Reflections on Rejecting Amendment to Protect Women

The Bible 'Clearly Affirms the Full Genderness of God,' Says Scholar



Comments (5)

Comment Feed

Seems to be an example of retributionist theology here

In the beginning of the amendment the essential equality of men and women is stated and then the entire remainder is a litany of all the ills society, i.e., the dreaded patriarchy, has visited on women. I find no sense of grace or forgiveness in any of this. It comes across as a way to "get even." Equality here appears tilted to mean the same, which I find to be exclusionary and not diverse. Men and women are equally loved by God, but they also are certainly not the same; not physically and not emotionally, and thank God for that. Man alone is less than. Woman alone is less than. When the two are joined together, side by side, as God intended, then God's purpose is fulfilled. This amendment, if it is really even needed, requires much rewording to be theologically complete

Dan more than 3 years ago

maleness of the 2nd Person

The main problem with Amendment 1 is the sentence that you did not include but which was sent to all the Annual Conferences. "The United Methodist Church recognizes it is contrary to Scripture and to logic to say that God is male or female,..." The problem is that it denies the Incarnation. It is NOT against Scripture or logic to say that God the Son is male. Jesus was, and is, both human and divine and since the Incarnation, male. An historical fact. That sentence was way I and others voted no. How is that sentence not heretical?

Chuck more than 3 years ago

That sentence was included in the quoted amendment...

However, it should not have been in the amendment. See:

John Astle (United Methodist Insight) more than 3 years ago

Don't we already affirm women in the Church

As I understand the BOD, the valuable role of Women in our Church is already affirmed. Being female does not disqualify anyone from serving in any role in our Denomination, including Bishop. What then was the real need for or point of this proposed Constitutional Amendment. A Constitutional amendment should not be a solution looking for a problem. Forgive me if you believe me to be a misogynist, but I don't want to be criticized or shamed for affirming my belief in God the Father and His only Son, Jesus, who was clearly both God and human male. It in no way demeans women for us to jointly worship Jesus Christ who was obviously a human male as well as Divine. Had the proposed Amendment not made references that God is genderless, a statement which by its very terms includes Jesus as well as God the Father and the Holy Spirit, the proposed amendment would have probably garnered more support even though it's still not clear what problem it needed to resolve since our BOD affirms the equality of men and women in all Church rites, functions and leadership opportunities. Perhaps someone in a non confrontational way can explain what Amendment 1 would have changed in terms of how the UMC operates as a Church.

John more than 3 years ago

Global Church

It seems that our issue is that we are a global church heavily oriented toward Africa. I think your description of "misogynistic theological perspective" may be correct in regards to the African vote. They voted 32% yes.

Every other region voted to approve Amendment 1. But the SE, SC, NC, and Europe only voted to approve by narrow margins (67.0% - 73.6%). It would seem logical to me that the no votes in those regions might have a different basis.

The amendments seem very similar to me and it would be interesting to understand someone's perspective on the people that switched from yes to no. For example, 94.5% of Western delegates voted yes on Amendment 1 compared to 76.4% yes on Amendment 2. Median decline by region was 4.4% which mirrors the overall decline between the two amendments.

My guess is that in the U.S. this really comes down to politics as the ideas within the amendments are expressed throughout the Book of Discipline and broadly across our churches and conferences. This seems like an amendment designed to make a point that isn't actually disputed within the US congregations.

Chad more than 3 years ago