Posted on 07/02/2010 7:42:20 AM PDT by ZGuy
For the second time in less than a year, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), an official agency of the denomination, has published an article arguing that sexual relationships outside the covenant of marriage are not necessarily improper.
“An Ordained Single Woman and the Discipline,” published June 7 as part of the “Sex and the Church” series in GBCS’ weekly Faith in Action online newsletter, contends that sexual relationships should not be off-limits for unmarried UM clergy.
Last August, the controversial series featured an article by Unitarian “sexologist” Debra Haffner who wrote that one can have “a moral, ethical sexual relationship” regardless of ”whether one is married or single, 16 or 35 or 80, gay, bisexual or straight.”
The current article, written by a divorced, female United Methodist elder, takes issue with language in the United Methodist Book of Discipline that states that a failure to remain “celibate in singleness” is a “chargeable offense” for UM clergy (¶2702.1). The writer, who is not identified by GBCS, asserts that the exchanging of covenant wedding vows is not necessarily “a dividing line between moral and immoral” sexual relations.
[The] demand for celibacy [on the part of] an unmarried clergyperson leaves little room for the heart’s search to find a home in our human world.
We are extraordinarily confused by years of theological tradition and imaginative biblical reflections on: the “perpetual” virginity of Mary; a supposedly celibate Jesus; …and effusively generous women errantly assumed to be asking for forgiveness from some sexual sin….
Yet, I can’t look at this great creation of such deep, creative erotica as found in an orchid, the mossy green of the deep forest…a passion of a thunderstorm, a hill of daffodils…the rich textures of rock and sand or the…sun setting across the city in the evening announcing a coming nighttime of dreams without wondering what if… [final ellipsis in original]
I cannot look at this great creation without wondering where we might find ourselves if we insisted that rather than “just say no,” we explored what expressions of rich, loving, abundant, heart-filled, kind, honest, truly mutual, vulnerable human sexuality might look like.
Though our delusions are rich, I think we all know that a wedding and its exchanged promises are not the dividing line between moral and immoral sex…. To label true expressions of intimate, sexual love of our unmarried ethical leaders as innately “immoral” seems a bit off….
What if within this context of the 21st century, we focused on the way that good sex, within a trusted relationship, is mutually healing, mutually humbling, touching, mutually vulnerable, connected to God’s deep and powerful mysterious grace?…
What if we determined that our sexual expressions of this love is [sic] part of God’s creative, wild, abundant abandon, and part of a “for God so loved this fecund, creative, wildly [sic], passionate, colorful, diverse, energy-filled world.”
Imagine a Church that talked like this…. Imagine a Church without the attitude that a wedding or a hymen is the dividing line between moral and immoral….
Imagine how many of those things that everyone is afraid of — embodied in a fearsome rule such as that in Discipline ¶2702.1 — would dissolve as we began to truly govern ourselves knowing when “moral sex” is ready to be manifested with a partner and when it is not.
In an “editor’s note” preceding the article, Faith in Action editor Wayne Rhodes noted that the author of the column requested “that it be printed anonymously due to the strong opinions expressed and the nature of the Disciplinary strictures on her role as an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church.”
∞
Responding to the article via a letter to the editor, North Georgia Conference layman Mark Smith criticized the General Board of Church and Society for acting as “a willing conduit for unbiblical, nontraditional and unwise views on sexuality.” By publishing such a piece, “GBCS continues to be a lightning rod for denominational division,” he wrote.
Mr. Smith also characterized the writer of the column as demonstrating “narcissistic myopia in supposing that she’s presenting a new, more positive perspective on sexuality.”
What her article [advocates] — libertine sexual practices, and among unwed Methodist clergy, no less — is exactly what Jesus warned against and is exactly what the ancient Israelites were told by God to resist…. And it is precisely what has wreaked untold havoc on our own society — the major victims being women and children — since the sexual revolution of the 1960s….
We don’t lessen sin by supposing it to be something else or by using creative language to explain it away. That’s what children do. We are supposed to aspire to spiritual maturity.
The Rev. Jim McConnell Another letter to the editor, from the Rev. Jim McConnell, a retired clergy member of the Texas Annual Conference, argued that the Book of Discipline’s moral guidelines for UM clergy, including those governing appropriate sexual behavior, are “important and necessary standards for clergy and models and guides for lay persons.”
He said such standards reinforce key “biblical and traditional values of restraint, boundaries and covenant.”
[Restraint] is at least in part an expression of love because it denies self for the sake of another….
Boundaries protect the vulnerable. They also help keep those of us in positions of power or authority from inappropriate behavior that would injure others or ourselves….
Covenant expresses caring, dependability, and faithfulness…. God has repeatedly covenanted with God’s people and said something like: “You can count on me and I am counting on you!” The marriage relationship is described as a covenant and I believe expresses the same kind of thing. A husband or wife says, “You can count on me and I am counting on you!”
∞
In launching the “Sex and the Church” series last year, Bishop Deborah Kiesey (Dakotas Conference), president of the General Board of Church and Society, and Jim Winkler, the board’s chief executive, issued a joint statement saying the series would “help provide needed education to our children and ourselves.”
The “Sex and the Church” series is overseen by Linda Bales Todd, director of the Louise and Hugh Moore Population Project at the General Board of Church and Society.
∞
Paragraph 2702.1 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline reads as follows:
A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference, local pastor, clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may be tried when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in ¶2702.4) with one or more of the following offenses: (a) immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage; (b) 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 unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies; (c) crime; (d) failure to perform the work of the ministry; (e) disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church; (f) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church; (g) relationships and/or behavior that undermine[s] the ministry of another pastor; (h) child abuse; (i) sexual abuse; (j) sexual misconduct or (k) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and/or sexual harassment; or (l) racial or gender discrimination.
“... nor did He indicate that there was any such thing as an invalid marriage.”
More clearly illiterate rambling. What odd sect teaches the fertilizer you peddle? Certainly not anything close to mainline Christianity!
I've always construed that as an extended metaphor. A father cares for his sons (huoioi) but not so much for his children (paides [guessing, it's pais, paidos - sing. nom. and gen. So paides seems like a good guess for the plural]), so he may not take the trouble to chastise his bastard.
I'll bet there were right many bastard slaves in the early church, who took great solace in words like these.
Of course the absence of a Bible text enabling Apostolic succession is not, to me, a conclusive argument. But am I to understand you to say that once there were written Scriptures Apostolic forgiveness, etc. was not necessary?
Are you saying that the Catholic church would marry them and impart sacramental grace to them?
Of course the absence of a Bible text enabling Apostolic succession is not, to me, a conclusive argument.
If there is no apostolic succession taught by Jesus or the writers under inspiration then it is a man made tradition without any infallible support.
But am I to understand you to say that once there were written Scriptures Apostolic forgiveness, etc. was not necessary?
You assume that is what the scripture is talking about in context
Mat 18:17 — And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 — Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
cross reference with 1 Cr 5 we see ecclesiastical application ... we see that excommunication was taught and supported in scripture..we never see an example that would lead us to think anything otherwise. There was no individual confession until 1215 or so . If this was to be a practice of the new church Christ would have given the command as He did at the last passover.. to" do this " And we would have sen it modeled/practiced in the new church
I Believe Jesus was giving the church authority and a structure..
The forgiveness of sin is held only in the hands of the judge
Well, if the price was right ...
Of course not, not on purpose. And an annulment is a finding that no "sacramental grace" was imparted because, in this example, there wasn't "fit matter" for the sacrament. In our view sacramental grace could not be imparted. In the more troubling examples, it's usually a matter of defective intention.
If there is no apostolic succession taught by Jesus or the writers under inspiration then it is a man made tradition without any infallible support.
That's one opinion. Another is that the very term "apostle" means that the authority of the one sending is given to the one(s) sent so that just as a principle is bound by the acts of his agent, so God in Christ gives those he 'sends' binding authority.
And, of course, we would say (I know you know this; I'm just being thorough) that in addition to the canonical written tradition there is tradition handed down other ways, which is not necessarily thereby "of men." It didn't take very long after the Ascension for the idea of apostolic authority to jell. Certainly Ignatius of Antioch, who is said to have died before 118, and who knew Polycarp who knew John seems to assume it.
You assume that is what the scripture is talking about in context
Mat 18:17
Actually I was not thinking so much of that section as I was of the commissioning (note the root word "mission" - sending) in the upper room, John 20:21-23.
The church has no way of knowing the intention of the people marrying.. They may be sincere in their desire to marry at the time of the "sacrament"..the church can not judge their intention . Church tradition says that receiving a sacrament creates an indelible mark upon the soul of the recipient, the Church teaches that a marriage can not be broken, then the church skirts the prohibition against divorce by saying the proper conditions did not exist for the marriage..
The scriptures are clear..Christ told us that the only reason to dissolve a marriage was adultery and that was only allowed because of mans hardness of heart..
He tells us clearly that what God has joined together let no man put asunder .The church exempts itself from scripture and make out of whole cloth new reasons to dissolve marriages .
That's one opinion. Another is that the very term "apostle" means that the authority of the one sending is given to the one(s) sent so that just as a principle is bound by the acts of his agent, so God in Christ gives those he 'sends' binding authority.
Christ never presented that principle.. it is not outlined in the epistles that lay out church authority...
The words and work of the apostles are recorded for our spiritual benefit..so the 12 of God selection continue to teach and lead the church.
Mat 18:17
Actually I was not thinking so much of that section as I was of the commissioning (note the root word "mission" - sending) in the upper room, John 20:21-23.
I would not call it a "section" I would call it context..
The major rule of good hermeneutics is context context context
The apostles never understood or believed they possessed an authority that belongs to the Judge alone..
John 20 does not speak of men confessing their sins to the apostles.. seeking the forgiveness of God . Men no longer need a mediator between them and God.. we now have Christ as our mediator .. and scripture certainly never hints that it could be passed on
John 1:9 tells us clearly we are to confess to God.
Hebrews tells us that we can boldly come before the throne for mercy
How did the apostles understand this? We do not know, because there is no record of them ever exercising the power "to forgive sin" except in an ecclesiastical sense
Because we reject the one source of knowledge that would give us the information we seek: the living tradition of the Church.
So, I would rephrase, Some do not know because they do not trust the Church -- which is understandable, but still, IMHO, an error.
We HAVE to judge intentions, and we do it all the time in civil law. The mind of the criminal affects whether or not the crime is murder or manslaughter, stealing or unlawful withholding, etc.
then the church skirts the prohibition against divorce by saying the proper conditions did not exist for the marriage.
Good medicines can be used as poisons, "lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds," and so forth. Yes, the annulment process can be abused. That is not sufficient to conclude it is intrinsically bad.
The scriptures pertaining to dissolving a marriage are not relevant to declaring a marriage never was there to be dissolved. If I steal your property and you recover it, you did not steal from me because I never had title. I physically possessed the property, but I did not own it; I did not hold title.
[with respect to the word apostle] Christ never presented that principle..
He never defined bread or water either. The word Shaliach (Hebrew) or apostolos had established meanings. And again it smacks of assuming the thing to be proved to rule out the tradition of the Apostolic Church and then say there is no information. It may be internally consistent, but it is an alternative not a refutation of our view.
Busy updating software and have to reboot. Maybe more later. Sorry for terseness.
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.