tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post1267719403643383079..comments2023-10-31T10:28:50.158-04:00Comments on The Zeray Gazette: Question of the DayJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-51242643605647913202008-06-22T12:57:00.000-04:002008-06-22T12:57:00.000-04:00Now that I've had much longer to ponder it, I have...Now that I've had much longer to ponder it, I have got to say that (in addition to my initial mildly positive reaction) I am a little distressed at how quickly many of the votes were taken and how little thoughtful discussion seemed to surround much of it. <BR/><BR/>Most of the controversial material seemed to be crammed all together at the end, with 4 minutes of discussion (that is, competing monologues that may not actually address the concerns of the other sides) and then a quick vote. Whatever we want to call that process, I think "Holy Conferencing" must be a mis-nomer.Rev. Daniel McLain Hixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09314281652215835311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-84189822054025898552008-06-20T15:30:00.000-04:002008-06-20T15:30:00.000-04:00Did you ever see (It's at YouTube) The Dead Milkme...Did you ever see (It's at YouTube) The Dead Milkmen's video "Methodist Coloring Book"?<BR/><BR/>I know it's true 'cause it happened to moi.<BR/><BR/>Stay on groovin' safari,<BR/>Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03037704048671379868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-31291112707169365182008-06-10T00:19:00.000-04:002008-06-10T00:19:00.000-04:00John--Good article in the Reporter today! I've al...John--<BR/><BR/>Good article in the Reporter today! I've always thought my candidacy mentor who said the "If you can do anything else, do it!" line was cynical and seemingly disheartened by ministry. I think Wesley wanted ministers who were Renaissance men (and women) and would be proficient in other fields of interest as well as ministry (Bishop Ken Carder and others touch on this in a paper put out by the GBHEM a few years ago--found here <A HREF="http://www.gbhem.org/atf/cf/%7B0bcef929-bdba-4aa0-968f-d1986a8eef80%7D/PUB_WESLEYANVISIONTHEOEDUCATION.PDF" REL="nofollow">GBHEM</A><BR/>--wouldn't people who are interested in a broad range of topics be able to envision having a different kind of vocation? Anyway, thanks for posting that and putting it into words. I appreciated the examples you used.Nathan Mattoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01618816092900455135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-69012813548523551922008-06-02T14:04:00.000-04:002008-06-02T14:04:00.000-04:00But you ARE moving the goal posts. First it was "t...But you ARE moving the goal posts. First it was "the Bible doesn't say what you think it says." Then it was "well, it says it, but that doesn't make it binding" and now its "in Methodism diversity is its own end and trumps the Bible anyway." From my point of view, you seem to have an a priori outcome and will use any argument necessary to justify it. Deep down, there is a part of me who hopes you are actually right. But before I can come into agreement with you, I need a logically cogent, Scripturally-based argument for LBGT inclusion. Until someone gives one, I cannot embrace your views. Doctrine on based on wishes- even high-minded and seemingly noble wishes- is not sound theology. We need evidence! Thus far, neither you nor anyone else in the pro-LGBT camp have made a single convincing argument which is strong enough to turn centuries of theology and hermeneutics on it's ear.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635426740700809467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-68659606178375764812008-06-02T10:50:00.000-04:002008-06-02T10:50:00.000-04:00Just a quick note, now that I've seen the response...Just a quick note, now that I've seen the response: John, no goal posts were moved. My point (one of them) is that there is more than one argument. The Bible doesn't say X as you claim, but <EM>even if it did</EM> it doesn't say Y either.<BR/><BR/>Not ignoring Romans 1. Interpreting it differently and suggesting that Methodism has a history of tolerance and inclusiveness seeing beyond disagreement about scripture that the GC has continued to lay aside <EM>for this one issue</EM>.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest, you've largely ignored anything I've posted so far, and I see no reason to try again, at least not with you. You've made up your mind, and all I can do at this point in this medium is feel sad about it.<BR/><BR/>Steve, I think you're right. We (both sides) do use polarizing language, but in my obviously-biased opinion, anything less than calling bigotry what it is would be unhelpful to the cause of equality.<BR/><BR/>(Now <EM>that's</EM> polarizing! ;) )Matt Algrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626052718821794580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-25026374273460764092008-05-28T03:21:00.000-04:002008-05-28T03:21:00.000-04:00These posts represent very well the polarization o...These posts represent very well the polarization of language we have about homosexuality. When I attended GC, it was as if we don't talk, we fire legislative missiles. We use polarizing language about sin and the devil on one side and spiritual violence, rejection, even slavery on the other. It was as if 10% was on one end of the universe and 10% on the other, neither able to live with the other view, when 80% of the church is in some place of diverse gray, wanting to hold inclusiveness high in one hand and holiness in the other in creative tension. It was hard to feel that moderates have a voice (this is the downside of a legislative process). And all this is fueled, honestly, not by our church but by what is going on in our culture! But I believe God might yet renew our church in spite of this gridlock. That is my hope, though transformation would mean taking up a cross, letting some aspects of instutionality die that will be painful. I have posted an essay on my blog with thoughts about this, if anyone would like to see it. It's at stevewestsmusings.blogspot.com.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-62670063874816217562008-05-28T02:54:00.000-04:002008-05-28T02:54:00.000-04:00I was a delegate and want to clear up a serious mi...I was a delegate and want to clear up a serious misunderstanding in the early posts about the constitutional language changes. In no way is this a "separating" from the African church. It is for 3 things: 1) a way of making language less reminiscent of the racists "central conferences" of our past by calling the US church by the same terminology, which acknowledges the increasingly global nature (and less US-dominated nature) of our church. 2) It would (if ratified by 2/3 of AC's) prepare the way for a new global structure (these changes don't do anything ... they just prepare the way to consider a new regional conference structure in 4 years). 3) A large portion of GC is spent focusing on US-only issues like budgets, pensions, and church and society legislation. That's so true. So the talk was not about "separation" at all. Having said that, what will be hotly debated in 4 years (depending on what the study proposes) is whether regional conferences will be able to "interpret" social principles for their region. Of course, I remind myself that because Central Conferences changing a name to Regional does not mean any change in whether social principles apply. It was articulated that we do not want to "become another anglican communion" and most delegates who spoke indicated this sentiment. Honestly, after hearing all the debate I'm sold that these changes are a good thing, because it makes language and structure consistent world-wide. In 4 years, we'll see what is proposed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-89863429499392286142008-05-21T22:00:00.000-04:002008-05-21T22:00:00.000-04:00Actually, Matt, Paul's word sabout women in Corint...Actually, Matt, Paul's word sabout women in Corinth are addressed to specific tensions on Corinth- the passage is not a general theological argument such as Romans 1 (which I notice you are ignoring.) Note that Paul himself sent Pheobe to preach his message in Rome and Paul worked with Pricilla and Aquilla- a clergy couple where both the man and woman functioned as elders. (Granted- Pricilla is never expressly called an Elder, but her role was such.) <BR/><BR/>In other words, the New Testament is ambiguous about women in ministry. it is not at all ambiguous about sexual sin. The connection you are trying to make simply isn't there. <BR/><BR/>Which leads to another problem with your posts- you keep moving the goal posts. First, it was that if we actually knew the Bible, we'd see that it doesn't condemn homosexual behavior. Now that we've debunked that, you're arguing that the Bible is wrong about women, so it must be wrong about sexual ethics. Once again, we've debunked that. I can't wait to see what you come up woith next. <BR/><BR/>As far as Acts 15 goes, no method of butchery removes all blood from meat. The issue in the dietary laws about blood as to do with methods which intentionally preserve blood and certain ritualistic forms of butchery common to pagan lands. If you knew your history, you'd know that blood dishes all but disappeared from European menus over the course of the last 1700 years because the Church has tried to honor Acts 15. So, really, you're off base yet again.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635426740700809467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-49040741800458818722008-05-21T17:12:00.000-04:002008-05-21T17:12:00.000-04:00Again, my point is that there is disagreement, rea...Again, my point is that there is disagreement, reasonable disagreement over whether homosexuality is a sin. You say that scripture is "clear beyond doubt" that it is a sin, but I say with similar fervor that it isn't. <EM>(I looked at that blog and found it to be basic conservative talking points, not intelligent discussion. I'm going to save you the trouble of looking at the blog I'd send you, because you'd find it to be the same.)</EM><BR/><BR/>The Acts 15 reference is irrelevant, because (based on my reading (and that of some scholars) of the OT) man-man sex is not listed as immoral. It's a mistranslation that has caused much pain in the world, and it's about time we dealt with it -- and ourselves -- accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Since you mentioned it, though, Acts 15 does say that you shouldn't eat blood. How do you take your steak? If it's too rare, do you send it back in order to comply with the law? I also notice that the chapter describes a procedure strikingly similar to the General Conference model. Interesting.<BR/><BR/>But let's lay all that aside and assume that homosexuality is a sin. Just for the sake of argument.<BR/><BR/>When you accept people into membership in the church, do you make sure they know they have to give the church 10% of their pay? Do you check their tax returns to see that they do? If you find out that someone isn't tithing in full, are they admonished publicly and rebuked for their sinful behavior? If they were to tell you before they take their membership vows that they only intend to give 5%, do you turn them away? Or would you be thankful that they have the faith of a mustard seed and accept them where they are?<BR/><BR/>When a married couple gets divorced and it turns out that one or the other has been having an affair, do you admonish them in public? Do you rebuke them? Do you remind them that they said they wouldn't do that, so now you have to put them out? Do you? Or do you accept them where they are and work with them on it?<BR/><BR/>And how do you reconcile the ordination of women with Paul's letter to Corinth? It's pretty darn clear, but we ignore it.<BR/><BR/>Over and over, Jesus made the point: People are more important than a list of rules. In John 5, Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, breaking his own rule. He does it again in John 9. Again in Matthew 12. He memorialized the new rule in John 13, and right away people started ignoring it because it's easier to build walls than bridges. It's easier to accept that you're better or more accepted or more worthy that the person who has the sin that doesn't relate to you.<BR/><BR/>And I wonder if that's the problem. It's a lot easier to forgive or overlook a sin that you've struggled with, isn't it? Easier to decide that this sin or that one is a deal breaker when the decision might have some ramification to you personally. Then it's personal, not academic. Kind of a new application of the Taxation Without Representation problem when you think about it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I s'pose that'll be my final word here. I've taken up the blog comments section for too long as it is. And like I said, my blood pressure can't take too much discussion of this.Matt Algrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626052718821794580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-41544910300482854472008-05-21T17:02:00.000-04:002008-05-21T17:02:00.000-04:00Matt said:Multiply that by about a billion, and yo...Matt said:<BR/><BR/><I>Multiply that by about a billion, and you have the effect on telling gay people that in order to be Good Christians they must be celibate.</I><BR/><BR/>First, read the following <A HREF="http://www.flumc2.org/page.asp?PKValue=967" REL="nofollow">paper</A> that I posted earlier; it best addresses the true issue.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, it is the "act of homosexuality" that is the sin, just as much as it is sinful for a married man to commit adultery, or a single person not to be celibate. IT is all sin, equal in the eyes of God. In the 10 Commandments, God called us to "Not Commit Adultery." In the broader sense, he called us to “Keep Sex Sacred.” That means procreation, not recreation. Sex is for the unification of a man and a woman in marriage and open to the miracle of life. It is not for swinging, bestiality, orgies, flings, "friends with privileges," pornography, prostitution, masturbation, you get the point. Have I sinned here? Yes. But I have asked for forgiveness, not mocking the Spirit, and turned from my ways. Yes<BR/><BR/>As the previous posters have stated, regardless of your sexual orientation, or attraction, if you will, if you are not in a married relationship, open to the miracle of life with a member of the opposite sex, then you must remain celibate, whether heterosexual or homosexual. <BR/><BR/>I used this example once: If I knew my married pastor had committed adultery, or my single pastor was living with her/his fiancé, I would call for their defrockment as quickly as I would for a homosexual minister flaunting their homosexual relationship with their partner.<BR/><BR/>The burden that most individuals that consider themselves "homosexual" carry is the challenge to beat down the stereotype portrayed by Hollywood and individuals that look at homosexuality as an expression of sex more than a loving relationship with another. Until you destroy the stereotype, you will, however unfortunate, suffer this persecution. Just please; don't go searching for a boogie man in every church and in every heterosexual Christian. That makes you just as inappropriate as those you feel disrespect you.<BR/><BR/>PAX<BR/>JDJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09369664921706836400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-55088803872677270232008-05-21T13:50:00.000-04:002008-05-21T13:50:00.000-04:00Matt, I admit that my Hebrew stinks. But my Greek ...Matt, <BR/><BR/>I admit that my Hebrew stinks. <BR/><BR/>But my Greek is pretty good. In college, I studied under Dr. Phil Shueler, a long-time Jesus Seminar member. At Asbury, I studied under Dr. David Bauer and Dr. Ben Witherington. I wasn't a star pupil by any stretch, but I did well enough in their courses. I'm not bragging because I know many readers of this blog can sight better pedigrees than mine. But your assertion that my views on homosexuality stem from ignorance of the Biblical text is unfounded. <BR/><BR/>I've translated Romans 1 multiple times, done word studies, consulted with scholars, and can find no other conclusion than this: Paul told the Roman church that men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women is unnatural and sinful.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635426740700809467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-81633024353468491382008-05-21T11:40:00.000-04:002008-05-21T11:40:00.000-04:00Matt: Your response was interesting but incor...Matt:<BR/><BR/> Your response was interesting but incorrect. Many people on both sides of this issue argue about whether the predisposition to engage in homosexual behavior is inborn or a choice. Actually I have no problem with the idea that it is genetic, but it doesn't matter. The evidence is piling up that all sorts of behavior such as homosexual inclinations, alcoholism. kleptomania and violence are genetically based, but all these behaviors are still sinful. All of us are born with a gentic inborn desire to sin. That's a result of the fall of Adam. We can't give any sin a pass because "I was born to do it". <BR/> Homosexual christians are called to be celibate. Look, I'm married. There are about three billion women in the world. I was born with an inborn sexual atrraction to women. But God has said I can only have sex with one of them. Note it's not status or condition that condemmed, but actions.<BR/> Yes, gays aren't accepted as fully as they should be. However, the attitude of a lot of gays that they're going to continue their sinful behavior put off a lot of people. Plus I hope you and other gays will remember that " the church is a hospital for sinners and not a museum for saints". we're not perfect and don't claim to be.<BR/>Your comments about divorces and non-tithers are off target. When you join they church you admit that what you did in the past was wrong and with God's help, you're not going to do it again. Even if you slip up and re-transgress, that's an entirely different attitude from "What I did wasn't wrong and I'm going to keep on doing it."<BR/> Sorry, scripture is clear beyond all doubt that homosexual behavior is wrong. Instead of writing a volume I'll refer you to this blog: <BR/>http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/<BR/>Some of the archived discussions cover this in great detail {at the moment he's engaged in a debate with the Mormons]<BR/>Tattoos, shellfish and cheesburgers are allowed now.Read Acts chapter 15. <BR/>Except for not eating meat offered to idols or strangled and all sexual sins, Christians don't have to follow the Law.<BR/> Yes, the church concentrates too much on homosexual behavior at the expense of condemming other bad behavior,but that should not serve as reason to not point out the sin of homosexual behavior. <BR/><BR/>Ivan WaltersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-11650419249840907542008-05-21T10:14:00.000-04:002008-05-21T10:14:00.000-04:00John: I'll try to explain it to you as I tried wit...John: I'll try to explain it to you as I tried with someone else a few weeks ago.<BR/><BR/>My grandfather was left handed, and when he was growing up... Well, you didn’t let your child be left handed. So he was forced to learn how to write with his right hand. For the rest of his life, he forced himself to live as a right handed person. But it wasn’t natural, and it wasn’t normal, and it wasn’t good. (And his handwriting was terrible, but that's neither here nor there.)<BR/><BR/>Multiply that by about a billion, and you have the effect on telling gay people that in order to be Good Christians they must be celibate.<BR/><BR/>It's not a matter of libido. It's a matter of telling the truth about God's creation. (Hopefully you've figured out by now that I'm in the group that says that it <EM>isn't</EM> a sin. Brush up on your Greek and Hebrew and you'll see why.)<BR/><BR/>Ivan: First things first, no, gays are most certainly <EM>not</EM> welcomed as members in the United Methodist Church, at least not in our General Conference's eyes. Ministers have absolute discretion on the matter. Just ask Joey Heath.<BR/><BR/>The problem with the situation, as I see it, is that the Church has picked homosexuality as the One Great Sin to focus on. Does your church refuse membership to divorcés? The Bible says you shouldn't get divorced, but we accept divorcés as they are. Heck, I've twice had ordained ministers who were divorced women. That's two strikes against what the Bible says.<BR/><BR/>Does your church refuse membership if the candidate doesn't tithe? The Bible is crystal clear on the subject of tithing. By the logic of the No Gays Allowed policy, failing to give a full 10% (before taxes) should preclude people from entering into full acceptance into the church. <BR/><BR/>Tattoos, shellfish, cheeseburgers, polyester, and trimming your sideburns are all directly spoken against in the same section as the big "gotcha" passage. Somehow we get past all those sins, not even thinking of them as sins. And don't talk to me about context, because we ignore the context of the gotcha's.<BR/><BR/>I guess that's what I don't get about the whole issue. One of the basic qualities of the United Methodist Church is our inclusive nature. I know Methodists who think it's a sin to drink alcohol, and I know Methodists who get drunk every Friday night. I know Methodists who think women shouldn't be ordained, and I know Methodists who actively prefer a female pastor. These people all share the same pew on Sunday morning and have no a problem setting aside the difference of opinion on the definition of <EM>sin</EM> and doing what we're supposed to do: Love each other and worship God.<BR/><BR/>Until The Gay walks into the room*. At that point, we start frothing at the mouth and telling people that they're 'incompatible with Christian teaching', kicking them out of the congregation (okay, it happened once [so far]) among other things. This seems to be the ONE issue that we still stumble over in our ever-quest for unity in communion with Christ.<BR/><BR/>*At least that's how the Book of Discipline reads. In other matters, we acknowledge the difference of opinion, ask that people make wise decisions based upon knowledge and prayerful study, and expect God to be big enough to understand our confusion. In my personal experience, people don't react nearly as adversely as the Discipline would suggest.Matt Algrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626052718821794580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-61456933054369425922008-05-21T08:25:00.000-04:002008-05-21T08:25:00.000-04:00Matt Algren,You like most practicing homosexuals h...Matt Algren,<BR/><BR/>You like most practicing homosexuals have totaly misread the UMC. When we say that all persons have spirtual worth, we mean it. But when we say "homosexual behavior" is incompatible with Christian teaching, we mean that also. Your reference to women and African-Americans is disingenous. Women, African-Americans and gays are welcome in the UMC, both as members and inleadership roles, as long as they are not openly, willfully and in-your-face engaging in sin. Just as the church shouls oppose the membership of an unrepentent African-American adulterer, or an unreprentant female thief, so the church should also oppose a homosexual who is unrepentatnt in their homosexual activity. Or for that matter any unrepentant sinner. The church condemns behavior, not people. Any member who stigmatzes someone for merely being "gay" they've commited a sin of their own. If you'll look in the Hymnal, you'll see that in the service of reception for new meembers, you were (or should have been) asked "do you repent of your sin". If you answered yes, while intending to continue with your homosexual behavior, You lied to the church and to God. <BR/><BR/>Ivan Walters<BR/>member St. John's UMC<BR/>delegate SC annual ConferenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-10076284384508569112008-05-21T00:02:00.000-04:002008-05-21T00:02:00.000-04:00Matt, Of course gays are loved by Jesus as much as...Matt, <BR/><BR/>Of course gays are loved by Jesus as much as straights, bis, a-sexual, who ever. And if a gay person is willing to be celibate, they are welcome to be a part of all levels of leadership including Elder and Deacon.<BR/><BR/>This is not about condeming people, it is about acknoledging God's intent in human sexuality. <BR/><BR/>If you choose to frame this as "if you don't embrace my libido, you don't fully embrace me," that's your call.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635426740700809467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-8948523119917907782008-05-20T19:51:00.000-04:002008-05-20T19:51:00.000-04:00I've been trying to stay away from talk about GC20...I've been trying to stay away from talk about GC2008 (blood pressure, you know), and for the most part, I've been successful. But somebody pointed me in the direction of this blog (a whole other post) and I can't help but respond to some of the charges in the comments section.<BR/><BR/>My name is Matt Algren. I'm a lifelong member of the United Methodist Church in the West Ohio Conference. I'm gay. And I was told last month that I am of no worth to the United Methodist Church.<BR/><BR/>The fact that people are okay with people being turned away from the United Methodist Church because their sin is somehow too great for God to handle is beyond troublesome. It is anti-Christ.<BR/><BR/>The fact that the United Methodist Church is currently bearing false witness by actively refusing to even acknowledge that there is disagreement on the issue of homosexuality is beyond dumbfounding. It is anti-Christ.<BR/><BR/>The fact that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church voted that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against and then decided that ministers can discriminate against us as long as they really really want to is beyond insulting. It is anti-Christ.<BR/><BR/>The fact that people here on this blog talk about discrimination and bigotry as something distant and removed is ironic. Not sure if that's anti-Christ, but it does show an alarming lack of self-awareness.<BR/><BR/>As for General Conference 2012, make no mistake; we'll be back. We'll be back just as the women came back in 1956. We'll be back just as the African-Americans came back in 1968. You've locked us out of the church for 36 years, and enough is enough.<BR/><BR/>When we do return, and maybe even before, I hope we'll be able to convince you that Jesus' first rule is Love, that His gold standard is inclusion, and that He values all of us. Even when we disagree about who we should be attracted to, or whether we should be permitted to divorce, or whether we can work on Sunday, or even whether we can actively discriminate against one group or another, Jesus stands by waiting for us to ask Him what He thinks.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for listening.<BR/>-Matt<BR/><BR/>(I'm not sure about this hymnal business either, but that's for another day.)Matt Algrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626052718821794580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-53345125967226692312008-05-16T11:12:00.000-04:002008-05-16T11:12:00.000-04:00John -- we miss you! Hope all goes well with cand...John -- we miss you! Hope all goes well with candidacy. The parts of your paper I read earlier this year were good.<BR/><BR/>On the idea of regional conferences -- how far are we willing to stretch this idea? If the U.S. becomes a regional conference, and a particular group doesn't get its way on an issue, will they push to further divide the U.S. into regions, since it seems pretty clear that there are regional voting differences (e.g., western & southern jurisdictions)? In this plan are the seeds for the division of the church. Are we "United" or "Untied"?Don Yeagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173264290918288672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-38324484318028584202008-05-15T14:16:00.000-04:002008-05-15T14:16:00.000-04:00From a distance, it seemed like a spirit of confus...From a distance, it seemed like a spirit of confusion and divisiveness was truly present in Fort Worth. It could not have been a comfortable experience. Holy conferencing seems like a good idea that doesn't bear much fruit.<BR/><BR/>BUT...where Jesus is, there is always hope, and, for better or for worse, I still believe he's with us. So there is hope.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not I am pleased with GC 2008...time will tell.Keith H. McIlwainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661248415435540954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-47968032231651253832008-05-15T08:49:00.000-04:002008-05-15T08:49:00.000-04:00Question of the Month?John has been overcome by ev...<I>Question of the Month?</I><BR/><BR/>John has been overcome by events in his candidacy. He's taking some much needed time off. He might get back to blogging as early as next week.Jeff the Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978930508610389584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-60921832237345816322008-05-14T16:53:00.000-04:002008-05-14T16:53:00.000-04:00Question of the Month?Question of the Month?Don Yeagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173264290918288672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-67844853169596432052008-05-12T19:20:00.000-04:002008-05-12T19:20:00.000-04:00An interesting discussion about how to deal with t...An interesting discussion about how to deal with the international delegates. I was a little skeptical at first that the "left wing" of the church was so openly hostile to the new delegates because of their conservative leanings. However this post today from a pastor in the UMC:<BR/><BR/>http://www.generalconference2008.org/2008/week20/index.html<BR/><BR/>Has some very explicit detailing of how the new international delegation is a threat. Some really troubling comments excerpted from the link above:<BR/><BR/>"International delegates --now more than one-quarter of all voting delegates-- are in a clear alliance with the most conservative elements of the American United Methodist Church.<BR/><BR/>We have feared this for years. You may recall that I mentioned this issue last week. But it is now a crystal-clear truth to all of us. This is a development that should be a concern for everyone in United Methodism"<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>"But the voice of the American Church was thwarted by the alliance between conservative American delegates and international delegates.<BR/>And this makes the issue of restructuring an even more pressing concern than ever.If we cannot restructure to allow regional autonomy to every part of our global church, then we literally risk losing the moral voice of the American United Methodist Church, not just on GLBT issues, but on a wide range of crucial social issues"<BR/><BR/>This is really disappointing to here from a Methodist Pastor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-47575166040678155722008-05-12T16:42:00.000-04:002008-05-12T16:42:00.000-04:00As John Wilkes said, there's some classism and eli...As John Wilkes said, there's some classism and elitism here too. I'd throw in patronizing, paternalism, colonialism, and yes, I'd keep the racism too.<BR/><BR/>I will go a step further. I am not so naive to think our conservative friends are completely devoid of these things either. Perhaps some think the international delegates will be the easy votes they've been looking for. Were these delegates ready-made liberals, I wonder whether American conservatives would be acting any differently than our counterparts are right now.<BR/><BR/>As I tried to say in my overly long post, I think the mere presence of international delegates that one has to actually meet, interact with, and take seriously--who are our equals who have and want a seat at the table, and who are not some far-off people we can dismiss or think about how we wish--their mere presence is going to shake things up.<BR/><BR/>Hallelujah for that.RERChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08951409425866869945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-16283152560782420342008-05-12T13:37:00.000-04:002008-05-12T13:37:00.000-04:00JohnB, As a seminary student and a candidate still...JohnB, <BR/><BR/>As a seminary student and a candidate still very much in process, I am honestly intimidated when it comes to those comments. I don't want to wreck my career by accusing the left of our denomination of racism. <BR/><BR/>That said, I've been wrestling with the seperation concept for over a year ever since we examined the propsed legislation in our polity class at Brite. At the time, I remember drawing the ire of my professor (who I very much respect, but with whom I very frequently disagreed) and my classmates because I made the comment that this plan feels like "seperate but equal" to me. <BR/><BR/>At the risk of ticking off all the wrong people, I still feel that way. I don't like this legislation one bit. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if I were an African or Asian or Latin American United Methodist, I might view this as both insulting and liberating. At this point, I wouldn't be too shocked if our brothers and sisters across the globe wanted to be free of our influence just as badly as the left wing here at home wants to be free of theirs. <BR/><BR/>I'm not ready to go as far as "james" (or, if their blog is to be believed, the jameses,) but I'm very, very concerned. <BR/><BR/>I think racism may be the wrong word. I don't think skin color has anything to do with it. It seems more like classism and elitism to me- a sense of American entitlement and superiority.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635426740700809467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-31770788413965056572008-05-12T12:05:00.000-04:002008-05-12T12:05:00.000-04:00I'm glad that rerc & james had the courage to spea...I'm glad that rerc & james had the courage to speak the truth. The racism demonstrated by the liberals at GC made me sick. It's obvious to anyone who has eyes to see that there was a deliberate attempt to surpress the African delegates. I didn't hear of any liberal American delegates who would give up their cells phones for GC, but they couldn't bear the idea the the conservative Africans and Asians had the same access to communication as they did. The libs are more than willing to do whatever it takes to marginalize the Africans and Asians, including breaking the US off into its own Central Conference. Their desire to push their homosexual agenda blinds them to their racism. It's as if they are saying, "Certainly, we American are much more in tune with what God wants for our nation and any colored foreigners." Such arrogance is revolting. And it's about time that someone calls it what it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10760709.post-4519701627881665912008-05-11T07:48:00.000-04:002008-05-11T07:48:00.000-04:00whew.. all that work and all i got was this lousy ...whew.. all that work and all i got was this lousy cyber t-shirt. &:~Dgavin richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16089190477657027849noreply@blogger.com