Top Court Meets in Aftermath of GC2019

by

by

Comments (8)

Comment Feed

Rebuttal to Wayne

I strongly disagree with Wayne. The JC will rule the traditional plan as constitutional because it is. The only part of this subject that is unconstitutional is the Western Conference and their decision to rebel against the democratic process. Traditionalist seek to preserve our churches history, moral integrity, and christian standards. Proponents of the 'One Church Plan' are dishonest in their pursuit and intent. They do not seek a compromise. The plan itself is just as progressive as any other. They claim a moral high ground by identifying the ability for individual churches and conferences to decide on the question of homosexuality. They claim this will give everyone what they want, but that is simply either wishful thinking or a lie. As an example, Every UM church in Utah has signed a letter affirming the Western Jurisdiction's position to oppose the GC2019 decisions. Where does that leave conservatives in Utah? Where does that leave conservatives anywhere in the Western Jurisdiction? It effectively leaves them without a church home. This isn't just true for conservatives. Any progressive members in a conservative conference will be subject to the same problem. Let me be clear that any proponent of the One Church Plan is either lying to you or is under a delusion that contradicts reality. Furthermore, the Western Jurisdiction itself continues to invoke disloyalty to the church. Loyalty to the church whom all that have gone through confirmation have sworn to uphold. I would suggest to Mr. Wayne and to those that are invoking hate while preaching love reflect on their hypocrisy. Progressives should also apologize for falsely claiming that traditionalist are hateful or bigoted. We uphold the teachings of the bible, all of them, without subjectivity. We therefore declare that God loves all his children regardless of sin or sexual orientation. However, the bible does not teach us to love the sinner as well as the sin. Remember that John Wesley himself declared antinomianism to be one of the worse forms of heresy. We are forgiven of sin yes, but that doesnt mean we no longer have to follow the moral teachings of the bible. Wesley said that as Christians we are actually told to follow the teachings even more so as we each are stewards of the faith.
Hopefully, by Friday the JC will make the right decision.

Ashton Miller 62 days ago

Pray for our church

Very good rebuttal. Faith in the US and the West is under attack by the Left. They preach their own religion of Victomology to manipulate people and they use amoral shaming as their weapon to attack people of good will. Homosexuals are being used and told that that the people of the church have to be made to validate their sinful life choice. This is a tough attack for some individuals to stand up to. No one wants to be called hateful or a bigot. The people that push this are shameless. What people of the church should be concentrating on is that we are all sinners and that we can come to the salvation of the lord through Christ.

Brian 61 days ago

Disagree.

The disaffiliation plans are clearly unconstitutional. The annual conferences have trust clauses and you have to get 50% of an annual conference to approve any deal with a disaffiliating church. GC can't dictate this to annual conferences.

Anonymous 60 days ago

Decision

Looks like the council holds that it is in fact constitutional.

Ashton Miller 59 days ago

foaming

I am reminded of the manic King George III literally foaming at the mouth and yelling that his "disloyal" American Colonies were "unconstitutional" in "their decision to rebel against the democratic process". (You know, the Tea Tax and all that.)
So Ashton, you may go on and on about the 'rebellion' of what you call "the Western Conference" (a.k.a. "Jurisdiction"), but if you happen to be an American, 'rebellion' against arbitrary authority imposed from above (or 'outside' the Jurisdiction) ain't necessarily all bad. You get what I'm sayin?
Jurisdictions were created way back in 1939 as a way to give some degree of autonomy to the former Methodist Episcopal Church South. (You know, slavery and all that.)
BTW, I didn't even mention the Western Jurisdiction. So your objection to my comments was just an excuse to bloviate about your favorite targets for your outrage.
You forgot to mention WHY you believe Petition 90066 is constitutional. I'm sure you've thoroughly digested it and the CoB's brief, so let's just say that you can't make a good case for it. So you go on and on about "hypocrisy" instead.
Perhaps you fail to 'get' that we are in the midst of a major 'paradigm shift' (to borrow Thomas Kuhn's term).
King George had the same problem, in that his "divine right"was under attack by George Washington and Company (among many other patriots). No wonder he was nutso in the end.
You are so busy defending the "moral integrity" of the Traditionalist paradigm that you may have missed that its foundation is built upon the shifting sand of culturally constructed reality.
Now we all have to come to terms with understanding that ALL females, people of color, and those who identify as LGBTQ or are born Intersex are as fully and irreducibly human as you or I.
Meanwhile the clock is ticking away and the JC will soon need to announce some kind of temporary legal Bandaid to cover the legislative antics of GC 2019 until the Traditionalists can get another shot at making their Plan constitutional in 2020.

Wayne 59 days ago

Seriously? Who Takes Judicial Council Seriously Now?

After years of considering rules of the BOD as merely suggestions, now the Judicial Council is going to meet to straighten out the GC2019 mess? Bishop Oliveto, the lesbian bishop who is a complete violation of the BOD, yet serves with the “in good standing” JD seal of approval, is the prime example of the irrelevance of the Judicial Council. All the many homosexual clergy in UMC churches and seminaries are also examples of the “what BOD?” Judicial Council. Anyone who believes the Judicial Council will straighten anything out at UMC would believe that the United Nations is going to secure “World Peace”.
.
Here’s my guess: JD, under tremendous pressure from the bishops, will gut the actions of GC2019 which will put traditionalists into apoplectic somersaults and the Splitsville Trolley will be headed to GC2020 from the traditionalist side. What a mess! At least we don’t have any “collusion”? Do we?

Reese 62 days ago

Annual Conferences meet this summer.

If they nullify the entire Tradition Plan and we make it through summer, there won't be a negotiated split at GC2020 IMO. They'll be a bunch of chatter, but no action to split. GC won't negotiate a split as the non-U.S. delegates won't vote for that IMO. Wouldn't that split have to be ratified by the annual conferences? Again another hurdle to a negotiated split. If your annual conference disagrees with GC, better to just leave within a group of other annual conferences of like mind.

Anonymous 62 days ago

After falling on your face doing apoplectic somersaults...

... you might find it difficult to read plain English.

But as I read Petition 90066 (and despite Linda Bloom's failure to mention the obvious) it will be ruled unconstitutional by the JC.

Here's why: it was designed as the exit ramp for Traditionalist congregations to use AFTER passage of the One Church Plan.

Since the OCP didn't pass GC (yet), it's clearly not applicable. Plus, despite all the last-second 'fixes' in the substitute motion offered by Beth Ann Cook, she totally missed the boat on fixing the problem the JC previously found 'unconstitutional': the unwillingness of the Traditionalist Mafia to permit Annual Conferences to actually VOTE to approve 'disaffiliations' by a two thirds majority.

That's a very high bar to jump over. So of course Beth Ann and colleagues were trying to avoid that little problem by ignoring it.

Unless there's a dramatic shift in the ethos (cue Adam Hamilton's latest effort to cut a New Deal), there will be no 'Get Out of Jail Free' card in the mix for Progressive and Mainstream congregations to use to 'disaffiliate'. Until 2020, that is.

Not to worry, folks, it looks like my crystal ball is predicting the JC will rule the Traditionalist Plan unconstitutional, either as a whole or piece by piece. So bottom line is: no change in the BoD until after GC 2020.

Now the 'apoplectic' Traditionalists will be stuck in quite a huge barrel of pickles.

They don't get the 'gracious exit' they wanted.

They don't get their 'mean' Traditionalist Plan to force everybody else to knuckle under the new enforcement rules or head for the nearest exit (that's been blocked!).

And--what's WAY worse: like the infamous Tea Act Parliament passed in 1773, the Traditionalists have managed to ignite a powder keg of opposition and resentment.

They've created a totally untenable Mess by seeding a general Rebellion among congregations that now have an excellent reason to protest by withholding apportionments and engaging in 'biblical obedience', a.k.a. intentional, principled violations of the BoD.

It is difficult to imagine how much the Council of Bishops must be feeling the heat. Not to mention the grief!

The unintended consequences of the Traditionalist 'victory' @ GC 2019 will have extreme negative systemic effects that are beyond my powers to imagine.

To quote W.B. Yeats in his poem 'The Second Coming':

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; ...
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

That pretty much sums it up. For now. Stay tuned ...

Wayne 62 days ago