UMCom Rejects Judicial Council Decsion 1032; Re-affirms Denominational Slogan
I know that a lot of people are tired of discussing the controversial decisions issued by the United Methodist Judicial Council a couple weeks ago. But yesterday I noticed that United Methodist Communications (UMCom) has weighed in on the matter.
Here we have a denominational agency essentially rejecting a Judicial Council Decision. I don't care to discuss whether UMCom was right or wrong to issue such a statement or whether I agree or disagree with the agency's actions. Instead, I want to ask, How significant is it for an official church board or agency to essentially reject a Judicial Council Decision? Considering the similar action taken by the Council of Bishops, is it fair to say that the branches of United Methodist governance are engaged in a power struggle? Personally, I appreciate debate and dissent, but what does it ultimately mean for our denominational leaders to be split on a matter as fundamental as who can join the church? Just thought I'd ask.
UMCom is responsible for, among other things, the "Igniting Ministries" campaign—the initiative that gave us the denominational slogan, "Open hearts, open minds, open doors." Apparently, in light of Decision 1032, some United Methodists have requested that UMCom discontinue use of the slogan. If it is OK to deny someone membership because he is gay, they ask, can we really claim to have open hearts, minds, and doors? Good question. UMCom General Secretary Larry Hollen and President Bishop Thomas J. Bickerton responded by issuing a statement that includes the following:
Since this decision, some persons have asked us to withdraw our denominational promise, “Open hearts, Open minds, Open doors: The People of The United Methodist Church.”
While we understand those concerns, we believe that it would be a tragic mistake to walk away from a promise grounded in Christ’s love and his commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. We believe it would be a tragic mistake to walk away from the thousands of congregations who have made the promise of “Open hearts, Open minds, Open doors: The People of The United Methodist Church” a living reality. We believe it would be a tragic mistake to turn away from congregations who affirm it makes no difference where you come from, how much money you earn, what the color of your skin is, and even, whether you are gay or straight.
This church is about the people who live out what we say as reinforced in our Constitution and Social Principles. We call on the people of The United Methodist Church to keep before the world the fundamental principle that our hearts, our minds, and our doors are open to anyone seeking a new life in Jesus Christ. Christ rejected no one. Neither can we.
Here we have a denominational agency essentially rejecting a Judicial Council Decision. I don't care to discuss whether UMCom was right or wrong to issue such a statement or whether I agree or disagree with the agency's actions. Instead, I want to ask, How significant is it for an official church board or agency to essentially reject a Judicial Council Decision? Considering the similar action taken by the Council of Bishops, is it fair to say that the branches of United Methodist governance are engaged in a power struggle? Personally, I appreciate debate and dissent, but what does it ultimately mean for our denominational leaders to be split on a matter as fundamental as who can join the church? Just thought I'd ask.
posted by Tinley | 5:35 AM
3 Comments:
My congregation claims to be a church of open heart, open minds and open doors and I think for the most part rightly so. But I have never interrupted that slogan to mean that anyone and everyone can become a member of my congregation. Having open hearts and minds and doors means we are open to diversity and differenting opinions, it doesn't mean we have no standards for membership. I had someone mention to me a couple of months ago back that they (husband & wife) were interested in transferring their membership to our congregation. I haven't seen them in church since, so guess what, I'm not going to accept them as members, until they demonstrate that they will at least make an attempt to live by the membership vows. If that means we aren't an open door church, so be it. I'm more concerned about faithfulness than openness.
I'm so glad that there has been such a response against this ridiculous decision.
The Book of Discipline (or any other document of any other denomination, for that matter) only carries authority insofar as it does not conflict with the gospel. I find it inconveivable that Jesus would put any restrictions whatsoever on his community, and in fact readers of the gospels will find no evidence to suggest that He ever has. As God's church on earth, we ought to be careful about binding that which God has loosed.
Great post. I think there is definitely a power struggle. Even within the judicial council. I just wish I could see how things were going to play out so that we could just get there faster, wherever we're going, and get on wtih it.
Post a Comment
<< Home