The following is a guest post from a Facebook clergy who posted this list online. This is in response to the Frank Shaefer trial where he was convicted of performing a wedding for his son Tim to his male partner. The punishment is a 30 day suspension that will be lifted at the end if he pledges to “uphold the Discipline in its entirety.”
This list is an attempt to show the various ways how United Methodist clergy in good standing do not uphold the Discipline 100%…and have rarely (if ever) been charged for it.
=====
Top 25 ways I’ve observed United Methodist clergy and lay leaders not upholding the Book of Discipline in its entirety (2012-2014 edition):
- Refusing to baptize infants (¶216.1)
- Rebaptizing youth & adults (¶216.2 & 341.7)
- Failure to pray for their church (¶217.6)
- Failure to attend and be present in their church (¶217.6)
- Failure to give of their finances and gifts to their church (¶217.6)
- Failure to witness for Christ in the world (¶217.6 & ¶220)
- Conducting private baptisms (¶226.2c)
- Failure to grant youth all rights and responsibilities of membership (¶226.5)
- Failure of members of the Church Council to visit and provide spiritual oversight to the church’s members (¶228)
- Failure to report to Church Council the names of members who have been neglectful in keeping their baptismal and membership vows (¶228.2b(1))
- Failure to promote United Methodist Campus ministries (¶228.10c)
- Failure to annually report names of college students to Conference Board of Higher Education and Campus Ministry (¶232)
- Failure to keep copies of membership records off-site and secure (¶233.3)
- Failure to send addresses of newly moved members to pastor or district superintendent in community where member now resides. (¶236)
- Failure to nominate youth and young adult members to Church Council (¶244.3 & ¶252.5j,k)
- Failure to consider World Service apportionments as first benevolent responsibility of the church (¶247.14 & ¶812)¶
- Failure to monitor local church investments to ensure concurrence with Socially Responsibly Investments, the Social Principles, and The Book of Resolutions (¶247.20)
- Failure to celebrate all six churchwide special Sundays with offerings, especially Peace with Justice Sunday and Native American Ministries Sunday (¶263)
- Failure of clergy to teach and model tithing (¶304.1c & ¶340.2c2(d))
- Failure of clergy to exercise habits conducive to bodily health (¶304.2)
- Unwillingness of elders in full connection to fully itinerate (¶338)
- Unwillingness of elders in full connection to assume supervisory and mentoring responsibilities (¶334.2e & ¶340.2c3(b))
- Failure to encourage the use of United Methodist literature and media within the educational program of the church (¶340.2c1(b))
- Failure to lead the congregation in paying all apportionments in full (¶340.2c1(e))
- Failure to secure written consent of district superintendent before engaging an evangelist (¶341.1)
In theory, all of these qualify as the chargeable offense of “disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church (¶2702.1d).
======
Thoughts?
And if any clergy member is confronted by his or her refusal to abide by any one of these, or who openly defies it as an act of protest, and refuses to repent, they should receive the same sentence as Schaefer.
There is a difference between failing out of ignorance or even laziness and outright rebellion. As always, it’s a heart issue.
4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24.
And failure to check the sexes of the people for whom I officiate and discriminate on that basis.
And I should add, this is naive. I’m sure you weight scripture accordingly, using common sense and guidance from the Church universal (for instance, you probably put more weight on the words of Jesus regarding the Sabbath than you do on laws requiring you to observe it). This is evidence of a healthy human being. It would be naive to think the same is not true of some of our regulations. Who we marry, I’d argue, has far more weight than where membership records are secured.
Not for an archivist.
I think that is part of the point. The ruling requires Rev. Schaefer to follow the discipline in its entirety. This list helps illustrate how poorly thought out that is. Further, as is pointed out, they are all chargeable offenses. Now unlike record keeping, marriage is a sacrament, so your point is well taken. But what about the rules pertaining to baptism? I’ve never heard of a church trial for a pastor who rebaptizes people.
Marriage is not a sacrament in the United Methodist Church. Only baptism and communion are.
Thank you, Rachelle. This issue is complex, but we don’t need to make it more tangled.
Just curious, Chad. Are you still connected with The United Methodist Church?
I am. Serving now as a local pastor and a candidate for provisional elder this year.
Which Annual Conference, if you don’t mind my asking?
I don’t mind you asking, but why? Don’t worry, I’m not in yours.
Why all the mystery Chad. All one has to do is click on your name to discover you were appointed this year to Mountain View UMC in Dayton, TN.
Vince, exactly. There is no mystery with where I work. The only mystery is why it matters to this conversation. Perhaps you can solve that one, too?
And then there’s the question of which Discipline. Whichever happens to be in force at the time? Isn’t there something fairly screwy about demanding allegiance to a book of law that changes quadrennially?
(And of course there are those alcohol, gambling, and decrying war things.)
Mary Ann, no, there isn’t. Most law codes in the world are subject to revision. New laws are written, and old ones are revoked or simply expire. UM’s who understand the role of the Book of Discipline and how the denomination operates are accustomed to following the current edition. That’s why it isn’t carved in stone.
2. Rebaptizing youth & adults (¶216.2 & 341.7)
BY MISTAKE, ONCE, ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.
3. Failure to pray for their church (¶217.6)
NEVER, THOUGH SOMETIMES IT’S HARD TO DO.
10. Failure to report to Church Council the names of members who have been neglectful in keeping their baptismal and membership vows (¶228.2b(1))
WOW … THAT WOULD RESULT IN COMPLAINT CALLS TO THE DS!!!!!!! NEVER DONE IT.
12. Failure to annually report names of college students to Conference Board of Higher Education and Campus Ministry (¶232)
WHAT IF YOUR CONFERENCE DID AWAY WITH THAT BOARD?
14. Failure to send addresses of newly moved members to pastor or district superintendent in community where member now resides. (¶236)
SOMETIMES THEY JUST DISAPPEAR … IF THEY TELL ME WHERE THEY’RE MOVING TO, HOWEVER, I DO. MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF THEY LET ME KNOW THEY’RE GOING, I MAKE SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHERE THEY MIGHT WANT TO VISIT, ETC.
17. Failure to monitor local church investments to ensure concurrence with Socially Responsibly Investments, the Social Principles, and The Book of Resolutions (¶247.20)
MY CONGREGATIONS HAVE INVESTED WITH THE TEXAS METHODIST FOUNDATION.
18. Failure to celebrate all six churchwide special Sundays with offerings, especially Peace with Justice Sunday and Native American Ministries Sunday (¶263)
OOOPS. I’M TOAST.
20. Failure of clergy to exercise habits conducive to bodily health (¶304.2)
I’M DOING BETTER … BUT WHEN THE ONLY SIN THEY LET US COMMIT IS GLUTTONY, IT CAN BE TOUGH.
25. Failure to secure written consent of district superintendent before engaging an evangelist (¶341.1)
THAT’S A MISQUOTE. ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO OBTAIN WRITTEN CONSENT IF THE PERSON ENGAGED IS: AN APPROVED GENERAL EVANGELIST, A CLERGY MEMBER OF AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE, A LOCAL PASTOR, OR A CERTIFIED LAY SERVANT IN GOOD STANDING IN THE UMC.
Simply brilliant, Jeremy.
In conjunction with the conversation last night, it was pointed out that within shouting distance of Schaefer’s church are others who rebaptize.
Man, if we wanted to get ugly, we could all just start charging-the-hell out of each other for everything.
That’d be fun, huh?
(turn on your sarcasm detectors)
I’m going to go home again and watch “Les Mis” on DVD, paying special attention to exactly why Javert feels he needs to kill himself.
Let those with ears hear….lest we commit *institutional* suicide.
I concur with Chad Holtz’s first comment re: the difference between incompetence/laziness and outright defiance. Also, I know of plenty of instances where ministers get in trouble for re-baptizing or refusing to baptize infants. At least here in the SW TX Conference, they take those parts of the Discipline extremely seriously. There are also plenty of other rules that Districts and Conferences enforce, particularly in the area of sexual assault and/or impropriety. The difference between enforcement in those cases and Rev. Frank Schaefer is that the accused in those situations either repent and face confidential sanctions or, if the case is serious enough, they are told to turn in their orders or face a church trial in conjunction with potential criminal and civil trials (if there are criminal/civil implications). The fact that Rev. Frank Schaefer faced a church trial does not mean that he’s the only person who’s ever been sanctioned for violating the Discipline.
I don’t know. I have a hard time labeling the actions of a person who will not repent for doing his son’s wedding as “outright defiance.” You are a very harsh bunch. Texas must be a mean place.
The “outright defiance” I believe has more to do with his refusal to submit to the BoD from now on going forward.
The reason for the refusal is because three of his four children are homosexuals. What if his other two children wanted the same as his first son?
“Dad always liked you best!!!”
That’s enough for me to rejoin the UMC and spend all my free time charging negligent pastors and laity.
The Gospel supersedes the BOD. Always and forever.
That was the answer I gave in my ordination interview for the United Church of Canada – if it is a question of ministry to people, after the model of Jesus, or church discipline/doctrine – ministry comes first – discipline/doctrine will always go out the window. Amazingly the ordination still happened. I think Frank is right, and if he follows BoD from now and the next 30 days, then essentially he capitulates. I would also add that Jesus was “outright defiant” in his insistence on ministry first, and we follow him because of that. Don’t we? So why should Frank back off?
Now, that’s entirely too Protestant. Scripture alone? Entirely too Protestant indeed.
Sola Scriptura is not nuda Scriptura. The Protestant Reformers appealed to the Church Fathers and other early writings of the church in making their case against the perceived (justly or not) corruption of the Roman Catholic Church.
But just for fun, here are the rules I neglect to follow out of ignorance (thanks for letting me know):
9-14 (not sure I’ll comply with all of them, but most are reasonable enough)
18 (we don’t do all six)
20 (I’m way too scrawny, need to buff up)
23 (we’re a small country church that sometimes uses Cokesbury, sometimes my more evangelical members prefer Lifeway).
¶ 139: “The services of worship of every local church of The United Methodist Church shall be open to all persons…. A further mark of inclusiveness is the setting of church activities in facilities accessible to persons with disabilities.” (This includes not only physical accessibility to the building and chancel, but also ASL interpretation and captioning of streamed video–for starters).
Be right back. I suddenly have a lot of paperwork to file.
It’s the decision to charge – like the trials in the Early Church – that is the beginning of this exclusive behavior. The desire to keep a “pure” inner circle by casting out those deemed to have gone outside the line, completely undermines Jesus’ (the Gospel) message that the Son came into the world that ALL may be saved. Filing and judging charges seems Pharasaic to me. I’m not a Universalist. I believe there is a line. The line belongs to our Merciful God. Our mission is not to condemn those we believe to be beyond the line, but to bring the means and works of grace to those who do not know grace for themselves. How is this very public condemnation of a brother in Christ mediating grace? How do these actions proclaiming the Gospel? How does any of this bring good news into the world?
I would much rather have church trials for people not abiding by UM doctrine and sacramental practice than what is currently happening. We probably need more, not less – we just don’t need to be trying to resolve major divisive issues this way. They weren’t designed to be the locus of denominational discussion. That’s what General Conference is for.
If I my ears didn’t deceive me, I have heard clergy take a vow to uphold both the rules and worship of the UMC. Besides re-baptism private baptism, Clergy, including bishops, regulary truncate The Great Thanksgiving, partly because of our poor record of seminary education in the history and practice of liturgy.
But who would bring charges in that case, or, for instance, against a bishop who callously disregards the Discipline and Judicial Council by totally neglecting consultation with church and pastor in making appointments? Who oversees a bishop and can also protect whistle-blowers?
Also, why, if war is also deemed “incompatible with Christian teaching,” as it is, do we not only allow but promote clergy involvement in the military instead of bringing charges?
I have the utmost respect for peace churches such as the Moravians, the Quakers, the Mennonites, and others. I also love the absolute non-violence of the Jainist religion. Historically the Christian faith prohibited Roman civil administrators, soldiers and gladiators from joining unless they renounced their violent profession. This did change following the Edict of Milan, a change perhaps motivated by the death of soldier martyrs such as Ss George, Sergius and Bacchus (the latter of whom were not, contrary to popular contemporary opinion, a gay couple; the Armenian church believes they were father and son, while other Patristic sources regard them as brothers). With the Byzantine Empire now actively seeking to defend Christendom from external threats, it made sense to pray for it. This later extended into a practice among most Christian churches to pray for all those in civil authorities, even those rulers of governments that are in fact opposed to the Christian faith. Consider this prayer from the Diptychs of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark:
The kingdom of Thy servant (N.) whom Thou hast justified to rule on earth, keep Thou in peace and fortitude and tranquillity through victory; subdue under him every foe and adversary, be they of foreign nations or his own; take hold of shield and buckler and rise up to help him; bring forth the spear, and shut the way against them that persecute him; overshadow his head in the day of battle; set the fruit of his loins upon his throne; speak good things to his heart for Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and for all Thy Christ-loving people; that we also in his tranquillity may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and purity, which we find in Thee.
This prayer is remarkable, in that it stems from the divine liturgy that was once used by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (as opposed to the Coptic Orthodox Church), an extreme minority population in Egypt of ethnic Greeks who were generally in opposition to both the Islamic majority, and the Coptic minority. The ruler who they pray for, however, is without a doubt the sovereign Prince of Egypt, a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, the same Empire that defeated the Byzantine Empire and that oppressed Christians throughout the Middle East, at times with great severity. Thus, it is right for Christians to pray for civil authorities, even those who are opposed to us.
Finally, it is of vital importance that Christians provide chaplains to any military service that will allow one. I would propose that no one is in more need of receiving the ministry of the church than those men in front line combat, subjected to the extreme psychological torture inherent in killing other men. In some cases, many Christians would argue the use of lethal force by the military and police services is necessary, for the protection of innocents, and I personally agree. However, that does not make the job any easier for those who, in loyalty to their country, are forced to carry it out. These people are human beings, of sacred worth, and require the love of the church, and the religious counseling provided by chaplains.
Is war incompatible with Christian teaching? Yes, to the extent that it is immoral, according to our religion, and also a violation of International Law, by the way, to wage an offensive war for reasons of material benefit, such as territorial gain or the acquisition of riches. It is not immoral however to defend others (not yourself; here we must turn the other cheek), but others, innocents; families with children, the civilians, as it were, from the violence and depredation that others would inflict upon them. Thus, while a Christian can in my opinion reasonably opt out of military service, and it is immoral to persecute members of peace churches, those Christians who do chose to fight for the safety of others should not be treated with contempt by the church; rather they should be loved, even revered as heroes where appropriate, and chaplains should be among their ranks, risking their lives in order to ensure the spiritual welfare of the troops, who every day, in the course of their job, stare down the face of death. If anyone deserves to hear the gospel, it is these men and women.
I refuse to do #’s 12 & 14 unless I have permission from the individuals.
Schafer did not commit an act of rebellion, he committed an act of love. It is a matter of the heart.
Maybe we could use John Wesley as a model. Seems like he found a way forward when he found there to be a conflict between following church rules and practicing effective ministry in the real world. He had a clear passion for both, but seemed to default to the needs of the people he served in ministry over keeping his covenant with the Rules of the Church of England.
And the Church of England refused to allow him to preach in their churches. And Wesley accepted that.
But was their refusal right/God-centered/in the way of Jesus?
I agree, let’s use John Wesley as a model. He (and Bishop Asbury in America following him) said that if you were unwilling to meet in a class meeting–a small group of Christians holding one accountable to living out Christian lives–that you should be removed from membership in the Methodist Societies (in America, the Methodists had it in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church up until the mid-1800s that your membership in a Methodist church would be removed).
In removing their membership, it was to be made clear that it was for breach of discipline. If we refuse to uphold the Book of Discipline, then we are in breach of discipline.
That said, thank you, UMJeremy, for pointing out that the institutional United Methodist Church remains entrenched in as much bureaucracy as the US federal government–and in more bureaucracy than the Roman Catholic Church, as I have read somewhere. We need to pare back on the bureaucracy, but we are not free to pare back on Scriptural morality.
Someone way back up the line here said we should put more weight on Scripture and on what Jesus says. I’m all for that! I think we should do exactly what Jesus said when it comes to homosexuality. Exactly!
Kathryn, I agree. We should put more weight on Scripture. All Scripture is God-breathed, after all, and that includes both the Old and New Testaments, and Paul’s epistles as well as the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. So let’s see what they say on sexual immorality (of all kinds, including homosexual behavior) and follow after the God who inspired the apostles and prophets to teach and to write what is contained in the Bible.
Many years ago, my pastor pointed out the need for everyone to know what was in the Discipline. Prior to this pastor’s appointment, decisions were made that were done in direct violation of the Discipline. If the pastor at that time had known what the Discipline had said, it might have prevented a great deal of grief.
Even now, I cannot tell you how many people I know who say they are Methodists but know nothing about what it is that they say they are.
Now, having said that, there are times when the laws on the books have to be viewed for what they are, attempts by mankind to control mankind, and not rules of the Kingdom. Any law, be it in the Discipline or secular law, that does not hold all people at the same level and prevents them from enjoying the same benefits of God’s love is a law that must be obeyed.
Now, believe it or not, I’m all for Methodist clergy following all parts of the Book of Discipline; clergy have an absolute obligation to obey the instructions of their Bishop, as affirmed in the canons of all seven Ecumenical councils, and in virtually all other councils of the early Church. This includes obeying the bishop in trivial details such as the correct reporting of membership forms. Any failure to follow the canonical instructions of the church hierarchy is a sin, even if through negligence, although such is not grounds for being defrocked in most cases; intentional disobedience, such as that of Frank Schaeffer, is grounds for deposition or demotion if the ancient canons are followed.
Now of these specific elements in the book of discipline that are not being followed, item 1 on the list is heterodoxy; the Baptist practice of not baptizing infants, despite what the Baptists say, is not true to the faith of the early church; it is a 16th century innovation. This is not as severe however as the blasphemy of performing a homosexual marriage; it is a violation of church tradition, but does not directly contradict the teachings of the New Testament, and is thus mere heterodoxy. Item 2, however, rebaptizing, unless the prior baptism was invalid (due to a failure to use the correct baptismal formula, i.e. baptizing in the name of “Creator, redeemer, sanctifier” rather than “Father, son, and holy spirit”) is heresy; specifically, it is the heresy of the Novatianists and Donatists, who insisted upon rebaptizing Christians who lapsed during the Imperial persecution prior to the Edict of Milan.
Items 3 and 6 are huge transgressions of the ecclesiastical responsibility of clergy as well, although not heterodox or heretical per se. However, of everything listed there, UMJeremy only cites one thing that is outright heretical, that being, the practice of rebaptism, and even this is a heresy only by way of the definitions of the early Church; if it were not for the condemnation of Novatianism at Nicaea, and the struggle of Augustine against the Donatists, we would not have any way of knowing about them and condemning them as heresy, per se. In the case of performing a homosexual marriage, however, this runs directly afoul of Paul’s proscriptions of homosexual activity. Even the Southern Baptists, who are for the most part utterly ignorant of the praxis of the early Church, are able to see how this is wrong; when one combines the Pauline injunction with the mass of canon law forbidding homosexuality, and other patristic statements by Gregory of Nyassa, John Chrysostom and others, one considers that Frank Schaeffer ought to have been deposed, not suspended. As I see it, he is getting substantially more slack than he is entitled to, as he is frankly an apostate, a blasphemer, and a heretic, guilty of sacrilege of the most obvious form, and beyond that, guilty of dereliction in his pastoral duties to God and to his congregation. If Schaeffer wants to perform gay marriage, he ought to work for the Episcopalians, or the Unitarian Universalists.
Paul Anthony Preussler, many of us in modern, Protestant denominations do not feel ourselves bound by “canon law,” ancient edicts, or every doctrinal pronouncement of the ecumenical councils. I have studied the writings of the Patristic Period extensively, but that does not mean I automatically give precedence to their ideas or consider them closer to the truth simply because of their age. You probably think that makes me an apostate, blasphemer, and heretic. But, I can live with that.
Jesus was considered a heretic, which puts us in excellent company I’d say.
or maybe he could just work for Jesus??
How can you work for Jesus while ignoring the commandments of His chosen Apostles (Paul, Jude) and the fathers of His Bride the Church?
Failure to encourage certified candidates to attend a UM seminary – Par. 310.2f
To ignore the ecumenical councils and the church fathers is perilous; they defined the New Testament canon and the creeds and symbols of our faith. If one says that Patristic thought is irrelevant or not binding upon contemporary Christianity, one discards the Christian faith of the past two millenia, in favor of a new, degenerate form of Christianity akin to Gnosticism. As I support freedom of religion, I have no objection to people doing this within civil society; what I do object to is the continuing and relentless attempt, using the most unethical and aggressive means possible, to undermine the existing faith of the Methodist church.
When you say things like “Jesus was considered a heretic” and give that as an excuse to justify your own departure from His teachings, you are desecrating the church in which I was baptized, the church of my parents, grand parents, and great grand parents. You are relentlessly attacking and disfiguring my cultural and religious heritage, and not just mine, but the heritage of every other Methodist, a substantial portion of the religious legacy of the United States and the UK. You are forcing us to leave the denomination that we were baptized and raised in; you are in effect ransacking our spiritual homeland.
Now I would not object at all to you doing this within a new church. Nor for that matter can I really object to it occurring within the Unitarian community, since the UUs have never embraced any form of Christian orthodoxy. However, for individuals such as Dr. Jenkins and Rev. Ota to attempt to disfigure my faith, is to violate me personally; this is why I myself and other confessional Methodists are determined to resist, in a spirit of love, these changes.
Aside from the assault on our cultural and religious heritage, there is also an even more pressing concern for us: the fact that you are in effect encouraging people to sin. Christianity is a religion of repentance, of turning away from evil. When you endorse sinful practices, whatever they may be, whether its murder, alcoholism, sexual immorality, you are frustrating the work of Christ, not aiding it. Nowhere in any of the canonical Gospels did Christ release us from the obligation of morality, or encourage sexual promiscuity; on the contrary, his message is one of reverent chastity, humility and obedience, in a state of love for God and for our fellow men.
There is also a huge moral danger in Ota’s message, in that it seems to imply heresy is good and acceptable within the Christian church. While it is true that to some Jews, Christ was a heretic, that does not mean that the Christian church is inherently a free for all. Since the Apostolic era, there has been a definition of heresy. Simon Magus is widely considered to be the first Christian heretic; some believe Peter’s initial journey to Rome was one in pursuit of Magus, with Peter clearing up false teachings propagated by Magus en route (in a sense, the propagation of the Gnostic heresy predates that of the Catholic faith, and it is certainly fair to say, regardless of whether that particular story is true, that heresy facilitated the definition of Christian Orthodoxy. I can say that something is orthodox because of the experience of heretics).
If Christian heresy were allowed to run rampant, as Fran Ota suggests, if there were no restraints within the church hierarchies against it, we would see something similar to what is forming within the Episcopal Church, USA, or any number of other fallen mainline denominations; we would see something not entirely unlike the UU church. Specifically:
– An even faster decline in church attendance.
– Abandonment of all liturgical traditions; the ‘contemporary service’ would become normative, and the hymns of Wesley would no longer resonate through the nave.
– The widespread use of Gnostic gospels and other apocryphal material.
– The complete abandonment of any pretense of sacramental theology, coupled with the use of degenerate, blasphemous performances of the sacraments (celebrating the Eucharist with milk and honey, rather than wine and bread).
– The utter disregard for the teachings of the Apostle Paul, or of any other figures within Christianity other than Christ himself.
– The general disregard for anything Christ says in the canonical gospels, where it is inconvenient in the context of modern society; where necessarily, the priests of such churches will instead quote the non-canonical Gnostic texts in opposition to the canonical texts.
– The Ebionite or Soccinian fallacy, that Christ is not the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in one Godhead, but rather a mere moral teacher to be respected.
– The Marcionite view that condemns outright the Old Testament and the moral precepts of Judaism upon which Christianity was founded.
Now on that last point, yes, it is true that Christ did react against the excesses of Phariseeism. Yet I see Christ also being at least as concerned within the Gospels with the anomial abuse of the Sadducees; the Pharisees at the very least cared about obeying God’s law, whereas the Sadducees preferred, like Rev. Ota and Dr. Jenkins, to ignore it whenever it was inconvenient, paying liturgical lip service to it in the life of the Second Temple, but not making any effort to actually follow the commandments. This was easy for the Sadducees, as they did not believe, like so many modern Christians, in the doctrine of resurrection.
Pharisees on the other hand, for all their faults, did at least try to live righteously; they did at least sincerely believe in God, and were interested in more than the mere superficial appearance of faith. I see Christianity as a form of repaired Phariseeism; I think we can interpret the Gospels largely as God’s response to the desire of His people to conduct themselves morally, for voluntary reasons. The Old Testament is filled with stories of intransigent Israelites who had to be coerced into follow the Law using the most dire means available to God; on the contrary, with the Pharisees, we see a people who sincerely wanted to follow the Law, and not in reaction to some imminent plague sent upon them from on high.
I would define this moment as a seminal moment; perhaps this was the dawn of human maturity. It is interesting to note that a large portion of the world’s largest religions date from within a thousand years of the birth of Christ; after years of following the sacrificial cults of pagan Polytheism, at the time of Christ’s birth, mankind was ready to emerge from the shadows into a genuine spiritual maturity. Now, naturally, the Pharisees did not get it right; we cannot, as Pelagius vainly suggests, save ourselves in the eyes of the Lord. The Pharisees were arrogant, self-righteous and legalistic; Christ set forth to correct these measures, and also facilitate the resurrection of mankind through His great sacrifice; the ultimate victory of love against sin. Thus, I see Christianity as a form of corrected Phariseeism, with the desire of humans to obey God redirected into the most legitimate forms of expression; I think it is worth noting that a very large swathe of the Apostles, including Paul, were Pharisees. I can’t recall any off the top of my head who were Sadducees, although that said I have no doubt that Christ’s message did call a great many Sadducees to a life of religious devotion.
Now, the vast majority of errors in the Christian church today are mere heterodoxy; in my mind most laity are incapable of heresy; congregants are the victims of heresy on the part of their elders, and not the heretics themselves in most cases. It is the responsibility of Christian theologians, bishops, pastors and others in the ministry to correctly transmit doctrine; intentional refusal to do so is in fact heresy. Accidental refusal to do so, in furtherance of an existing heresy or schismatic error, I would classify as mere heterodoxy. Now, this does not mean that the heretic or heterodox clergyman, and certainly not their communicants, are necessarily damned; rather, it means that incorrect and erroneous teachings, which can have a deleterious effect on the moral, spiritual and indeed physical well being of the congregation, are being transmitted, and these errors must be corrected.
Now, what defines heresy, as opposed to mere heterodoxy, or well-intentioned error? The propagation of teachings condemned as heresy by the early Church, the refusal to obey or teach the precepts of the Nicene Creed, and the intentional deprecation of, or deviation from, those scriptures determined by the church fathers to be canonical, is clearly heresy. It is also heretical to invent new doctrine that complies with the letter of the Nicene Creed, yet subverts it in a more subtle manner; historical examples of this later condemned by the ecumenical councils include Nestorianism, Eutychianism and Iconoclasm.
The erroneous teachings regarding homosexuality themselves are a mere side-effect of the dissemination of pre-existing heresies in the UMC. Many Methodists have, unwittingly, developed a number of delusions (the Russian term which is most appropriate is ‘prelest’) regarding the Christian faith, including a docetist view that considers Christ’s resurrection to be merely spiritual, an Arian view that considers Christ to not be consubstantial with the Father (I know a local Methodist minister who has confessed to me his Arian theology), a Nestorian heresy that denies Mary’s status as theotokos, and that wrongly denies the unity of Christ’s humanity and divinity, an Adoptionist view that considers Christ to have been naturally born, and a a Gnostic view that condemns the material world and stresses a spiritual afterlife in a pleroma-like Heaven, rather than the Biblical and Patristic doctrine of Bodily Resurrection.
Each of these heresies works in concert with the others to undermine the faith, so that after these heresies have been in effect in the UMC for mere decades, the damage has been severe enough so that we see this unpleasantness. Methodist clergy and theologians who have fallen into the trap of heresy must urgently repent; it is not too late to avoid a tragic schism in the UMC, but the hour is late, so to speak. We must return to the ancient faith of the Fathers, to the faith of John Wesley, even to the faith of our own grandparents, before it is too late.
Wesley lived on 26 pounds per year, lived very simply, traveled 189,000 miles during his lifetime. How would treat those who threw garbage at you and said vile things about you as Wesley had to contend with? Are you aware that Wesley became depressed at times? Are you following In The footsteps of Wesley, modeling his lifestyle that you claim others should be doing? Are you aware that Wesley was a divorcee? What do you know about Wesley’s relationship to Sophia Hopkey? Did you make a listing as he did of reasons for marriage and reasons for not getting married? That he remained an Anglican all the days of his life? Do you fight speaking in tongues as he did? Do you befriend homosexuals as Wesley did with George Frederick Handel? Do you pray daily, multiple times, fast on Thursdays? Do you think ministers ought to use the same sermon they preached before as Wexley did? Do you approve of the Methodist Episcopacy in America as Wesley did with Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke? Remember Wesley was not allowed to preach in the Anglican churches and had to preach on his father’s tombstone? Do you recall that Wesley disagreed with his parents theologically? How many of the 4000+ Wesleyan hymns do you know and sing? Are you aware that Wesley disdained some of the work of his brother Samuel who wrote many of those hymns? Are you aware that the Nicene Creed was a 4th century document? Do you employ the phrase in that creed “He descended into Hell” as was originally written and is currently used in many Ecumenical denominations?
The wealth of John Wesley was commendable; it is said that when he died, he left behind him only a well-used clergyman’s gown, a superb library, and the Methodist Church. I think Wesley, who was a committed Anglican who was in general opposed to schism, regretted even that element. In founding the Methodist Episcopal Church in North America, Wesley’s hand was forced by the refusal of the Anglican hierarchy to ordain new clergy for the US; Wesley for his part acted independently of what became the Episcopal Church, USA, and appointed a Bishop himself. It is widely believed that he used as his justification for that act his episcopal status, conferred on him secretly by the Eastern Orthodox bishop Erasmus of Arcadia in 1763; if this is true, and its rather difficult to confirm one way or the other, although Wesley is on record as having refused to deny it, if nothing else, then it would indicate that among Protestant churches the Methodists have a unique connection to Eastern Christianity. Wesley I don’t think would have been very happy to see the British Methodists separate from the Church of England. It is true that , especially midway through his life, Wesley was often unable to preach from within parish churches (his status as a curate, rather than as a rector, did not help this process, and the Anglican church at the time did not have, as a polity, an official mechanism for Methodist-style itinerant preaching), however, I believe that all things considered, he would have remained loyal to the church.
Now, Wesley himself was not a divorcee per se; rather, his wife left him. “I did not dismiss her; I will not recall her.” The episode, even to the degree it transpired, is a mark against Wesley, however I would say his most significant work postdates his matrimonial failure. Early in his life Wesley had somewhat loose morals, a fact he fervently repented of later in life.
Now regarding Handel, it is by no means certain that Handel was a homosexual; while it is possible, and Handel never married, we cannot know for sure, and I prefer not to smear people posthumously, especially to score political points. In any event, I do count among my friends those of a homosexual orientation; I do not believe their sexuality is compatible with the Christian church, but that’s no reason to hate them. We are called to love everyone, even those in a state of sin, and homosexual conduct is no different from any other sin (adultery, murder, theft); thus singling out homosexuals for abuse is a discriminatory practice. Rather, homosexuality must be classified with all other sins, as behaviors to avoid, but also as behaviors that can be forgiven, and not as justifications for succumbing to hate.
Now regarding fasting discipline, the Eastern praxis, which I personally follow, is to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (some monasteries also fast on Monday). These fasts are not a total abstinence from food, but rather mainly the avoidance of animal products. The early Church selected these days to commemorate Christ’s betrayal and crucifixion, just as the Sunday liturgy commemorates His resurrection. Prior to this, the Jewish custom, which influenced the Christian, was to fast on Tuesday and Thursday. Wesley himself, as he refined his morality, led a progressively more ascetic life; but conditions in England at the time had led to some abeyance on the fullest extent of ascetic discipline possible, and here I think it is best for us to adopt the very severe ascetic discipline favored in the East, to the extent of our ability. My own rule of prayer, by the way, is to say the Liturgy of the Hours (Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline, and the Midnight Offices), and in between these services, to say the Jesus Prayer to the fullest extent time allows (I do live in the secular world, and the custom here is normally to only observe morning and evening prayer; if a Christian can even attain that in this day and age I laud them, but I myself try to make time for a more rigorous discipline; also the beauty of the Jesus Prayer is that you can say it almost continually).
Now, regarding the Nicene Creed, it is not accurate to say it contained the phrase “Descended into Hell”, rather, this phrase is from the Apostle’s Creed, which in its present form is somewhat newer than the Niceno-Constantinoplean creed of 381 (although it is adopted from a traditional western baptismal liturgy). The phrase does refer to a legitimately orthodox belief, that of the Harrowing of Hell; it is believed that Christ liberated from the confess thereof anyone who would follow him (hence “Oh death, where is thy sting? Oh Hell, where is thy victory?”). This is a key concept behind the idea of Christus Victor, so brilliantly conveyed through the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom. Note also that the phrase “Descended into hell” is contained within the Apostle’s Creed, as it is written in John Wesley’s original Sunday Service for the first Methodist Episcopal churches in North America (which I have linked to here: http://pastie.org/8497332). The Nicene Creed lacks that element of doctrine; I make a point to use it in its original form without the filioque clause, which was a later Roman addition, and is in my opinion, unhelpful in terms of triadism, although I would stop short of calling it a heresy or even heterodox.
The antiquity of the Nicene Creed is of course the main reason to use it. The same people who gave us the Nicene Creed in its 381 form also finalized the NT canon. The fourth century fathers, more than anyone who came after, defined our faith, putting into writing the apostolic tradition you can see through the work of their forefathers; one can see the theology of Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Irenaeus manifested fully in the Nicene Creed as expressed by the likes of Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Nicholas, Gregory of Nyassa, Anthony the Great, and other Nicene fathers. These men collectively are of immeasurable importance to human civilization; they transmitted the faith of the Apostles to us through their groundbreaking theology.
Now there is one other question you raised that I feel is particularly important, that being of ministers reusing existing sermons. Do I think that’s a valid practice? Absolutely; in fact, I would argue it should be mandatory on certain occasions. Methodist ministers as a matter of course should read the sermons of the church fathers and of John Wesley wherever an existing sermon is theologically indicated, rather than making up their own new sermon. Any time you preach a sermon you run the risk of accidentally or intentionally misleading your congregation; you cannot go wrong by instead reading them John Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian, or for that matter, John Wesley. I feel that the standard Methodist liturgy for Easter Sunday ought to enforce the mandatory use of Chrysostom’s Paschal Homily.
Within Protestantism, we’ve gotten into the very bad habit of stressing the homily over the sacraments. The “Liturgy of the Word” as the Romans now call it, while important, should not be the main event; the point of homilies is to elucidate the congregation and provide them with instruction on the key aspects of the faith, as well as moral guidance, but a sermon by its very nature is not the actual act in which the fullest divine grace is transmitted. This is rather reserved for Holy Communion; it is in the Eucharist in which we literally encounter Christ and are transported mystically to the Last Supper, and it is the Eucharist which should lie at the heart of every Methodist liturgy. Wesley himself, before the Methodists had their own preachers, exhorted his followers to take communion weekly in Anglican parish churches. This ought to be the standard praxis within the UMC; the fact that many parishes do not celebrate weekly communion makes a mockery of our divine office.
By the way, I did realize I forgot to remark on the subject of speaking in tongues. Like John Wesley, and indeed like the Apostle Paul, I am opposed to the abuse or faking of this supposed charisma. While it is true that at Pentecost, this ability was granted to the Apostles, in my mind, speaking in tongues is only a legitimate gift when the language miraculously spoken is a real one previously unknown to the speaker. It is only pastorally useful if the individual in question miraculously gains such a language, including the ability to understand that, thus enabling them to evangelize to people who previously were unable to communicate with them effectively.
The Pentecostals err seriously in creating the false expectation that everyone should manifest these charisms as a sign of true faith in Jesus Christ. This is not true; these charisms are gifts, specially given, and history indicates that when such miracles do occur, they occur primarily in manners that benefit the pastoral needs of the church. One of the few rather nice aspects of the Methodist church at present is that we do not pressure converts into engaging in glossolalia in order to demonstrate their status as “converted.”
It is clearly time for a new Book of Discipline. I’m hoping that this spiritual crisis will give us the gumption to scrap the ineffective book that we have so we can reboot the church. Fortunately, GC2012 DID actually vote to get this work started, and a task force has begun work on a new GLOBAL BOD. The sooner the better, in my opinion.
The African churches and the remaining conservative parishes in North America are unlikely to approve a Book of Discipline that represents a departure from the traditions of the church.
I do hope we can avoid schism; it would be a shame if the UMC were to split in the manner of the Prebyerians (the PCUSA and Eco), the Episcopalians (the ACNA), and so on.
Fortunately it is the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters that is beginning to work on a proposal for a new global BOD. Bishop Strieff of Eastern Europe is the chairperson of the task force. The task force is discussing a very small global BOD that will focus on our common history, theology, and soteriology. The intent is to give the church a common identity. Then there will be multiple volume 2’s of the BOD to address regional or more contextual matters. The new global BOD will not be a book of rules like our current book is. My hope is that we will completely drop our current constitution (which is very similar to the US constitution). A constitutional model of government is not suitable for a church. At the recent Council on Bishops meeting Bishop Streiff and Dr. Sarah Lancaster of MTSO guided the council in reflections on the development of a “Wesleyan ecclesiology”..So the process is underway. My hope is that our current crisis will make us all willing to work toward a new day. The United Methodist Church with our current constitution needs to die and be reborn–perhaps even with a new name.
If we’re going to make that radical a change, I feel we ought to consider attempting a “population exchange” with the Episcopal Church, USA, transferring our liberal parishes to them, in return for their remaining conservative parishes. The reorganized Methodist church could then seek communion with the ACNA, and perhaps resume the ecumenical work that was once actively pursued by the Anglicans before the 1970s crises over women’s ordination derailed it.
A radical change is unquestionably needed. Your “population exchange” idea may be an excellent idea; but I think it needs to be down the road a bit.
When a church places more emphasis on the letter of the law (written by people as flawed as any of us) than the love and compassion of Jesus it has lost it’s mandate to lead. I left the Catholic church because of the same blindness to the truth. I will pray for guidance here.
Are you saying that the Apostle Paul was not acting under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he affirmed the sinful nature of the Holy Spirit?
I am sorry, I meant to type, when he affirmed the sinful nature of the act of homosexuality.
Embarrassing typo, please disregard.
Actually, Paul, the apostle Paul never “affirmed the sinful nature of the act of homosexuality.” He affirmed the sinful nature of certain men and women committing “unnatural acts of passion” with members of their own sex. He also noted that they “paid” for this in their own bodies. While we can speculate, the exact context to which Paul is referring is lost to us. A little more careful exegesis will go a long way to not make problems where they don’t exist. Aside from that, the thrust of Paul’s message is that we are all sinners and fall short of God’s intent for us, and we all need God’s grace expressed in Christ for salvation, be we homosexual or heterosexual.
Since the early Church interpreted this as referring to homosexual contact (see the Homily of John Chrysostom I referenced), we can say with certainty that Paul was in fact referring to homosexual activity per se. It is important to remember however that Paul, in his epistles, does not deny homosexuals access to the love of Christ through repentance and forgiveness; Paul’s goal is to promote reconciliation and a conversion of character, not to pass judgment or pronounce condemnation. Engaging in sexually deviant conduct cannot be said to cause damnation, and we must stress this point. Christ can and will save as many as possible regardless. It is the duty of the church not to judge, but rather to educate people on what sin is, as the Bible and the Fathers have taught us, and to call them to repentance, that they might make peace with their Lord, and enter into Holy Communion, for the remission of sins and participation in the life of the world to come.
Paul Preussler Just maybe your were divinely inspired the first time.
Parenthetically, You other postings sound a bit like preaching at people you consider beneath you to show off your “erudition” and correctness. Proving a person “wrong” neither wins converts, nor advances healthy discussion. I will stick with Christ’s message of inclusiveness and love above all the rules and decrees from the Church Councils to the BOD. If that makes me an apostate or heretic [words you seem to like] I believe that I am better company than the Phariseeic types Jesus and quite a few others have railed against down through the ages.
Bishop Peggy Johnson blogged on October 10, 2013, per Paragraph 241 which states “If a pastor is informed that a member has without notice united with a church of another denomination, the pastor shall make diligent inquiry and, if the report is confirmed, shall enter ‘Withdrawn” after the person’s name on the membership…..” , anyone who has become ordained online needs to either a) give up their online ordination and cease to perform weddings or b) give up their membership within the UMC or c) be withdrawn from UMC membership by their pastors. I can think of 3 UM pastors who are fully aware I was ordained online about 3 years ago, to be able to legally perform marriages for friends and family who asked me to do this. Haven’t hidden this fact from them. Matter of fact, I TOLD all 3 of them this. Hmmm…..I was the one who finally walked out of the church and requested to be removed from the membership for a TOTALLY different reason. None of the clergy who knew I was ordained online have been brought up on charges.
we grow when we self criticize.we have many shortcomings as a church. we need to assess our weaknesses and do something… or else we lose our light and salt-when we become useless to society especially the poor and the oppressed. the law will not save us. effective love will. msv, umc clergywoman from
the Philippines
MSV should realize that the liberation theology she espouses is deeply offensive to traditional Christians. No one is saying that the Torah will save us; we are merely calling for adherence to the specific instructions of the Apostle Paul, the same apostle who deprecated the Torah (Christ himself never made any remarks that would directly release the believer from the Torah; this doctrine was developed by Paul, against the initial opposition of James the Just, who later relented; the Ebionites never did, however). Liberation theology is itself fallacious because it ignores the overarching spiritual message of Christianity to stress purely the social message, which, while an important part of our faith, must be held as absolutely secondary to the more important responsibility, that being, the cure of souls, through faith in Jesus Christ. The miserable condition of the impoverished and the oppressed is of course dreadful, and it is the responsibility of Christians to do something about it, but liberation theology discards the moral teachings of Christianity outside the realm of social justice, and the emphasis on salvation in the world to come, which is dreadful. While we can, following in the footsteps of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great (and indeed John Wesley, with his system of free healthcare clinics in the UK), significantly alleviate suffering in this life, we cannot end it altogether; this is why we must prepare the faithful for salvation in the life to come, by stressing the importance of ardent repentance and personal holiness. I myself like the example of some Eastern Orthodox monks, who express a willingness to voluntarily relinquish their own salvation, if it means saving others before the dreadful judgment seat of Christ.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Any Christ follower who had read the Bible knows that what this PENN pastor did was detestable. And he should be charged. Scripture doesn’t uphold his actions, neither does the BoD. And when, or if, Lord help us, the church decides to change the BoD, it would still be against Scripture.
May the Lord deal with the UMC every so severely if we can’t get back on track – there can’t be compromise on an issue like this – it”s one or the other, bless their hearts. Of course, we love. But we don’t condone. As far as all these other tiny, microscopic things you pulled from the discipline, I’m sure the church is going to be fine (outside of the praying faithfully one – that needs to be in place) no matter if these are done or not. This other issue is something that has just gotten too much traction of the tiny fraction of people that it actually affects. I think you might be going just a little crazy 🙂 Let’s lighten things back up – get back on track with the main goals.
The previous week, at Lake Junaluska, N.C., the United Methodist Council of Bishops announced plans to file a complaint against a retired bishop who performed a wedding for two gay men in Alabama.
According to The Associated Press, Bishop Melvin G. Talbert of Nashville, Tenn., performed the wedding last month, even though the local bishop and other leaders asked him not to, saying it violated church law.
The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church is clear, even if some consciences are foggy. If a pastor feels strongly about it, as Schaefer and Talbert obviously did, then he/she goes into it knowing the price and must be willing to pay the price. It’s no different than an act of civil disobedience.
As the bishops noted last week at Lake Junaluska, we United Methodists — and the collective pronoun is intentional, because we are connectional — are divided on the full acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church, whether in ordination, in the full use of their gifts, or in marriage. In truth, the church is of three minds: some stand with the Discipline; some oppose the Discipline; and others have no opinion.
Pastorally, I think the Enemy uses the division as a tool to keep us from concentrating on leading people to Christ — and judging from the state of the United Methodist Church, he appears to be doing a most excellent job.
I have a blog post that has not yet been completed, nor am I sure it will ever be published, because I do not wish to become part of the divisiveness I see. I am a bivocational pastor who serves a small, missional UM Church in a county where I also serve as managing editor of the daily newspaper. I would appreciate your prayers — for a number of reasons!
After reading some of the comments here, the Holy Spirit leads me to respond with a John Wesley quote:
“Sour godliness is the devil’s religion.”
Amen!
The author’s point would make more valid if the other rules mentioned had been challenged over and over again for 40 years, and if it had been emphasized over and over again that they should be upheld, and if repeatedly those who refused to uphold them had also been put on trial, and if in announcing that you intended to break covenant anyway it was clear you would also face trial. If UMJEREMY would like to test the resolve of the denomination in regard to any of the 25 above listed rules perhaps UMJEREMY should. But in regard to the current situation, UMJEREMY’s point misses the point as much as spitting on the sidewalk is an enforceable law as compared to child abuse. Both may be law but one will very likely be enforced and one most likely will not, as there is a clear legal perception of damage to the victim(s) and penalty to be enforced. I would also suggest if a UM clergy continues to re-baptize folks after they have been warned not to there will be consequences if a DS decides to enforce it. Ditto for refusing an appointment.
Homosexuality is a sin. Are these others sin?
As I gave this more thought I would suspect that anyone who openly defied the Discipline, even if it was “I tell my church not to ever buy from the UM publishing house” and the DS hears about it, they likely will correct you and if the problem persists there will likely be more involved. You are really talking about the difference between busy people knowing and trying to keep every letter of the law and open defiance of one the most divisive and difficult issues that the UMC has faced perhaps in it’s history. There really is a major difference don’t you think?
“The board of trustees … shall conduct or cause to be conducted an annual accessibility audit of their buildings, grounds, and facilities to discover and identify what physical, architectural, and communication barriers exist that impede the full participation of people with disabilities and shall make plans and determine priorities for the elimination of all such barriers. The Accessibility Audit for churches shall be used in filling out the annual church and/or charge conference reports.”
I started to hold a charge conference in someone else’s church, but then I remembered how much I disliked holding my own charge conference.
I think Chad actually makes the point for you, Jeremy. We elevate certain elements of scripture, and we elevate certain elements of the Discipline. The decision to elevate the few sentences dedicated to homosexuality is entirely subjective. “Who we marry, I’d argue, has far more weight than where membership records are secured,” he says. And apparently, marrying your gay son has far more weight than continuing investment in companies who violate human rights. Gay son? Significant. Investing in companies that have been repeatedly called out, including by General Boards, for violating human rights and international law? No biggie.
The basis for this? Entirely political. Nothing to do with scripture, with faith, with mercy at all. Period.
Actually, David, the difference is one is called sin, the other (where you secure membership records) is not. You are certainly free to debate the sinfulness of homosexuality, but our church has been clear on that for the past 40 years, and until that changes, it matters.
ah, but how does it change unless people speak out and protest?. The same could be said for segregation, slavery, interracial marriage. I’m sure those issues bothered a few conservative methodist elders in their day. And there were always some who thought it best to wait for a few fossilized elders in the out -of-touch hierarchy to maybe, someday, hopefully, change. Nowadays most congregants don’t mess with waiting on some higher-ups to move their sclerotic hearts towards a more enlightened viewpoint. They grow tired of the bickering and bigotry. They simply sigh, get up from their pews and move their hearts, minds, feet and wallets over to the episcopal church.
This is not a question of what “bothers” or does not “bother” a “few conservative methodist elders in their day.” Unlike slavery or segregation, which were always widely opposed within a large segment of the church (the Biblical commandment enforcing the separation of the Jewish people having been explicitly lifted in the NT, and replaced by an alternate directive mandating the separation of the church from the depraved aspects of civil society), and only defensible with a twisted hermeneutics at odds with the historic teachings of the Church, the Christian church has always said that homosexual behavior is a sin. Paul said it, Jude said it, I would say Christ implied it; Gregory of Nyassa and John Chrysostom said it; the Bishops at several early church councils said it. The Cloud of Witnesses that testifies to our faith is nearly unanimous in objecting to this.
Nor should anyone cite the delusional exegesis of Matthew 6; the Greek word used therein, while it can mean servant (as the KVJ translated it), can also mine child or boy, and cross-checking that passage against the Aramaic Peshitta indicates that it was in the latter context, referring to the son of the Roman. To my knowledge Roman homosexuals had not yet developed the so-called “Leatherdaddy culture”, so when the NT indicates that the individual in question was the son of the General, we can take its word for it.
This issue is nothing like segregation or racism. In the case of homosexual behavior, what we’re talking about is the same thing we object to with heterosexuals, that being, an inability to control ones passions and only procreate within the context of a holy heterosexual marriage; failing that, the extremely blessed route of holy celibacy in the footsteps of St. Anthony the Great, St. Benedict, St. John of Damascus and so on presents itself. If I had to make a rough guess, I’d say at least 75% of church fathers were themselves celibate, either voluntarily or due to their episcopal office. One of the main aspects of Roman culture that the early church rightly opposed was Roman sexual promiscuity, which was in fact much worse than that of our society today, but it is shocking to see the degree to which we have devolved towards the truly dreadful condition of ancient Rome (we abuse sex slaves, but unlike in Rome, its illegal to do so; we do not yet have gladiatorial combat to the death, but Reality TV at times seems disturbingly close).
The role of the church is to be the light and salt of the world, to call people to repentance. In the unfortunate case of homosexuals, in the Victorian era through the 1950s, they were treated in a manner lacking the appropriate Christian charity. Wilde and Turing were savagely abused by the British government, resulting in their premature death. However, while adopting the fullest attitude of repentance about that, we must still maintain our historic position, calling homosexuals to a life of holy celibacy. Fifteen minutes of devout fervent prayer are infinitely more rewarding than fifteen minutes of mere sexual pleasure.
Which takes us to the root of the problem. People like jay johnson want to redefine the church from an agency that proclaims the received morality from God, calling the world to repentance, into an entity that merely tells people whatever they want to hear, whatever it is that will make them feel good inside. Whatever sexual appetites you have, this new church will bless. Whatever desires you have, no matter how far removed they are from the Biblical imperative of repentance, the new church will endorse.
The ultimate form of this can be found amongst the Charismatic heretics who preach the so called “Prosperity gospel.” If there ever was an actual heresy that deserved the adjective “damnable” (which came up in an earlier conversation this week), it is this gross impiety, which seeks to reduce the Christian church to nothing more than a talisman with which to secure temporal and worldly success. The liberal Christians preach a version of this heresy, only instead of praying for the individual material wealth of the layman, they pray for certain other goals which are entirely of a materialistic nature, some of which are in and of themselves laudable, but the problem is, these goals are prayed for in exclusion to the actual moral message of Christianity.
The Gospel shows us that this life is but a mere foretaste of the heavenly glory that awaits us, as we are bodily resurrected. “A trumpet shall blow, and we shall be raised! Raised incorruptible!” Free from the inescapable despair of a world ravaged by original sin, we will be able to live in bodily form, in close and immediate proximity to our God, participating in an everlasting heavenly liturgy, and separated from the anguish and depravity that defines our present lives. I daresay that that is an infinitely more compelling prospect, then a degenerate theology designed to justify a trivial and insignificant amount of sexual pleasure on behalf of those who we should instead recommend the consecrated life. and with it, vowing perpetual chastity, stability, and conversion of character.
I question the wisdom of using the BoD to get a backdoor criticism against those who use the BoD to criticize another. Using legalism to condemn someone for using legalism to condemn someone? I guess the point is made, but is it constructive? I think we need to step back and get a handle on the underlying issue, which seems to me to be one of identity. The issue is not that “homo’s are taking over the church” as it was so inappropriately articulated by someone I spoke with recently. Rather, the issue is this: what kind of church are we? What kind of church do we seek to be? There are a number of possibilities here and one position that some are taking is that, fundamentally, we are a church that receives it’s identity in a set of rules.
I understand the tug. It’s safe and it’s easy. It’s safe to “fallback on the rules” because doing so requires so little of us, especially when it comes to wrestling with matters of theology and ministry at a time and in a culture that require us to recontextualize both theology and ministry. It’s easy to find refuge in “resorting to the rules” when we find ourselves and our positions challenged, because doing so releases us from the obligation of engaging the challenge. But the safe path and the easy path are seldom the best path, especially when it comes to the gospel. I believe it is the Pharisees who made this truth abundantly clear.
As for me, I choose to be a church that is shaped by the Gospel. It may sound cliche and it certainly does ask more questions than it answers, but it also pushes us to be where we are supposed to be: in the midst of a world that is hurting and lost, bringing light to the darkness, hope to the despairing, and love to those who live in its absence.
Outright defiance – refusing to accept a person into membership because of their sexual orientation. Outright defiance – refusing to baptize a baby because you don’t believe in prevenient grace. Outright defiance – saying “our youth are the future of our church” and never ever appointing them to committees or councils. I could go on…
Jeni, with these particular offenses, was the person informed of their offense and told they need to change course and abide by the BoD? When told that, did they refuse?
I’ve tried not to weigh in, but that’s not how the Discipline outlines due process. When a complaint is filed, the DS/bishop have to start an investigation. If the charge has been offered with the instance and the violated paragraphs if the bishop doesn’t dismiss the charge a committee on investigation has to follow. That can then lead to a trial or an attempt at a just resolution, but simple notification and offer of repentance aren’t due process as the Discipline defines it.
Yes. All true. But I’m asking if these people have been informed and what happened after they were. People in cases like these seem to throw around a whole lot of scenarios but nobody has a specific case where they say, “Joe was told by his DS that he can’t refuse to baptize a baby. Joe told his DS he was going to do whatever he wanted to do and the DS said OK.”
Joe doesn’t have to be told he can’t refuse to baptize a baby and then told by his DS he can’t refuse that; it’s in the Discipline, so he doesn’t even have to be warned. If Joe refuses and someone tells the DS, a committee on investigation has to follow. Fair or unfair, taking vows is your warning in these situations.
Waaay too much emphasis on John Wesley & rules and regulations! What does God say, whose words are the only ones that matter!!
Jesus said: 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:17).
I think the trial was far more gentler than Jesus would have been.
I concur with Chad in this point. The early church would have not only excommunicated Schaeffer, but declared him anathema. These homosexual marriages are such a huge heresy, such a huge departure from the norms of the early church, that the situation never even arose amidst all the great heresies, where the fathers were forced to anathematize this. That is telling; gay marriage isn’t alone the problem, but its part of a problem, a pan-heresy of epic proportions, based on a sickening blend of Gnosticism with modern sociopolitical ideology, the end results of which are nothing less than Satanic.
Waaay too much emphasis on John Wesley & rules and regulations! What does God say, His words are the only ones that matter!! Read the Bible.
“Obey our rules, not for wrath’s sake, but for conscience.” – John Wesley
CD Womack raises a very important point: we are commanded, for the sake of our mortal soul, to follow in the teachings of our Lord; if we ignore our conscience we are surely lost. Being lost does not neccessarily mean that a stereotypical devil will drag us off to the depths of Hell; rather it means we will bury ourselves in said Hell, in a state of hatred and animosity towards our Lord. And that is surely what defying his commandments signals. What you are saying is effectively that “I know better than the Apostle Paul, than Christ himself; that its perfectly alright for us to indulge our sexual appetities without regard to the specific instructions God has dared to give us, and those instructions given to us apparently from God are actually false, or the Church has misinterpreted them for the past 2,000 years, and the Jews, for another 3,000 or so years before that. How dare God, and the Church, dare to disagree with our new social consciousness?”
That is why clergymen who engage in such blasphemy must be defrocked. Now it can also be observed that any violation of instructions from the ecclesiastical hierarchy is a sin; however, such sins can occur through negligence, whereas what we see here is willful disobedience. If this disobedience were done in the name of some other deity (perhaps the Peacock Angel of the Yazidis, which the Muslims identify with the devil), that would be one thing, but in this case, the fact that these outrages are being undertaken in the name of Christ Jesus is simply and incontrovertibly blasphemy. We must pray fervently that the Lord forgives these people, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, calls them to repentance.
Now the liberal heterodox voices that have opined here do have one valid point: some conservatives within the UMC tend to emphasize certain aspects of sin over others. Homosexuality has become a lightning rod; a sine qua non of the faith, as it were; and it is a shame this is only happening now, rather than sixty years ago, when the institutionalized apostasy began with the appointment of the first female minister. The entire UMC must be called to repentence, to strict observance of the canons and the instructions of the Church Fathers.
Every single Methodist should be required to pledge to rededicate their lives around prayer, fasting, and repentence. They must vow to make their marriages, their professional relationships, their relationships with their children, and the relationships within the church itself a living icon of the divine love that exists within the Trinity. Sacramental theology, including infant baptism (as opposed to the heterodox doctrine of Believer’s baptism), a firm understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a change to historic Methodist theology to affirm that the other five sacraments are in fact of a sacramental nature (the Easterns do not limit their count of sacraments at seven; there are other acts they consider may be of a sacramental nature, such as funerals, but do not tend to enumerate them; the doctrine that there are *absolutely* seven sacraments, no more, no less, is more of a Roman Catholic thing. Either view would be preferrable to the degenerate crypto-Gnostic heterodoxy we inherited from the schismatic church of England).
A solution must be put in place for the many female clerymen. The right thing to do I think would be to allow them to continue to preach, and simply have the Bishops in their jursidictions actually consecrate the Eucharist. The female Bishops, for their part, could retain the title, since they were canonically appointed to the office of Bishop, albeit in a manner that was itself heterodox. Yet I see no reason to treat them cruelly. I think its best to regard the accidents here as mere errors; the UMC failed to the extent that it did not properly safeguard its only holy tradition. Female bishops could continue to function as honorary suffragan bishops, perhaps granted newer and more appropriate titles, such as that of Holy Mother in Christ.
The Methodist liturgy of John Wesley, with the hymns of his brother Charles, and other leading British hymnographers, even Wesley’s nemesis who composed Rock of Ages (the name escapes me, a somewhat mean man, but he could write hymn as good as anyone), should be revived and in fact enforced. Liturgical standardization should be implemented throughout; regional variations in traditional liturgy could be tolerated (the Bardsdale UMC has a charming liturgical variation in the form of the Bardsdale Parting Song, which I find to be lovely and uplifting). On the whole though, the trend would be to deprecate, and eventually discontinue, the blasphemous contemporary services.
Much pain would be experienced as part of this process. Being called to repentence is never easy; by its very nature it is humiliating. Yet sitting here I cannot help but urge Methodists to follow the path that has been laid out to them; the only chance to save the UMC is to aggressively reorganize it in a spirit of love and humility. Liberal congregations could perhaps be gracefully dismissed, with the proviso that they would not poach congregants from the remaining conservative cognregations. I do believe a population exchange with the Episcopal Church, USA, would be of immediate and intense benefit.
We must, in love, accept huge pain, and be prepared to repent for, and make ammends for, all theological and ecclesiological error made by the UMC since the 1950s. We must stress a return to the faith of Wesley, to the Catholic faith of the Nicene Fathers, to the Orthodox faith of Church Tradition. We will retain Protestant identity to the extent that we affirm that the 16th century Roman Catholic Church did engage in theological error, yet we celibate the process by which the Romans set forth to correct themselves from these unfortunate delusions that have crept in to the hierarchy.
The blueprint for Methodist revival ought to be viewed in a set of important documents, that outline our western, Piestistic form of Orthodoxy, specifically:
– The Philokalia, the account of the struggles of the monks in Sinai and at St Anthony’s in the first millenium.
– The Pilgrim’s Progress, one of the sublime accounts of more improvement in the Pietist tradition.
– The sermons of John Wesley, who we ought regard as a saint within the Methodist Episcopal tradition.
– The Sunday Service of John Wesley for the North American Methodist Episcopal Church, which, combined with the 1962 Book of Worship, and the 16th century Anglican book of worship (the latter shorn of its iconoclast heritage), and the Sarum Rite, the liturgical standards of Methodism.
– To avoid appearing to oppress women and subjugate them, in a sinful manner, while maintaining the neccessary restrictions on the exercise of certain aspects of the ministry; women, unable to serve as ordained priests and bishops, would instead be vigorously enrolled in the office of the Deaconate, and in all other ministerial positions. Women preachers would continue to address congregations, in many cases concelebrating with a male clergyman.
– Methodist Cathechesis would be reformed, to emphasize instruction in the proceedings of the council of Nicaea, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Constantinople II and III, and of Nicaea II, and the heresies that led up to these councils, and the noble and at times heroic resistance of the persecuted Orthodox Christians against the relentless, violent onslaught of Arian, Eutychian and Iconoclastic dissenters.
I’m just gonna come out and say that none of that will happen. If sin started with women ministers, then I say along with Luther “Sin Boldly.”
(Cue treatise on history of Luther’s words)
Red,
Can you elaborate more on 10?
Also, does 20 basically mean no fatties?
Well dang it. I fail at most of these….
I have to keep a copy of membership records offsite!?! Well, I started backing up Membership Plus to google drive, so that’s a step in the right direction…..
That qualifies to me, Brad!
The attitude that UMJeremy has here is ultimately going to annhilate the UMC, unless its corrected and replaced by one of pure repentance. For reasons explained by myself elsewhere, ad nauseum, the Pauline limitations on the office of presbyter and Bishop, as understood by the early Church, do not discriminate against women, as they reserve for them higher and more important spiritual roles. The priest and bishop exist only to consecrate the sacraments; in the grand scheme of things, they are relatively unimportant; mere servants of the church and its laity, and the profession could be described as more grubby than anything else. Even if we look at the august fourth century fathers, a figure as remarkable as any of them presents herself in the person of St. Helena, the consort of Constantine I, who managed to accomplish something more remarkable than that of any of her contemporary bishops in recovering the actual cross upon which Christ was cruficied; the fragments thereof (which John Calvin lied about, when he said they would constitute an entire ship; a 19th century study by a French scientist indicated the total combined mass of relics of the cross in European Cathedrals amounts to less than one third of the mass of the original; the Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims to have an entire wing of it, but this claim, like many of theirs regarding their relic collection, is unverified (see the Ark of the Covenant).
The only thing male priests and bishops are needed for is to actually consecrate the Eucharist and certain other sacraments; this is simply because Christ was male, and the Bishop must vicariously represent Christ, and the pastors in turn vicariously represent the Bishop. This is the model used by all churches with apostolic succession other than the fallen churches of the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics (aside from the Polish Old Catholics, although they have their own problems; in a desire to dissent from the doctrine of imputed guilt, they threw out the entire doctrine of original sin and have thus succumbed to the Pelagian heresy).
Now regarding Luther, I am not prepared to offer on cue a treatise on his words in that case, as I have spoken about them elsewhere on this blog; suffice it to say he made a huge mistake and infected the Protestant realm with a disagreeable antinomian tendency which is still yet to be purged in its entirety. I would list that, along with the despicable volumes of anti-Semitic hate, which he produced in cooperation with his friend, the noted artist Lucas Cranach the Elder (who added a degree of almost unspeakable horror to the work through scatological images that still haunt me years after I first looked upon it). Part of what prompted me to undertake my journey ad orientem in pursuit of Christian truth was the revulsion on realizing that Luther, who I had historically regarded with great respect, actually was a heretic who in all probability directly enabled Hitler’s Holocaust. I had, in youth, having attended a private Christian school, been taught in religion classes about the importance of Luther in starting the Protestant reformation (the works failed to clearly differentiate between the radically different theology of Luther and Calvin, among other errors), with no mention of Luther’s own disagreeable failure.
At that however, Luther did do one important thing, and that is he re-enabled vernacular access to the Bible. Previously, any vernacular transmission of it came at the hands of mendicant friars such as the Franciscans and Dominicans; now the people could finally read it themselves without know Latin. Now Latin is a lovely language (I delight at the interesting history of Anglo Catholics who used it in Church of England services with varying degrees of success), but its not the original language of the bible, had the Romans insisted upon the use of Koine Greek or classical Aramaic, and had provided free education in these languages, then I would be forced to oppose Luther’s efforts in their entirety. As it happens though, Luther began a process that ultimately led to the religious freedom we now enjoy, which includes the very important freedom to be able to leave the churches of a corrupted hierarchy.
Now the UMC has not yet gotten bad enough to the point where schism, or mass departure, such as has plagued the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the UCC (and now the Disciples of Christ), has occurred. If the UMC holds its present condition, and a change in the current policy regarding the sanctity of marriage does not occur, it can probably tread water indefinitely; a few minor parishes might shut down, but many of these might be reborn as theologically more conservative Hispanic parishes. I have seen this occur in my vicinity. However, it is a great tragedy that we have waited so long, and tolerated so much deviation from the path set out for us by John Wesley, that only now has homosexuality served as a lightning rod; it is deeply regrettable, and shows the hand of evil at work, in that we are now in the awkward position of having to fight our battle in the realm of homosexuality, now, as opposed to this having been settled in the past with a vigorous action in the mid 1960s to expel those from the Methodist Episcopal church who were at odds with its established dogma.
Thus, what I am calling for is for the entire church to assume an attitude of humble repentence. Ideally, the entire synod of Bishops would resign, and the entire church could be placed under the temporary administration of another church, ideally an apostolic church that has not deviated substantially from church tradition. An ultimate win for me personally, that would ensure a maximal restoration of the faith of John Wesley, would be to see the UMC subordinated to the hierarchy of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople; this would be meet and right, considering Wesley’s status as a secretly ordained Greek Orthodox Bishop. If that were to occur, the UMC would function in a manner similar to the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate, a separate “Church within a Church” preserving our traditional liturgy, yet under the competent supervision of an episcopate that will not budge on the important theological issues that define the Christian church. John Wesley, who was opposed to schism, I see being only too happy at the thought of the denomination that he was forced, against his will, to create, being the first Protestant denomination to be ecumenically reunited with an Eastern church.
Will this happen? Probably not. But if some can argue for the UMC to discard the Orthodox faith in its entirety; to turn the UMC into a neo-Gnostic nightmare, with a theology not unlike that of the Unitarian Universalists, where the specific commands of Jesus and his Apostles are freely ignored wherever they prove to be incovenient, and if others on the opposite end of the theological spectrum seek to turn the UMC into a church theologically indisgtinguishable from the Southern Baptists, an authoritarian, heterodox Protestant church that embraces such errors as the Chiliast heresy, the theological pressure present in the Pentecostal community to engage in glossolalia, and an authoritarian “discipleship” control structure in the manner of 9Marks, then I can surely advocate for a Third Way, that being, for the UMC to abandon all heresies, liberal and conservative, that put it at odds with the traditions of the catholic and orthodox Christian faith.
Now I am beginning to think I am in more trouble than most of you. I don’t even own a Book of Discipline, am retired clergy, and find the Conference Journal and New Testament enuff of a challenge and comfort. Perhaps someone can quantify the level of this sin and prepare a complaint, or a compliment.
If you love and serve God and follow the moral guidance he has set forth for us with sincerity and humility, and not in a spirit of intransigence, then you have no possible cause for concern.
Several General Conference’s ago, (2004 maybe?) the Judicial Council ruled that “Item 24: Failure to lead the congregation in paying all apportionments in full (¶340.2c1(e))” could not be written into the Discipline as a chargeable offense, since clergy could not be solely held responsible.
At least, that’s how I remember it…
We have 11 successive general conferences that have upheld that marriage is solely between a man and a woman and that same-sex ceremonies shall not be part of UMC religious practice.
For about 40 years, and continuing now, the advocates of SSM have been public and often confrontational in their advocacy. They have been and are unified and are coordinating tactics and strategies across conference lines, with overt episcopal support, and are willing to form large groups of participants or supporters who openly, with prior statement of intent, violate the BOD and actively seek news coverage of doing so. They even have an entire, denominationally-endorsed movement for their cause.
So explain, please how this relates to the occasional local pastor who re-baptizes. I will take this listing more seriously when these random, occasional and personal violators of the BOD band together to organize a movement and start sponsoring resolutions at the GCs to change the BOD to conform to their wishes.
precisely, Donald. Some have asked why there isn’t such vocal outcry over sins like gossip or divorce or lying, etc, and the reason is precisely because of the things you said here: nobody is organizing a movement to declare gossip as holy, or that divorce is normal and natural, or that liars need not repent.