Church has indicated that the pastor is the executive in charge of the local church. The ministry study says of the elder: The "presidency for the good order of the community is then extended into the elder's administration of the whole life of the congregation" (P. 1391). To claim that any person desiring membership must be received into membership if the person is willing to take the vows is to invite chaos.
There would be no question about this except the clear statement of the pastor's authority on membership was omitted at the time of the Methodist-EUB merger (thus the confusion). There is no reason to believe this was anything but unintentional.
As with a number of other issues the drive behind denying pastoral authority relates to homosexuality and a single incident of a pastor delaying membership to a practicing homosexual. To remove pastoral authority in regard to church membership would basically deconstruct Methodist polity as historically understood.
4) UNITED STATES AS A REGIONAL CONFERENCE
(Conferences)
This proposal carries the weight of the Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table so it will be difficult to defeat. Persons have thrown out ideas as to how this might function practically, but the truth is, we have no idea whether it could work as its advocates claim. Rather, we have many suspicions that it would not work and that in the end, it would segregate the Americans from others in the connection and that a progressive agenda which often characterizes bishops and boards and agencies in the U.S. would be untempered by United Methodists outside the country. After years of decrying the Central Jurisdiction (based on segregation) we now want to introduce the idea back? Jermoe King Del Pino, General Secretary of the Board of Higher Education, in a paper being circulated entitled "Global Leaders for a Global Church" makes reference to Philip Jenkins with this comment:
In terms of both theology and moral teaching, Southern Christianity tends to be far more conservative and moving toward forms of supernaturalism and Christian orthodoxy that many of their fellow Christians in the North will resist as outdated, superstitutious, and authoritian.It's very likely that in a decade or two neither component of global Christianitywill recognize its counterpart as fully or authentically Christian."
The easiest response to this possible problem is to seal ourselves off from outsiders. That would be unfortunate.
Its advocates say a favorable vote does not commit us to this proposal but only to study. Studying is fine but we do not need constitutional amendments to study. To change the constitution implies that we will move ahead.
The argument is also given that the overseas churches are in favor of this. That claim must be challenged. This was initiated and advocated by Americans.
There are, of course, problems that the Regional Conferences idea seeks to address. Cultural differences, language differences, economic differences but if we want diversity-let's face the future together.
By the same token, there are ways (or we could develop ways) of putting legislation into place that would be regional specific. We would not need constitutional amendments to address many of the concerns that are driving this proposal.
5) DISTRIBUTION OF MEF FUNDS (MINISTERIAL EDUCATION FUND)
(Financial Administration)
In almost all other legislation evangelicals are playing defense. We are trying to hold the church together against those who would argue for radical changes which have the potential for great harm. In the matter of the distribution of MEF funds, however, there is an opportunity for positive reform and change.
The institutional church assumes that leadership is tied with education. Education in turn is identified with a degree in an official UM seminary, or with a degree in a school approved by the University Senate. The University Senate is restricting the number of schools it approves, for reasons not always clear. The suspicion is that the UM seminaries need the enrollment. To keep the seminaries afloat money is poured into seminaries at the rate of 15 million dollars a year at an average of more than $5,000 per UM student. The money goes to operating costs and is not available to help students directly. Still the seminaries are short on students (many of which would choose, if they could, to attend other seminaries). We have the same number of seminaries as we had when we had 3 million more members. Meanwhile, overseas seminaries, where the church is growing and education is desperately needed, receive no funds. Higher Education argues it has interest in education overseas and refers to the Global Education Fund (money to be raised outside apportionments) but this fund received in 2007 only $22,000 (compare that with 15 million).
It seems only fair that the MEF funds should be distributed more equitably. Either change the formula so that more money goes to the annual conference for scholarships (make the 75%-25% distribution 50%-50%), and/or make some of the funds available for Africa and other seminaries overseas. The Africans will have available a petition to do that.
6) INTEGRITY OF MEMBERSHIP
(Local Church)
There are a number of petitions that want to insert the provision that no person can be denied membership if that person is willing to take the vows. Some petitions more specifically say that "No person shall be excluded from the United Methodist Church for reasons related to his or her sexual orientation or gender identity."
This is unnecessary legislation because, at least in recent times, it is not known that any person has been excluded from membership because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The sexual ethic, celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage, has nothing to do with orientation. It is practice, not orientation, that is the issue.
Para. 2702.3 has a whole list of charges that may be made against a professing member. These charges assume a certain high standard of belief and practice for membership. It is illogical to insist that no kind of belief or behavior disqualifies one for membership, and then make provisions for chargeable offenses for the beliefs and actions after the person becomes a member.
Again, we play defense here. Even if all of these petitions are defeated the church is no stronger than it was before the General Conference.
7) PRIVILEGES OF THE LOCAL PASTOR
(Ordained Ministry-Also Conferences)
Ever since the earliest days of Good News (40 years ago) evangelicals have sought to champion the cause of the local pastor. Since the earliest days of American Methodism there has been tension between the traveling pastors and the local pastors. Only the traveling pastors were members of the conference with the privilege of election to General Conference, passing on new conference members, and eligibility to be appointed as presiding elders or elected as bishops.
Yet local pastors have served faithfully and today the church could not exist without them. We have made advances. Local pastors are considered clergy; they have the authority to celebrate the sacraments (in their own parishes), and have become members of the annual conference. One more barrier exists: the right to vote on constitutional amendments and General Conference delegates and to serve as delegates. The issue is neither education nor ordination but rather privileges and rights granted by the church.
The church suffers from too much clergy elitism. Offering local pastors full rights will move the church toward inclusiveness and equity.
8) THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH
(Conferences)
A petition to expand the mission of the church would add the words "for the transformation of the world" so that the mission statement would read: The purpose of the annual conference is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world
The petition comes from the Council of Bishops with the rationale that it reflects more adequately our understanding of the mission of the church. Since the original statement about making disciples is based on Matthew 28:19, which doesn't say anything about transforming the world, the question might be raised as to who says and why does the addition more adequately reflect our understanding.
However, it is difficult to speak against transforming the world. The further question to be asked is whether the transforming takes place by conversion or by social engineering. Since the phrase "transforming the world" comes from the progressive wing of the church it would be helpful to make sure that elements of Matthew 28:19 which make reference to baptizing all nations and teaching them to observe all that Christ commands are also included.
This can be done with a petition to come from one of the Central Conferences which would amend to also add the words: "eternal salvation of souls" (not sure of the wording on this). Not all of the petitions from the Central Conferences are in the Advanced Christian Advocate. |
