Lesbian minister faces a church trial: Proceeding could presage a split in Methodism

Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 13 March 2004 | Wyatt Buchanan

[xzins]

I don't believe you could slam the UMC any more than I have.

I think the Southern Baptists are an excellent denomination, and you are blessed to have found a good church.

[xzins]

Why is UMC still in WCC & NCC?

I believe it's an outgrowth of the liberalism that grabbed control of our seminaries, boards, and agencies in the early part of this century. I don't remember the reason that conservative Christians left the denomination back then, but I believe it involved a series of disputes over holiness doctrine.

Therefore, I'd lay the blame at two doorsteps: (1) The liberals who had authority and made those choices, and (2) The conservatives who bailed out and left the denomination with a vacuum at the leadership level.

With a denomination conference only once every four years, things change very slowly in the UMC. But they are changing for the better. We have our General Conference in Pittsburgh this year from Apr 27-May 7.

That meeting will tell if we'll continue our walk toward orthodoxy, or if we'll hesitate. We'll know very soon.

[xzins]

Correction: early part of this century should be "early part of the last century."

I need to update my brain.

[xzins]

The followin is found here: Agape Press

Methodist Publisher Predicts Lesbian Pastor Will Be Found Guilty
-- Karen Dammann's Case Goes to Trial This Week on Charges of Violating Church Law

By Jim Brown and Jody Brown
March 15, 2004

(AgapePress) - A leading spokesman for renewal in the United Methodist Church is predicting the outcome of this week's church trial of lesbian minister Karen Dammann.

A complaint was filed against Dammann after she told her bishop in February 2001 that she was "living in a partnered, covenanted homosexual relationship." On Wednesday, the Ellensburg, Washington, pastor will go on trial for defying the UMC's Book of Discipline, which bars homosexuals from being ordained or serving as pastors. While church law states that homosexuals are people of sacred worth, it regards the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teachings.

Presiding over the trial will be Bishop William Boyd Grove of Charleston, West Virginia. According to United Methodist News Service, Grove presided over the 1999 clergy trial of Jimmy Creech, who was charged with violating church law by officiating at same-sex union services. Creech, who had already undergone a clergy trial in 1998 for similar charges, was found guilty in 1999 and lost his ministerial orders.

Jim Heidinger, president and publisher of Good News magazine, expects similar results in the Dammann trial. In fact, he says it ought to an "open and shut" case.

"[S]he has already admitted publicly to the bishop and his cabinet that she's in that relationship -- so it ought to be a given that they would find her guilty," the publisher says. "And then [after that] the trial court has to determine a punishment. So we think that they will come up with a [guilty] decision."

Although the UMC has been living as a "divided" denomination for some time now, Heidinger maintains the church's General Conference is not divided on the issue of homosexuality.

"The United Methodist Church has been very clear that we are strongly opposed to same-sex covenants," he says, "and we're not about to affirm homosexual practice in the [denomination] even though we have some groups making a great deal of noise and getting a good bit of publicity in the press."

A jury of 13 plus two alternates will be chosen from a pool of at least 35 Methodist pastors from the Pacific Northwest conference. Jury selection is slated to begin Wednesday morning at Bothell United Methodist Church in Bothell, Washington, where the trial will take place. The denomination's Judicial Council has indicated it will retain jurisdiction on the matter to make sure the church does not make a mockery of the case by disobeying church law.

© 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved.

[Vernon]

In a conversation with a previous D.S., he said he thought the radical liberals as well as the radical conservatives would leave the UMC, leaving the Church in the mainstream of Methodism. I'm not sure how "mainstream" that is; however, I understand the attacks on the church - all denominations - to be a continuing thing. To me it seems appropriate to pray for the patient under attack - regardless of the name by which they are known. One thing is certain, the Church, the Body of Christ, will survive and thrive! (I read the last chapter of the book!)

[lockeliberty]

The times, not ours, we proclaim, for we see far better from here. Ah, perhaps true, yet in the looking back are we blind to the present or have we just deconstructed the past so that we can reconstruct the present in our own imagination. Alas, that which is immutable, typological, and theological, which was from the beginning, is it subject to the juste milieu? The other, sure, but always grounded in the transcendental norm.

[aikido7]

Tom Ehrich's guess is that by the time this ugly election year is over, "Homosexual marriage" and "Christian marriage" will be so thoroughly politicized that we will be seeking another way to understand the ways people commit their lives to each other at a level of ultimate intimacy, fidelity, trust and sacrifice.

That way will have to do with the quality of their relationship, not their gender. Just as we moved beyond believing that Roman Catholics had to marry Roman Catholics or they would fry in hell, so we will move beyond a single
view of Christian union.

Will we call it "marriage?" Probably not. Will it matter what we call it? Not really. People are already forming unions and families in diverse ways. Among the first people to open their hearts and homes to my dad after Mom
died were a gay couple. That love means a whole lot more to me than gender issues.

That's how I see it.

Let's assume, now, that some agree with my answer and some think it wrong. What next? To my mind, that is the question we need to address. Not, how can I prove my case? But, how can we hold opposing views but still hold each
other close? How can we love and serve God even as we disagree about what God is saying?

The tragedy isn't that we disagree, but that we dishonor each other and consider right opinion more important than servanthood.

When Jesus taught at the synagogue in Luke, he was handed a piece of tradition. He then chose how to use it. He didn't say that God had anointed Messiah to dispense right opinion or rewards to the righteous. What he chose--and took
as his mission--was Isaiah's call to "bring good news to the poor," "to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind."

That is a far cry from having right opinion about marriage or any other issue. That is servanthood, love in action, submission to the needs of others, an understanding of God as tender-hearted.

[lockeliberty]

The tragedy isn't that we disagree, but that we dishonor each other and consider right opinion more important than servanthood.

My FRiend, it seems you have completely bought into the Post-Modern lie that your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth. It is not about opinion but the everlasting Truth of God. His moral law is a rock that is unalterable and transcendent. Yes, of course we should love our homosexual neighbor with an attitude of servanthood but the best way to love our homosexual neighbor is to reveal to them God's immutable moral law that will save them from everlasting damnation and also to care for them when they are sick and dying from the temporal curses that accompany a corrupted moral lifestyle.

It is not really too surprising that homosexuals want to pretend they are married. All humans long for shalom, that sense of universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight, but the imaga Dei was corrupted at the fall and the result is that ever since then humans have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

The real tragedy is that Christians have allowed the State to define marriage. Marriage is a holy union and as Christians the meaning and purpose can only rightly be seen through scripture. The State cannot define my marriage because I have only one King that defines marriage for me, and his name is Jesus.

We all the right to free association under the Constitution and however people want to form those associations is a matter of liberty. If two homosexual persons want to enter into a contract with each other they should have the liberty to do so. But that is not what is known as Christian marriage. Because I do not allow the State to define marriage, and because marriage represents our relationship to Christ, only the Church can properly sanctify a union which is between one man and one woman.

My FRiend, you need to put away the contemporary Baal and worship God only. God does not tolerate other gods beside him. Let us clearly understand the antithesis between our God and the gods of this world. Not one dot or tittle has passed away from God's moral law and the best way to love our homosexual neighbor is inform him of this fact and tell him he must repent of his evil behaviours.

[aikido7]

Read the parables. What would the REAL Jesus do? "Those who have ears, better listen!"

Jesus trumps right opinion, dogma and marginalization every time....

[lockeliberty]

What would the REAL Jesus do?

He would say, "go and sin no more". He is quick to forgive but he never marginalizes sin. There must be true repentance for sins to be forgiven. Jesus isn't just some fuzzy teddy bear who just loves everyone no matter what. He's coming to judge the quick and the dead. Those who are dead in their sins will suffer the ultimate separation. Unless a man is willing to die to his sin he will never gain life.

[aikido7]

Over the years, believers have allowed God to become small, narrow, harsh and mean. They claim to have Scriptural justification; they certainly have institutional imperatives, for time-tested ways to build loyalty to an
institution include frightening people and appealing to their insecurity, need for superiority, ethnic or class pride, and self-loathing. By portraying God as small and partisan, institutions can claim the moral and
spiritual high ground in the competition for market share.

But how can one love a God who is so small, so calculating in dispensing favors, so insistent on our toeing the line? One can fear such a God, maybe even obey. But love requires more.

In his parable of the prodigal son, Jesus portrays God as extravagant in compassion, kindness, generosity, forgiveness and joy. To the elder son's dismay, the father goes overboard in welcoming the wastrel with robe, ring,
food and celebration - ways beyond the typical images of God as parsimonious in giving and reluctant in mercy.

To love God, one must see God as loving. And not just loving in the normal human way, but loving beyond measure, beyond self-interest, beyond reason.

To submit to God, one must trust God's compassion. To draw near to God, one must believe in God's welcome. For any of that to happen, we must stop needing God to be so small.

I realize that life is confusing. Modernity has much that is distasteful, moral issues are puzzling, society's tolerance might exceed our own, and the more we see of human diversity, the less sure we are of ourselves. But the
answer to such confusion isn't to make God small or partisan or angry or merciless.

If we require God to be that small, we will never have a meaningful relationship with God. We might find a like-minded fellowship and feel temporarily safe, but we won't know God. For God isn't like that. God looks for our return and is extravagant in welcoming us home.

Bless you. I realize you are doing the best you can with the beliefs you have....