Reactions Continue to Boil over Judicial Council Rulings

by

Perspectives

UPDATED May 22, with comment and photo from Mary Oshei.

United Methodist Insight continues to receive reactions from both clergy and laity to the April 28 rulings on the Western Jurisdiction's consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto and on requiring annual conferences to uphold the ban on LGTBQI people being ordained. Here are some of the latest comments from social media. Two longer articles by the Rev. Wesley White of Wisconsin and the Rev. Thomas Griffith of Arizona are also posted.

From E-mail:

Robert A. Moore, Wells, Maine: I've really had it with the UMC and I'm afraid it's a lost cause. Harrell Beck quoted George Santaya's definition of a fanatic as "one who having forgotten his purpose redoubles his effort." The UMC, now irrevocably infected by homophobia and with power in the hands of the anti-LGBTQ folks, has lost the willingness or perhaps the very capacity to embrace the diversity of sexual identity as a gift of God. Having forgotten its purpose of seeking to incarnate God's love it has redoubled its efforts in enforcing a false purity code. It only pushes me further away from the UMC. 

David Gingras, Via E-mail:  I am a longtime UMC member, and what I would like to know is why does our Judicial Council feel the need to enforce what is clearly a "manmade law?" This is not God's law or a ten commandment. The people of this Council seriously need to look at Jesus as to his time on this earth. Please point out and show me any time in history that he rejected any one human on this earth. The way that I see it and read, is that he accepted all people regardless of their earthly being. This council needs to remember that the act of "love" itself is a God-given gift by our creator to all of us. He did not give us restrictions or conditions on who and where we can express this love. 

Gene Bruce, Conroe, Texas: The decision against Bishop Oliveto should not have surprised anyone.  What is a surprise, however, is that it wasn’t unanimous, which suggests there is room for some negotiation at the UMC draws nearer the precipice.

Isn’t it wonderful that we can busy ourselves with these trivial concerns when we are blind to the bigger picture?  Bishop Oliveto’s area covers five states.  Her one area covers 10% of the United States in area and, obviously, 10% of the states.  And roughly a combined population of 10 million, about 3% of America’s total population.

That’s a lot.  And we’re worried about the sexual orientation of a bishop?  

I suspect that lots of the unchurched in Bishop Oliveto’s area couldn’t care less about her sexual orientation.  By maintaining that outdated and impractical standard, institutional Methodism may win a battle but, sadly, lose the war.  

And the righteous can’t say they weren’t warned.

Mary EB Oshie II: Just returned from my niece's wedding to her partner (see accompanying photo). We are a proud family of a happy and successful daughter. How can my church suggest there is anything wrong about this situation? Gay marriage is here to stay in the United States and in the world. Get with it or face losing more members and the potential growth of our disappearing religion and churches. 

Editor's note: A previously published comment from Jim Culbertson was removed at his request.

Billy Cox, Louisville, Ky.: If Jesus had conformed to Jewish Law, there would be no Christian Church. If Martin Luther had conformed to Church Law, there would have been no Protestant Reformation. If John Wesley had conformed to Church Law, there would be no Methodist Church. There comes that time when the right and just thing must be done. Jesus, Martin Luther, and Wesley all agreed.  

Phil Susag, Manchester, Conn.:  The action of the Judicial Council to the case regarding the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto, if allowed to stand, can spell the end of the United Methodist Church. Long known for its dedication to applying faith as expounded by John Wesley to public issues, the church has been increasingly under attack. I was born a Methodist and I’ll be a Methodist ‘til I die but I am a John Wesley Methodist. I live by his concept of spreading our basic Christian beliefs by doing all the good I can in all the places I can in all the ways I can and as long as I can, for all the people I can. Unfortunately, in the past almost 50 years there has been an increasing movement in the General Conference sessions to incorporate language in the Book of Discipline to overturn the concept of a church with "Open Hearts, Open Doors, and Open Minds." While that book becomes the law of the church, the legislation has never passed with a unanimous vote or even with a dominant majority. The Wesleyan tradition as advocated by John Wesley must go on in some form.

Jeffery Pruitt, Dallas, Texas: Unfortunately, our society, as well as the church, has come to a place where rules, laws, and doctrine do not take precedence to personal beliefs or feelings. It’s a reminder of the story of the Israelites and their sin against God throughout the old testament. They wanted to do things their way and not God’s. Seems things have changed over time. Thank God for Jesus Christ.

From Facebook:

Pamela Buchholz Too many have been hurt already and The UMC has lost too many gifted and called persons. As United Methodists we look at scripture through the lens of tradition, experience and reason. Those who reject inclusion insist on a literal reading of certain verses. Where's our Wesleyan spirit and grace?

Diana Hagewood Smith: We seem to have forgotten that John Wesley ordained Coke and Asbury, even though it was against church law, to the dismay of brother Charles. Too bad the fundamentalists among us are so busy judging Bishop Oliveto that they are okay with quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5).

Bonita C. Davis: I pray about this and struggle with it. I've been Methodist all my life. I understand that the Judicial Council is being strict constructionist of the Discipline. It grieves me that they made this decision. The UM Discipline needs to be changed. I am struggling with a very painful decision. There is much good in the people of the United Methodist church, and much good in the institution. What will I do?

Judi Hauck: The Judicial Council has responded in the only way they could. For anyone to argue that just being married to an individual of the same sex doesn't make you "self-avowed" and "practicing" requires a whole new definition of marriage. It is beyond ridiculous. For us to expect the Judicial Council not to require the due process offered all clergy be followed is to require them to uphold the Discipline with one hand while casting it out with the other. The GLOBAL Methodist Community does NOT come down on the side of the Western Jurisdiction, nor would the Discipline's language on homosexuality, marriage, or ordination have changed in 2016, had the votes been allowed.I am sorry to say, something has to give. I would pray that those in the minority would have the grace to say as John Wesley suggested, "[W]e could not continue therein with a clear conscience; we could not continue without sin." And separate themselves.

William G Pyatt: Here's Rich Marsh's analysis of outcome of the ruling. Rich is the Rocky Mountain Chancellor, who argued the Western Jurisdiction case before the Judicial Council - - -

Rich Marsh here. Lots of misunderstanding out there about the Judicial Council decision. First, Council left untouched the nomination, election & assignment of Bishop Karen. Next, as to consecration, JC acknowledged, perhaps begrudgingly, that Karen was in good standing when she was consecrated & that, therefore, her consecration was valid. In fact, the WJ College had a duty to consecrate her precisely because she was in good standing & duly elected. Next, JC then created new law that is harmful to the wider LGBTQ community in our churches, particularly clergy. Last, and very importantly, JC did not order any ministerial review of Karen, or otherwise retain jurisdiction over the parties for future action. Case over. SHARE!