Posted on 10/30/2007 9:06:04 PM PDT by Zakeet
BERKELEY, Calif. — A council of the United Methodist Church has decided to allow a transgender minister to retain his job, but it stopped short of addressing whether a change of gender violates the denomination's rules.
At a session over the weekend in San Francisco, the United Methodist Judicial Council considered whether to remove the Rev. Drew Phoenix from his post. The council allowed Phoenix to stay on the job, referring to a church policy stating that a clergyperson in good standing can't be terminated unless there has been administrative or judicial action, according to the ruling, posted on the church's Web site.
"The adjective placed in front of the noun 'clergyperson' does not matter," the council ruled. "What matters is that clergypersons, once ordained and admitted to membership in full connection, cannot have that standing changed without being accorded fair process."
In a related ruling, the council said all name changes should be treated the same regardless of the reason.
Phoenix, who learned of the ruling Tuesday, said he was "happily surprised."
Before undergoing surgery and hormone therapy, Phoenix spent five years as minister at St. John's United Methodist Church in Baltimore as the Rev. Ann Gordon.
Phoenix was reappointed this spring by Bishop John Schol of the Methodists' Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference, who noted that the denomination's Book of Discipline said nothing about transgender clergy.
The United Methodist Church bars appointing "practicing" gay clergy and does not support same-sex unions. The issue of whether the church can have a transgender minister may yet be addressed by the church's legislative body, which meets next spring in Fort Worth, Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Disgusting, yet from a strictly legal standpoint (the United Methodist Book of Discipline is like a code of Canon Law) the absence of a prohibition could lead to no other ruling.
In any legal realm there is great difficulty when an action is neither explicitly permitted nor expressly condemned.
If only the Methodists would get rid of celibacy in the clergy, they wouldn’t have these types of problems.
He/She/It had to have been the ugliest woman who ever lived.
Frequently, transgendered men (turned into women) absolutely look like abominations. It is so funny to hear then say that they believe nature always intended them to be women, with their square jaws, adam’s apple’s, huge heads and hands, etc.
I get the feeling though, that the Rev. must actually have looked like a he/she BEFORE the operation.
To all the Methodists out there, please remember John Wesley (more often than Charles but both are sung) is a very popular hymn writing for Catholic Masses....
One has to wonder why anyone would want to be part of this congregation.
Methodist pastors may marry or are you being sarcastic?
I am Methodist clergy and we do have a rule about celibacy in our clergy.
It is “celibacy if single.”
This ruling by the Judicial Council is no surprise. Dr Holsinger recused himself from the vote due to his pending hearings in the US Senate as Pres. Bush’s new surgeon general. Had he been present he might have voted differently, but it is clear that there is no precisely written rule in our bylaws that specifically says, “transgendered clergy cannot be appointed....”
We also have no specific bylaw that says, “Horse’s Arse’s cannot be appointed as bishops...” I fully expect to see the Kentucky Derby champ presiding in May over some Methodist region.
Without additional church legislation I would expect that a person trained in human physiology would be able to note that lopping off a penis or sewing on an implant does not change XX to XY chromosomes. Nor do hormones accomplish the same. Nor does makeup, haircuts, clothing, breast enhancements or reductions, etc., etc., etc.
The bottom line is that we’ve got this lady walking into the men’s johns in various locations.
I guess the vice police don’t care about that as long as they wear trousers.
If Holsinger (a physician) had been on this panel, had not recused himself, perhaps he would have seen the obvious on that one.
As it stands, I’m in favor of due process for this abomination.
That said, I’m thoroughly disgusted.
I figured you were Catholic, but I wanted to give the info nevertheless.
Shame on the UM Council for allowing this “minister” to preach in the first place! Only godly men are supposed to be preachers.
It’s no wonder the UMC is losing members. It’s because the left-leaning leadership allows this junk to come in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
