"Whereas we support the decision of the 2016
General Conference to empower the Council of Bishops in leading the United
Methodist Church beyond the current tensions rooted in our disagreements over
human sexuality; and
whereas we share the acknowledgment that
“our Discipline contains language that is contradictory, unnecessarily hurtful,
and inadequate for the variety of local, regional, and global contexts;” the
inadequacy of current language to address a wide diversity of ministry settings
is also clear in the North Texas Annual Conference and we are heart broken
for those who have been denied full access to the ministries of the
church; and
whereas the Council of Bishops is exploring
“options to help the church live in grace with one another—including ways to
avoid further complaints, trials and harm while we uphold the Discipline,” and
we pray that members of our Annual Conference will demonstrate a spirit of
compassion even when we are not of one mind;
therefore, be it resolved that until the Council
of Bishops Commission completes its work, members of the NTCUMC will
prayerfully and actively work toward a new reality in which space is given while
joining the bishops and upholding the discipline for a diversity of
theological reflection, preaching and practices surrounding ministry with
LGBTQ+ members of our congregations that is authentic to the call of
pastors, parishioners and their contexts for ministry as they do their
best to “make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world."
This is the first legislative action ever taken by the North Texas Annual Conference regarding human sexuality and the resolution was adopted by standing vote with an overwhelming majority in support.
The amendment (the underlined text in the resolution) passed narrowly with a vote of 356-325.
The amendment (the underlined text in the resolution) passed narrowly with a vote of 356-325.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExcept that discussion and debate was stopped, or at least severely limited by a young man from Greenland Hills UMC whose mission was clearly to do just that.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's be clear that this resolution is deceptive in how it quotes the Bishops' letter. This is not about wanting discussion, as was falsely claimed. This is about putting out a statement that looks like we all agree that the Discipline contains harmful language. No "agree to disagree" here. I personally find the language in this resolution hurtful and harmful and absolutely do not support it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMartha,you have made the suggestion in multiple forums that we have misrepresented the Council of Bishops' letter.
DeleteAs I recall in the discussion, your most strident concern was paragraph 2. We picked up our statement that "we share the acknowledgement that our Discipline contains contradictory, unnecessarily hurtful, and inadequate language" from that letter following the Bishops' statement that "we continue to hear that..." We, as a conference, voted overwhelmingly that we share in the acknowledgment of those the bishops heard from regarding such language in the Discipline. Thus, the quote is not out of context.
Also, there was lengthy debate on the matter as we considered the resolution. A substitute motion that urged us to do nothing failed. Your amendment removing most of the second paragraph failed. In that discussion, you stated you did not believe the Discipline contained "contradictory, unnecessarily hurtful, and inadequate language" and you are not "heart broken for those who are denied full access to the ministries of the church" as the reason for your amendment and it failed. Another amendment, noted above, narrowly passed. Then, the amended resolution passed overwhelmingly.
It is time these conversations are had as it is clear we have nowhere near a consensus on our relationships with LGBTQ+ neighbors as continuing the forced uniformity we now have only continues to undermine our collective ministry and is a false unity. I consider you a colleague and hope we may join together in this work.
JD, the progressives are fond of saying "all means all." However "many" does not mean "all." Changing the language of the Bishop's statement to leave out the "many" changes the statement to imply that "all" share the opinion. I do not.
DeleteI would question that members of the LGBTQI community are "denied full access to the ministries of the church." When you are called into ministry and accept that call you are accepting that your life no longer belongs to you. I had to change my life and my lifestyle when I was called into ministry. I had to live apart from my husband in order to serve the kingdom and the United Methodist Church at the pleasure of the Bishop and the Cabinet. I found this quite hard and very lonely at times, but I was willing to live this way because I believed in something greater than my own desires. No one is denying those in the LGBTQI community access to the ministries of the church in terms of being in ministry. We are simply asking that they live by the same rules as the rest of us.
If the point is that members of the LGBTQI community are being denied access to wedding services, I would contend that, despite the Supreme Court ruling, same sex unions cannot be classified as Christian marriages. They may, of course, have those unions legalized in many other venues.
In addition, the resolution was presented as something we needed in order for conversation to take place. However, the resolution does not say ONE WORD about conversation. It is basically a resolution that asked the conference to bless the actions of those who want to break covenant and disobey the Discipline. The amendment simply continues the Orwellian language of the Bishop’s statement that we will find ways to break the Discipline while upholding the Discipline.
I know I will continue to be heavily criticized and marginalized for holding these opinions and stating them. I would be willing to bet that the cabinet would not appoint me since I have been outspoken in my position. I find it ironic that a number of clergy have said to me that they share my opinions but are afraid to speak. They are even afraid to hit the “like” button on Facebook. So who is really being silenced in the North Texas Annual Conference?
Finally, no, JD, we are not colleagues. Not anymore. By passing this statement, using language that implies that all agree, the NTC has effectively cut me out of the clergy covenant. I heartily agree that we have a false unity, but I will not join in any work that moves us closer to the progressive agenda. I have no illusions that you will change your mind on this subject, and you should have no illusions that I will change mine – unless I get a pretty direct word from God. The only real work now for the UMC is how to formalize the split that has already taken place.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. It received a vote, and the majority we led to believe this was the right thing to do, yet those in the minority believe themselves to be the only ones led by God, and all those others, in the majority, to not be voting on how they were led by the Holy Spirit. Somethings you just have to admit you might be wrong.
ReplyDeleteEither that or you have to grieve for the fact that the Holy Spirit was absent from that vote. As the progressives are fond of telling us, being in the minority doesn't mean you are wrong.
DeleteCan the Annual Conference dictate how the Bishop will enforce The Book of Discipline set by the General Conference?
ReplyDeleteI just hope our conference has enough sense to avoid wasting time on such senseless resolutions.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the last statement: "passed narrowly with a vote of 325-356" Those numbers seem to indicate the amendment failed.
ReplyDelete