The California-Nevada Conference is dishonestly playing
word games by choosing to redefine homosexuality so that it does not violate the standards for ordained ministers in
The Book of Discipline. This is a cheap trick and demonstrates a lack of integrity, as the Conference knows perfectly well the intent of the 'homosexual practice' passage in the
Discipline. Advocates of homosexuality should stand for what they believe is right, but should not insult our intelligence by claiming that this ruling is an honest effort to be obedient to the letter and the spirit of the law. Just call it what it is -- civil disobedience.
You can have all sorts of fun once you decide to redefine terms to make your life convenient. I wonder if it would work?
- "Darling, I choose to define adultery as to not include visiting strip clubs, so don't get sanctimonious with me!"
- "Officer, my understanding of math says that I was going 30 MPH, not 60. You can't give me a ticket."
- "You can't fire me! I define my employment so that I will continue getting a paycheck every two weeks, even if you have me thrown out of this building!"
Hat tip: Dean Snyder
11 comments:
The place for this is at GC. It is not the job of any AC to do such things. They know full well that they are getting around the intent of the GC and the Discipline.
Any sympathy I start to muster for the pro-gay movement (and I've said publically that I'd prefer they could convince me that they are right) is killed by such caustic actions.
They can claim they don't want schism all they want, but so long as their tactics continue to chip away at the fabric of our polity, I'm not buying it.
I am growing to suspect that the far left wants to push the far right into causing the split so that the far left may claim innocence when the wheels come off. And I fear that they will soon get their wish.
Dean,
Are you saying that the original intent of the 'homosexual practice' provision in the Discipline was not to exclude practicing homosexuals (e.g. Beth Stroud) from the ordained ministry?
Okay. So now then, are you saying that the original intent of the word 'status', when it was included into the Constitution, included sexual orientation?
Repost of previous comment, with grammatical correction...
I distinctly recall attending Annual Conference the year the word "status" was voted upon. A concerned delegate wondered aloud if this was a back-door attempt to change ordination standards, but a leader assured the Conference that nothing of the sort was the case. I had my doubts that the fellow was qualified to make such a definitive statement, particularly in light of the fact that no definition of the term "status" was given. But the majority took his word for it. I could not vote; I was a probationary member at the time. (Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against the proposed change, because it did not seem to me that anyone knew exactly what the word "status" meant.)
I attended only my own Annual Conference that year, though I wonder if this scene was replayed elsewhere. Do many who voted to amend the constitution by adding the term "status" feel hoodwinked? Were they, too, offered assurances that the term would not be used in the very manner in which it is now being employed?
I am willing to dialogue, despite the fact that dialoguing seems to have reached an impasse. My thoughts on the matter are not necessarily set in stone. But I have little use for those who play clever word games, pretending that "self-avowed" and "practicing" are opaque terms, then using the genuinely murky, constitutional word “status” to muddy the waters as it becomes clear that “self-avowed” and “practicing” mean essentially what they seem to mean. If I am to dialogue, I would at least like to trust my partner(s) in dialogue. And I will be honest—I find it increasingly difficult to trust those constantly looking for and exploiting loopholes.
Dean,
Of course the question of whether sexual orientation is a status seems to have become THE question. The wording is in the constitution, having been duly placed there through our disciplinary process. It now serves as the loophole that Cal-Nevada seeks to exploit to set aside the clear will of the General Conference.
Did those who voted to incorporate the word "status" intend for this term to apply to self-avowed, practicing homosexuals? I am certain some did, but I am equally certain others did not. As I said, the question was posed directly at an Annual Conference I attended, and the response was given (though by whose authority I know not) that sexual orientation was not a status.
Here's my beef. Why is this argument over the word "status?" It is really quite clear what the issue at hand is. Some in the church would prefer that the Discipline read, "Self-avowed, practicing homosexuals may be accepted as candidates, ordained as clergy persons, etc." It is, I think, simple as that. But the General Conference has not been won over; those making the argument have failed to convert a majority of delegates to their way of thinking. Impatience has set in.
So we argue over the word "status" in what I still maintain, in the end, is a word game. Members of the Cal-Nevada Conference did not suddenly discover the word "status" in the Discipline, ask what it implied, and seek to broaden the scope of potential clergy candidates accordingly. Rather, they are now using the word "status" to get what they already wanted. It has become another in a series of means to a desired end--means that are indirect, not direct.
Is it too much to ask that, if we are to have the conversation, the dialogue, we might be direct and honest with each other? As Christians, it would seem we at least owe one another that courtesy.
This is what Cal-Nevada has done with their resolution on status. They have gone to the foundational principle in our Constitution that states we do not discriminate based on status. They explained in the introduction to their resolution why they believe sexual orientation is a status (because it is not a choice, etc.). They are trying to apply a foundational principle we have agreed upon to the present discussion.
This would be true if the original intent of the word "status" was to include homosexuality. Was it?
Dean,
You should know that I have tremendous respect for you. You should also know that I have no desire to trivialize the discussion. But it does not seem to me that "discussion" is what's taking place.
You ask, "How could a discussion about whether sexual orientation is or is not a status not help us?" But a statement has been issued in the declarative, a statement that not only challenges the position arrived at by numerous General Conferences, but actually aims to overturn that position: "The California-Nevada Annual Conference hereby defines the word 'status' as including sexual orientation such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgendered." Now I am not so thick-headed as to fail to recognize that this action will initiate a vigorous discussion. But, and I hate to use the word again, the whole thing seems like another act in a protracted game to me. Move: A prohibitory statement is placed in the Social Principles. Counter-move: It is declared that statements in the Social Principles are non-binding. Move: The prohibition is placed elsewhere. Counter-move: It is declared that the terms are insufficiently defined. Move: Definitions are offered. Counter-move: It is claimed that such statements represent doctrinal standards and were not appropriately arrived-at. Counter-move #2: It is suggested that the whole discussion to this point may violate the very constitution of the church, for after all we're talking about "status." And we must wait for the next move.
I hardly see how my conviction that we're playing a game can be considered "winning without engaging." Engagement has taken place at every point in the process. Engagement is taking place here--I take your thoughts and argumentation quite seriously. One might even suggest that Cal-Nevada is attempting to win without engaging.
Like you, however, I believe that the whole language of winning/losing is misguided. Let us look at foundational principles; use scripture, tradition, reason, and experience as guides; and always strive to relate to others in the spirit of Jesus Christ.
Your brother in Christ, another who likes to consider himself "warmly evangelical,"
Did those who wrote and amended the Constitution think sexual orientation was a status. I could make assumptions, but that is not the point. The issue is whether, given what we know today, we define sexual orientation as status.
No, the original intent is what matters. The words that people write and speak having meaning. You can't simply project what you want onto them.
Analogy: Let's say that I'm your associate pastor. You say, "John, I want you to preach next Sunday on 2 Chronicles 20." Sunday rolls around, and instead I do a puppet show on a section of the Koran. You would likely be upset with me, and rightfully so, because I didn't follow your instructions. Afterwards, I cannot say, "Dean, you never defined 'sermon' or '2 Chronicles 20' for me."
I would have known perfectly well what you meant when you gave your instructions, just as the California-Nevada Conference knows perfectly well what 'homosexual practice' means. By openly claiming that they did not, the California-Nevada Conference was dishonest.
When those who wrote and ammended the Constitution said we would not discriminate based on race, did they think that Pacific Islander was a race? Probably not. So does that make it okay to discriminate against Pacific Islanders because they did not intend to include them at the time?
If the original intent of the racial discrimination language was to exclude Pacific Islanders as a legitimate race, then legally, yes.
Dean, remember that the Constitution (UMC or US) is not set in stone. It can be changed through a legal process. When problems emerge with the language presently being used, they can be remedied.
Dean,
Too late and too tired to respond in any truly meaningful way tonight. I say game, you say politics, and now we're getting somewhere: I maintain that politics is a game. And when I say that, I'm not being dismissive. I am a political, as well as theological, junkie.
I love photography, use a Sony CyberShot DSC-W1. It's a mid-level camera, all that a poor Methodist preacher/doctoral student can afford. But I have been more than pleased with it, particularly because I have learned to make good use of the manual settings and the (quite limited) zoom lens is excellent quality. I'm trying to determine where and how to best share my favorite photos, so unfortunately I don't have a large collection anywhere online yet. My friends know I dabble in photography, and one asked me recently to photograph her wedding. Her minister wound up in the hospital the week of the wedding, and I ended up both marrying and photographing the folks. The things preachers do.
And yes, you have repeated yourself (as have I), but don't sell yourself short. Dean Snyder foggy in his thinking? Agree or disagree, nothing from your keyboard has ever seemed "foggy."
"Status" sure looks like a vague enough word that one could do with it whatever one wanted. We discriminate by status continually - outside the church and within. The process of entering ministry is especially discriminatory. The Discipline mandates many levels of discrimination: The local PPR & Charge Conference, the DCOM, the BOM, the Annual Conference. At each stage existing leaders are called to judge the character, gifts and graces of candidates for ministry. One standing (status)in particular is membership tenure. IS the requirement that a ministry candidate be a member of the UMC for a particular amount of time unconstitutional? I don't think so (but of course there are no constituencies taking opposite sides on the issue). Age and educational attainment can also be reckoned as statuses: we discriminate on both.
If as Dean and the Cal-Nev Conference suggest, "status" is completely maleable, to be defined by each Annual Conference as each sees fit, it does seem to become a barrier to a common understanding and practice of ministry.
Post a Comment