An "Anything Goes" Polity

In our recent discussion about Foundry UMC's decision to hold gay weddings, contrary to the Discipline, Jonathan Marlowe commented:

John, I do not agree with what Dean is doing at Foundry, and I think his actions violate the spirit of the Discipline. However, they do not violate the letter of the Discipline. I therefore think your headline, "Foundry UMC Plans Gay Weddings" is misleading. They are not planning weddings. I know that you would say in response, "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, etc..." but I think we ought to take Dean at his word when he says he does not understand these services as weddings.

So chargeable offenses should be left to the deliberate misinterpretation of the individual elder? Let's look at the ramifications of following this approach.

¶ 2702.1b provides that a pastor may be tried when charged with "practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings, including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies...."

Emphasis added. Now, Dean is proposing that what he is doing is not actually in violation of this statute, and Jonathan is proposing that we take him at his word. Let's apply that another chargeable offense, namely ¶ 2702.1a, which forbids "immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage."

Do we really want to leave it up to the individual pastor to interpret how s/he will uphold this standard? If we buy into Dean's argument, than another pastor can just as easily argue "What you saw me doing with the church secretary wasn't adultery because I choose not to define it as adultery."

Do we want that?

Now, Dean and Jonathan were already red-lining my BS detector when Andy Bryan came along and blew the gauge apart (although admittedly, it was quite worn-out by this point). Thanks a lot, Andy. I had plans for this afternoon, but now I have to drive into Gainesville and find a replacement. Andy writes:

Can this story really be contrary to a Book of Discipline that allows for the "testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal perspective" (para. 104)? Isn't that what's happening here?

In the context of ¶ 104, um, no. If this were true, it would not be improper for a UMC pastor to set up idols to Baal in his/her sanctuary and start cultic prostitution in the fellowship hall -- all in the interest of "testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal perspective."

Come on, guys. You know better than this. I can respect honest disagreement about theology and ethics. But I can't respect conscious, deliberate falsification of the Discipline.

And we certainly can't function as a community of faith if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along.

Do you disagree? Please state specifically how Dean's argument can be true but the hypothetical adulterous pastor's argument cannot be true.

Also: John Battern shares his thoughts.

UMC Considers Divestment From Israel

With the General Board of Church and Society leading the way, various annual conferences have moved toward divestment from Israel, and related resolutions will come up in this year's General Conference.

What I have not seen is a movement by the GBCS to divest from Palestine, which has formally and repeatedly advocated the annihilation of Israel. Unlike, you know, the Israelis, who have not reciprocated by annihilating Palestine.

The Virgin Birth, Prophecy, the Resurrection: Talking Past Each Other

We've had lively debates here at Locusts & Honey on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the meaning of prophecy. And now there's a new one at the MethoBlog right now about whether or not the Resurrection of Jesus happened, and does it matter if it didn't happen. If you've been reading me for a while, you can probably guess that I answer 'yes' to both issues.

In these debates, there seems to be an overall pattern. We talk past each other because we disagree on one fundamental presupposition: the inspiration of Scripture. I assume that the Bible is an accurate account of God's Word and my debating opponents assume it to be essentially a human work of no particular authority.

The prophecy debate was over whether a person, lacking mystical experiences of revelation by God, could claim to be a prophet. I looked at the Biblical portrait of the office of prophet and said 'no'. The general argument of my opponents was (my summary) "Well, I feel that I can be a prophet if I search the Scriptures and learn Biblical principles and apply them to today. It's not like the prophets actually had mystical experiences. That was only added later by mythologizing Biblical writers."

The Virgin Birth debate was of course about whether or not Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus. I looked at what the Bible had to say on the matter and concluded 'yes'. Again, my opponents saw these passages as irrelevant attempts to mythologize the normal conception of Jesus by a human biological father.

Now over at The MethoBlog, I argue that the Resurrection of Jesus really did happen, again by showing Biblical passages about the life of Jesus which of course depict Jesus rising from the grave and appearing before his disciples --- even eating in front of them. Responses include notions that Jesus later died instead of ascending, or that the bones left his body when he was Resurrected and only his flesh moved about, or that he simply appeared in the minds of his disciples. All of these responses ignore the quite straight-forward Biblical narratives and the direct teachings of the Apostolic writers.

Essentially, we're talking past each other. To support my positions, I'm appealing to Scripture, presupposing that it is truthful document. My opponents are immune to such arguments because they lack that presupposition. I might as well be appealing to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or The New York Times.

And that's where the argument breaks down and progress stops. And again, I'm left quite perplexed.

UPDATE: I would like to highlight two excellent comments by Tim. Tim correctly points out something that I've wondered about. If one believes in (1) God, (2) the Bible, and (3) the supernatual, then why would anyone doubt the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the various miracle stories of the Bible? What possible reason is there. Well, Tim, the reason why they don't believe in these events is...no, I'd better not say it.

Other bloggers have picked up this subject, including Art Ruch, Allan Bevere, Willie Deuel, and Theresa Coleman. There may be some others, but that's all that I can find right now.