MondayMorningInsight.com > California United Methodist Conference Declares Its Colors on Homosexual Marriage

HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

California United Methodist Conference Declares Its Colors on Homosexual Marriage

Orginally published on Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 8:14 AM
by Todd Rhoades

I was forwarded the link to this resolution by a pastor that is leaving the United Methodist California district because of the stance that they took on gay marriage at their recent annual conference. I'm sure this will disturb and shock many who read it, but it is the state of the UM Church in California.

I have many UM friends who have been gravely concerned about the direction of their denomination, and this will only compound manners. I know there are many UM pastors and leaders who read this blog. There are also pastors and leaders of affirming churches, and homosexuals who regularly read MMI. The question is... will this be the last straw for many who have been frustrated (like the pastor who emailed this to me)? For those of you who are a part of the UM church and do not like this stand, what will the 'final straw' be?

Read this and let me know what you think...

PASTORAL RESPONSE
Pastoral Response to Legality of Same-Gender Marriage in California

WHEREAS, many people who we know and love in our parishes are celebrating with overflowing joy the recent California Supreme Court decision to recognize their place in society and their right to be married, and

WHEREAS, beloved same-gender couples in our parishes are coming to us with their desire to celebrate their love and commitment, and to have those affirmed not only by the state but by their faith community as well, and

WHEREAS, the legality of same-sex marriage in California, the needs of our parishes, and the demands of love require a pastoral response from the clergy and congregations of the California-Pacific Annual Conference,

THEREFORE, be it resolved that we recognize the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, while we recognize that we are governed by the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, we support those pastors who conscientiously respond to the needs of their parishes by celebrating same-gender marriages, and we envision compassion and understanding in any resulting disciplinary actions.

(The resolution was approved at Conference Plenary # 7 – Saturday, June 21, 2008)

AFFIRMATION OF MARRIAGE
Affirmation of Marriage Equality in California

BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2008, The California Supreme Court issued its decision holding that marriage is a basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty to which all person are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation. The week the California-Pacific Annual Conference 2008 will be in session, history will be made in California as legal marriage becomes available to gay and lesbian couples. Gay and lesbian couples in many of our churches will be married in the weeks and months to come.

WHEREAS, California has led the marriage equality movement, beginning 60 years ago, by striking down laws prohibiting marriage between interracial couples (Perez v. Sharp, 1948);

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2008, The California Supreme Court issued its decision holding that marriage is a basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation; and

WHEREAS, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the State of California will begin to license and recognize same-gender marriages on June 16, 2008;

WHEREAS, the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church states that “certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons.” (¶162.H)

WHEREAS, The United Methodist Church understands family “to be the basic human community through which persons are nurtured and sustained in mutual love, responsibility, respect, and fidelity.” (¶161.A)

WHEREAS, the California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church has had a long history of ministry with, by and for lesbians and gay men through which the Holy Spirit has taught us the sacred worth of all persons and our ministries have been shaped accordingly;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church acknowledges celebrates the Supreme Court decision regarding marriage equality.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church support same-gender couples who enter into the marriage covenant and encourage both congregations and pastors to welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture and pastoral care for these families.

(The resolution was approved as amended at Conference Plenary # 8 - Sunday June 22, 2008)

MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Protecting Marriage Equality in California (Opposition to “California Marriage Protection Act")

WHEREAS the Book of Discipline 2004 states in ¶162 (H) that: “Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons,” and “We insist that all persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured,” and

WHEREAS the 2008 session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, held in Fort Worth, Texas, has adopted the resolution titled Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism, calling on: “The United Methodist Church strengthen its advocacy of the eradication of sexism by opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation, “ and

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of the State of California ruled in the case of In re: Marriage Cases (2008), when it struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage — has found the right to marry to be a civil right of all citizens, and that “the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice,” and that “An individual’s sexual orientation - like a person’s race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

WHEREAS a so-called “California Marriage Protection Amendment” will appear on the November 4, 2008 General Election ballot, seeking to overturn the California Supreme Court decision, and

WHEREAS this amendment would be a profound misuse of our state constitution for the purpose of restricting the civil rights of one group of citizens, such an amendment would be in direct contradiction of the principles and spirit of the United Methodist Church:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2008 Session of the California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church OPPOSES the California Marriage Protection Amendment, and calls upon all United Methodists, in favor of defeat of this act to work with all their might for its defeat, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we call upon the laity and clergy of our churches in the California-Pacific Annual Conference to answer the call of General Conference by providing a witness against heterosexism and any discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in so doing, to be actively involved in protecting the civil rights of all Californians as they pertain to the right to civil marriage, working through correspondence with elected officials, through public venues such as newspapers, periodicals, radio and television, and the venues offered by the internet, and through other opportunities as they arise.

(Note: second amendment to strike out….”through public venues….” was NOT supported)
(The resolution was approved as amended at Conference Plenary # 8 - Sunday June 22, 2008)

CABINET RESPONSE
A Statement Offered by the Bishop and Cabinet
In response to inquiries regarding same gender marriages
Shared with the Cal-Pac Annual Conference meeting in session in Redlands, CA
Sunday, June 22, 2008

With the change in California law regarding same gender marriages, pastors and congregations have been asking how they can respond. Our Holy Conferencing and action on resolutions at this Annual Conference have sought common ground in this regard. Neither our actions nor the actions of the state of California change the present Discipline of the United Methodist Church.

The Episcopal office and its extension through the District Superintendents fulfill two roles, pastoral and supervisory (presidential). In the pastoral role we want to affirm that your Bishop and cabinet are available for counsel, encouragement, support, and reflection. In the supervisory or presidential role, we are officers of the church and responsible for upholding the order of the Discipline. Despite our diverse individual perspectives, we are obligated to process complaints arising from breaches of these provisions in a manner appropriate to the circumstances.

In considering pastoral care, rituals and celebrations, pastors and congregations will need to understand the rules, risks and the scope of consequences as well as recognizing the continuum of possible ministries which can be offered.

As we seek to remain in compassionate solidarity with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, this may be a time to promote ecumenical partnerships and a variety of engaging ministries.

Ultimately, the Annual Conference, cabinet and UMC, can not make the decision regarding your course. We can not eliminate risks or consequences or determine your heart or behavior. These decisions reside in the space between you and the call of God. As a cabinet, we will be in prayer for our pastors and congregations as we all seek to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in responding to the heart of Christ as we extend compassion and hospitality to those seeking the sacral agencies of the church.

LETTER FROM THE CONFERENCE LEADERSHIP TEAM AND CABINET

Friday, June 27, 2008

Dear Members of the California-Pacific Annual Conference:

Last week, following sessions of prayer and Holy Conferencing held during the 2008 Annual Session, members of the Annual Conference approved three resolutions concerning same-gender marriage. The text of each resolution can be found at http://www.cal-pac.org. Each resolution offers support to same-gender couples who enter into the marriage covenant and encourages both congregations and pastors to welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture and pastoral care for these families.

The Conference Leadership Team and the Cabinet offers this initial letter of guidance for understanding and interpreting these resolutions. Adoption or approval of resolutions at Annual Conference means that the annual conference has identified common ground from which we seek to live faithfully. It doesn’t mean that all conference members personally agree with the action or that members of local congregations must agree. What it does mean is that this is the current statement of our annual conference.

With that background, we offer our understanding of the effect of the Annual Conference resolutions:
1. The resolutions acknowledge the legality of same-gender marriages in the State of California, and that the gospel calls us to be in pastoral care with same-gender couples who seek to marry.
2. The resolutions call upon our churches to be welcoming and embracing of same-gender couples and to reject heterosexism.
3. The resolutions call for compassion and understanding in dealing with any charges brought against pastors in our annual conference who conduct same-gender marriage ceremonies.
4. The resolutions calls upon United Methodists to work to defeat the California Marriage Protection Amendment on the November 2008 ballot
5. The resolutions do not change any aspect of church law or policy in The Book of Discipline (2004 and 2008,) which state in &341.6 that “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”

In this regard, the Episcopal office and its extension through the District Superintendents fulfill two roles, pastoral and supervisory (presidential). In their pastoral role they want to affirm that the Bishop and cabinet are available for counsel, encouragement, support, and reflection. In the supervisory or presidential role, they are officers of the church and responsible for upholding the order of the Discipline. Despite their diverse individual perspectives, they are obligated to process complaints arising from breaches of these provisions in a manner appropriate to the circumstances.

Our covenant with each other to obey the provisions of The Book of Discipline may lead to the filing of charges against any pastor who violates provisions of the Discipline. The Book of Discipline does not mandate particular punishments for particular offenses so the consequences for violating the Discipline would be up to the deciding body dealing with the charge.

In adopting these resolutions, our Annual Conference has acted in its prophetic role to declare our conviction that the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to support and embrace men and women who love someone of the same gender and who seek to pledge their love and commitment in a public way.

We recognize the diverse perspectives shared on this issue within our community of faith. Therefore, we remain committed to be in conversation with each other about our beliefs and our desire to “Do no harm,” as Wesley describes it. We invite your faithful participation in this work of discernment and leadership.

May we, as covenantal members of the California-Pacific Annual Conference, respond with compassion and understanding as we live out our faith in this time and place.

The Conference Leadership Team and Cabinet

You can find the full resolutions here...

So… what are your thoughts?

This post has been viewed 1471 times so far.

There are 39 Comments:

Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 8:55 AM

do they really think the HOLY SPIRIT is leading this, oh how far have we fell.
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Can someone explain to me whether or not this is a stance by the whole UMC, state UMC, or a rouge church or two? How does their governing structure work?
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:08 AM

i think they are just mavericks, not the whole, but not sure
Posted by Ray Hughes

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM

Todd,

My fear is that due to these maverick churches the UMC will lose credibility within the larger church and Christians across America...especially the evangelical church, of which I consider myself apart. The segments of the church that desire to change the UMC stance on same-sex marriage are a minority within the denomination. We have a family conflict that we need to work through and when Christians around the country see publicity like this, my fear is that they will write us off and never investigate the theological position of their local UM Church down the street. While we do have theological diversity within the denomination, many of us see this move as a rebellious movement seeking to change the official stance of the church which remains the same.
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Why doesn’t the UMC just change their name then to distance themselves from the issue? Or be able to revoke the usage of the name “UMC” from maverick churches? Is there a clear leader of this denomination? What is he or she saying?
Posted by Ray Hughes

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Denis-

The UMC is divided into Jurisdictions which our divided into Conferences (this article is from the California Conference) and these are divided into local districts.

see the map here: http://tinyurl.com/4vzsdj

Conferences meet annually and this report is coming from the California Conference’s Annual Gathering. So, it wasn’t just a few churches represented, but it was a minority of the whole.

I’ll spare you the statistics, but the Southeastern and South Central Conferences are much larger in the number of growing churches and they are in general more conservative theologically on this issue. The Northeastern and Western Jurisdictions are losing membership and in general are more liberal...but, unfortunately, they get the press. Just notice how the Western Jurisdiction is geographically much larger than the others, but has only a fraction of the number of churches and members of the SE and SC.

Also, note that the only voice for the official stance of the church in the General Conference which meets every four years. They met this year and voted to upheld our stance on the issue, keeping us in line with the historical view of the majority of the Church.
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Thanks Ray,

So does the California Conference have to fall in line with the General Conference or can they make their own rules? What’s the point of an “official” stance if it is really not official?
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM

I noticed that there wasn’t a single part of any of those motions, referenda, or statements that started off with, “WHEREAS, the Bible says...”

Could it be that contributed to this mess?

--
CS
Posted by Evan Blackerby

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

At what point did we, Christ followers, decide to ignore the Bible? Seems that we really don’t have much else to stand on that isn’t subjective.
Posted by Chris Meirose

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM

The train wreck that is the UMC keeps compounding upon itself. Another step or two and they are just going to be a country club, having foregone any ties to being Bible based. It’s sad.
Posted by RevJeff

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, while we recognize that we are governed by the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, we support those pastors who conscientiously respond to the ....”

While I am NOT a UMC guy, and would usually begin/base my comment (as so many have already) on a “where is the BIBLE?” stance, I find it most compelling that they both acknowledge and trash their own authorities and governance in the same sentence.

Scripture has no bearing on those who reject every outside authority. sadly…
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM

AND they ordain women. AND they baptize infants. AND they sprinkle not submerge. AND they interpret scripture through reason. AND they believe in backsliding. AND they oppose the death penalty.

Surely they’re all hell-bound.
Posted by bobby

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Definitely sad to read, but also common in at least California UMC from my experience. Believe it or not, I was actually saved at a First UMC. That was in high school and when I moved I moved on. But I know now that there were three homosexuals on staff there, one very openly even then.

The head pastor, from what I understand, is not for homosexuality, but it’s just kinda a culture of don’t ask, don’t tell, and don’t rock the boat.
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Amen., Joe

The resolution states; WHEREAS the Book of Discipline 2004 states in ¶162 (H) that: “Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons,” and “We insist that all persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured,”

And, WHEREAS the 2008 session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, held in Fort Worth, Texas, has adopted the resolution titled Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism, calling on: “The United Methodist Church strengthen its advocacy of the eradication of sexism by opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation,”

Sounds to me like these are not “rogue” churches, if the “Social Principles of the United Methodist Church” do state the above. Sounds like there is some grey area between UMC Book of Discipline and the legality of same-sex marriage in Calif.

They state “Neither our actions nor the actions of the state of California change the present Discipline of the United Methodist Church” and “we envision compassion and understanding in any resulting disciplinary actions.”

Sounds to me like they understand there may be consequences and are trying to formulate their pastoral response to their parishes even though they know it will be viewed unfavorably by many.

But, actions like that below certainly condemn them to hell:

“WHEREAS, California has led the marriage equality movement, beginning 60 years ago, by striking down laws prohibiting marriage between interracial couples (Perez v. Sharp, 1948)” Damn those Californians!
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Sorry for my sarcasm above, but I grew up in a church that regularly ranted against those who wanted to do away with the anti-misogyny laws, regularly had speakers recruiting for “our Christian brothers in the knighthood” and soliciting funds for their support, and had some colorful terms for those we today call homosexuals. I learned about shunning and separation before I learned about the love of Jesus. So, while I do not believe it is God’s design for our lives and I agree the Bible speaks against it as sin, I am willing to give the UMC and other churches a little leeway in the ways they choose to respond to their situations and parishioners.

It might not be the response I would choose, but I will not denigrate them nor debase myself by claiming they are no longer Christian or calling them “The train wreck that is the UMC” or “having foregone any ties to being Bible based” or insinuating that they are deluding themselves to think they are following the Holy Spirit.

Come on guys, it may not be the response you would make, but this is the conference that covers SoCal and Hawaii, this has to be one of the least Christian-friendly areas in the country. If you pastored a church, in a “gays welcome” denomination, in a state that has made gay marriage legal, with a congregation that may be substantially gay and socially liberal, I think your response might be very different than in your present circumstances. Either that, or you would have moved on the greener pastures long ago.

If it’s not your denomination, pray they find their way, that the Holy Spirit will guide them, and try to remember that they ARE brothers and sisters in Christ.
Posted by greg milinovich

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 4:26 PM

i don’t know. i’m just picturing jesus bending down and writing something on the ground, then standing again and saying something that pissed off all the right(eous) people: let the one without sin be the first in line to throw a stone.

condemn at your own risk.
Posted by bobby

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Well if we’re gonna use Bible stories like that in this conversation, I guess the proper question to ask would be which character(s) in the Bible the UMC is most representative of. Would it be the woman caught in adultery, or the Pharisees, who Jesus did approach a bit differently. Sometimes it’s easy to make a story fit the context we want it to.

The disappointment in the stance of this branch of the church is not a statement of hatred or “intolerance” or even rock throwing toward homosexuals. One can show love towards individuals, or even a community of people, without compromising their own worldview in the matter.
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Joe writes: AND they interpret scripture through reason.

-----"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depend on human tradition....”
fishon
Posted by

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 11:33 PM

i am not against the gays personally, just the sin, but the pastors that is telling them it ok, is certainly leading them wrong. and the HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT LEADING THEM TO TELL THEM IT IS OK.if he did that would be a house devided by the holy spirit, and that is just not going to happen.
Posted by agentorange

Friday, September 19, 2008 at 7:03 AM

as someone who is just peering in on the conversation, i simply want to say that, whatever character the umc might be (adulterer, pharisee, rich young ruler, disciple), it is, imho, very easy to identify the character that most of you commenters are. when i see a great deal of condemnation, or hear things like, “we’re right and they are not, those poor misguided people...” then i immediately thing of the scribes and pharisees. i’m not sure i agree with what this conference did either, but i am CERTAIN i disagree with the tone of most of these comments. i am ashamed of Christians who talk/write/act this way.

the greatest commandment is to love the lord your god with all your heart, soul and mind. and the second is like it, make sure that you are correctly interpreting scripture so that you can have sound doctrine about issues of sexuality.
Posted by Peter Hamm

Friday, September 19, 2008 at 7:41 AM

greg writes [i don’t know. i’m just picturing jesus bending down and writing something on the ground, then standing again and saying something that pissed off all the right(eous) people: let the one without sin be the first in line to throw a stone. ] Greg, RIGHT AFTER he writes in the dirt, Jesus identifies the woman’s behavior as what? Sin? Yes, I think so. It IS POSSIBLE to not condemn somebody and at the same time not condone behavior that the Bible does not condone. THAT is the balance we need.

The real issue here to me is not whether or not it’s “okay”, but the issue to me is what CS brings up. Where are we looking to answer the question. IN this case, is it the Bible? It doesn’t seem to be.
Posted by agentorange

Friday, September 19, 2008 at 7:56 AM

peter hamm, i think the issue here is that Jesus is the one who both identifies and deals with the sin. not the people of faith. i’m sure sin is sin, but i’m not willing to pretend that i know more about this than God.

when i read comments like many/most of the ones above, i well up with tears for the church, that we have become so judgmental and sin-focused or right-focused rather than love-focused.

i don’t need you to agree. i just want you to know that some of us who strive to live deeply faithful lives are broken-hearted about this spirit in Christ’s followers.
Posted by John Morris

Friday, September 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM

This issue, being near and dear in my heart, is something I believe God is using, believe it or not, to force Christians to finally engage in dealing with a very important issue: Do we really believe in Sola Scriptura or not? I think this is the next great schism in the Church.

But there’s a deeper issue here, and that issue is a problem across the whole church. It’s the issue of love, judgment, and following Christ. These days, Christians are trying to become neo-hippie peace core people who think the only right expression of Christianity is hugging orphans and writing songs about love. The minute ANYONE makes a statement revealing any moral clarity, the thought police swarm and throw out anecdotes about how Jesus never judged anyone. Then the accusation comes of hypocrisy.

So, as a result, Christians become ecumenical, acts-of-service-and-compassion, non-preaching, “Christ-followers"(because there’s too much of a stigma to be called ‘Christians’)

We are living under a false premise here. It’s the premise that I have to be sinless and blameless to call someone else to live right. And it’s disgusting. We’re all supposed to know and believe in Scriptural inerrancy, and we’re supposed to constantly encourage each other to grow in righteousness. We need grace because we sin, but we also need to repent(metanoia:Change your thinking about) of sin. We have to change how we think and feel about our sin, from “I don’t like this but I do it anyway” to “This grieves the heart of God, and I need to do whatever it takes to stop”. And that’s true of lying, greed, laziness, or homosexual behavior. Yes, it’s all sin. But we have to ask the question: Is there grace without true repentance? So, I see it as a matter of how you view sin. If you accept sin in your life and take no action to metanoia your sin, are you truly following Christ? Or are you trying to fit into a religious institution without fully and completely embracing what that life calls you to? What is sin? Simply everything the Bible says is sin. Can one become completely holy? I doubt it, but does that mean we should just keep on sinning? No. This is about conviction, true repentance, and constantly conforming your life to following Christ and pursuing personal holiness.

To be honest, it even strikes a little fear into my heart to say things like that, because I fear sounding unloving. But, as I’m learning from being married(6 weeks ago), sometimes the most loving thing you can do is be honest and truthful, stick the knife in, and hope the wound does the other person some good. That is love. It’s not a feeling, it’s trying to help someone embrace the truth and take action to become better.
Posted by

Friday, September 19, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Peter wrote: It IS POSSIBLE to not condemn somebody and at the same time not condone behavior that the Bible does not condone. THAT is the balance we need.

John 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 5:14
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Peter, one of the problems is, if a Christian today would said, “go and sin no more,” they would be condemned as judgemental. Just the very declaration that homosexuality is a sin will put a label on we who say it. In the homosexual community, to not ‘condone their sin is to be a intolerant, judgemental bigot.

So even to use the words of Jesus, “go and sin no more” will get a Christian pronounced, ‘bigot,’ and sadly, that will come out of the mouth of the righteous Christian.
fishon
Posted by Ray Hughes

Friday, September 19, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Here is another article worth reading that captures the actual situation:

http://tinyurl.com/4b8xvr

The last statement is one that I think clarifies the issue: “I believe everyone is welcome at God’s table,” said Switzer. “My issue is marriage. I believe marriage is a sacrament that God intended for a man and a woman. At the same time, I believe there are many more important issues, such as poverty and human trafficking, that God is calling us to address. These are the things I’d like to see us spending more of our energy speaking to.”

Human Rights belong to all people and should be sought after by Christ’s followers. Marriage is not a basic human-right, but protection, for all people, from hateful acts certainly should be.

I do not think this forum is the appropriate one for this discussion. I would just like to bring clarity to what is actually happening in the UMC. We are at an important stage in the life of our church and it would be nice if we could all pray that God ‘s agenda would win out in this case. And, pray that God’s agenda would win in each of our responses to issues we disagree on and the people that they affect.

Page 1 of 2 pages

1 2 >

Post Your Comments:

Hi... I'm Todd Rhoades. I'm a chronic workaholic, love to connect leaders with other leaders, and would consider myself somewhat of a 'maven'. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you'll like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step.