Following are comments from confirmed sources in the PNW that reflect the
state of affairs in the UMC throughout the country at this point. I believe
these comments reflect the mind of the official renewal groups such as the
Confessing Movement (CM). I will present the comments in whole and then
begin with another version that is interspersed with my comments, which I beg
readers to consider with prayer and an open mind to God's
possible leading.
9/2/02; 12:15
Friends:
Evangelicals have long been aware of their so-called "numbers" advantage.
But in the United Methodist system, these numbers have limited authority,
not
absolute authority as in a pure democracy.
We are a system governed by law created and enforced through conferencing.
We have a constitution that provides for separation of powers and "checks
and
balances." The General Conference makes church law, but the annual
conferences are the legal entities (of organization) charged with
responsibilities within the law.
The General Conference is not an entity that may be sued, but annual
conferences are subject to state and federal laws and may be sued for
unlawful actions, such as breach of contract.
Conference officials know the law. We are not a system of congregations (by
association) but a system of conferences (by a connectional polity).
Talking louder and more passionately will not change the system. What is
needed is far deeper assessment and insight than what we have at the present
time.
We need God's instruction through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit for
the
next step.
Now I will attempt to break down these comments into their component parts
for analysis.
Evangelicals have long been aware of their so-called "numbers" advantage.
This is true among the laity but not among the clergy. The clergy are
largely Liberal, instructed in the DISbelief system of the History of
Religions School of Biblical Higher Criticism. Secretly, the clergy and
hierarchy of the Church despise the laity as ignorant, backward and even
sinful in their opposition to such as the gay rights agenda.
True believers among the clergy are practically persecuted. Defense
mechanisms begin to emerge among tradtitonalist clergy such as syncretism,
rationalization, delusional thinking, retreat to parochialism and magical
thinking.
But in the United Methodist system, these numbers have limited authority,
not absolute authority as in a pure democracy.
Yes, limited authority but not limited power. Traditionalist laity have the
power of the purse and traditionalist clergy have the power of moral
suasion. These powers should be used without fear or apology.
We are a system governed by law created and enforced through
conferencing.
Obviously not. We are a patronage system governed by coalitions and
REALPOLITICK.
We have a constitution that provides for separation of powers and "checks
and
balances.
Again, obviously not. The judiciary is not independent because the Bishops
are gatekeepers of all charges preferred against clergy.
The General Conference makes church law, but the annual conferences are
the legal entities (of organization) charged with responsibilities within
the law.
Yes, the system is flawed because of its departure from the original
Wesleyan model. In Wesley's day there was one Annual Conference to govern
the whole of Methodism; there was no General Conference. In America we
should understand that the Executives (Elders) are supposed to enforce the
laws passed by the Legislature.
When the Annual Conferences act as a law unto themselves we might as well
spare ourselves the expense of a General Conference.
Solution: give the General Conference power to REMOVE executives who refuse
to enforce the rule of law, just as Congress has the power to impeach a
president or Justice of the Supreme Court.
Separation of power cannot be absolute or it leads to abuse. Separation of
power must have checks and balances between the branches of government.
The General Conference is not an entity that may be sued, but annual
conferences are subject to state and federal laws and may be sued for
unlawful actions, such as breach of contract.
What the source is saying is that since the Board of Ordained Ministry
approved Karen and Mark for Orders, the Bishop must appoint them or be sued.
The problem with this theory is that the Bishop is a general officer of the
whole church and in his capacity the General Church may be sued by proxy if,
for instance, a gay Pastor's ex lover burns down the Parsonage, catches a
neighbor's house on fire, killing it's occupants.
Don't give me this baloney that the General Church can't be sued. RICO may
apply in some cases of institutional fraud.
Conference officials know the law.
No, they are biting their nails against the day when their house of cards
comes falling down around their heads, when the people figure out what
frauds they are with regard to the administration of Church discipline.
We are not a system of congregations (by association) but a system of
conferences (by a connectional polity).
The connectional polity has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented
because contemporary versions contain no reference to doctrine or Biblical
standards of behavior.
Talking louder and more passionately will not change the system.
Yet, Jesus said, "What you hear in private, shout from the rooftops." Paul
said, "Speak the word instantly, in season and out of season."
What is needed is far deeper assessment and insight than what we have at
the present time.
Then listen to those dissenting voices from within the Evangelical community
that traditional renewal leadership has marginalized, betrayed and
abandoned.
We need God's instruction through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit for
the
next step.
Have the current leaders of renewal NOT been getting God's instruction and
leading?
Now is a fine time to tell us, though perhaps some have known this for some
time now.
What is needed is a strategy informed by the Gospel carried out by those who
have lived the Gospel.
|