Methodist Statement

[skeptic]

Edited by John-in-KC, for best sources:

 

ON THE UMC WEB SITE:  Churches Can Have Openly Gay Scout Leaders

 

ON THE UNITED METHODIST MEN WEBSITE:  Statement by the General Secretary of the General Commission on United Methodist Men Related to the Recent Adult Membership Policy Shift by the Boy Scouts of America

Edited July 29, 2015 by John-in-KC

[Gone]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153416372225801&id=186158715800

Interesting because that conflicts with the statement from the Methodists men's group that said they'd review the policy change at a meeting next month.

[Stosh]

Everyone seems to be knee-jerking in their attempt to be politically correct and not doing much forethought into their processes of change.  It's a bit like some massive social domino effect because of BSA's abrupt change in ideology.  There is no way anyone spent any time identifying collateral damage and so all the various religious bodies are trying to either justify a change or politely buy more time to see what drops out unexpectedly from the shaken tree.

 

What we're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg, there's a whole series of things that have been set into place and no way of knowing where it is going to lead to.  It's a bit like Pandora's Box.  Our curiosity is but temporarily sated, reality has yet to set in.

[John-in-KC]

From my experience, many UMC churches are "inclusive" and have been for some years.  Many, many folks who I know who are Methodist Scouters, who are friends of mine on FB, applauded the Oberfell decision as well as the BSA policy change.

[MattR]

Everyone seems to be knee-jerking in their attempt to be politically correct and not doing much forethought into their processes of change.  It's a bit like some massive social domino effect because of BSA's abrupt change in ideology.  There is no way anyone spent any time identifying collateral damage and so all the various religious bodies are trying to either justify a change or politely buy more time to see what drops out unexpectedly from the shaken tree.

 

What we're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg, there's a whole series of things that have been set into place and no way of knowing where it is going to lead to.  It's a bit like Pandora's Box.  Our curiosity is but temporarily sated, reality has yet to set in.

 

Agreed. Lot's of tea leaves.

 

From my experience, many UMC churches are "inclusive" and have been for some years.  Many, many folks who I know who are Methodist Scouters, who are friends of mine on FB, applauded the Oberfell decision as well as the BSA policy change.

 

Is that a local view or national?

 

My guess is there are arguments going on within all of these pie slices, to use a phrase from some other thread I probably couldn't find again.

[DigitalScout]

I can't imagine the Methodist church would have any issues with the BSA allowing gay scout leaders.  They already fully support the GSUSA which has allowed gay leaders for several years.

 

The United Methodist church, like the BSA, have been struggling with the gay issue.  Currently, the UMC does not allow gay pastors nor same-sex marriage.  But many Methodists feel that this policy should change.

[John-in-KC]

Matt, that is an anecdotal observation from Kansas City.

[Stosh]

I can't imagine the Methodist church would have any issues with the BSA allowing gay scout leaders.  They already fully support the GSUSA which has allowed gay leaders for several years.

 

The United Methodist church, like the BSA, have been struggling with the gay issue.  Currently, the UMC does not allow gay pastors nor same-sex marriage.  But many Methodists feel that this policy should change.

 

"Many" indicate that not all are on board with the issue.  That leaves a potential schism out there that everyone is trying to avoid.  Had "some" not rocked the boat "many" wouldn't be at all concerned with life as usual.  But "some" have pushed back.

 

So, does one wish to know who's in the "many" group and who's in the "some" group?  Make the change.  Yes, you have a schism but one also knows who the "some" are and who the "many" are.  The UMC has had it's history of schisms over the years, Hey, so what's the big deal about having yet another?

 

If my church history is correct, I believe the Anglican Church is a break away from the Roman Catholic Church (King Henry's multiple marriages problem)  

 

Then the Episcopalian Church broke with the Anglican sometime around the Revolutionary times?

 

Then the Methodists broke from the Episcopalians because they weren't doing enough social ministry?

 

Then the Salvation Army broke from the Methodists because they didn't go far enough with their social ministry break from the Episcopalians?

 

And VOILA, None of these breaks were theological, all were politically motivated.

 

I'm thinking UMC is trying to avoid yet another major membership loss, kinda like what BSA is going to have to recover from.

 

The question is, how does one politically spin the situation to satisfy the social and media pressure to satisfy the 3-4% of the population that claims to be "non-straight".  What it could mean in the long run is for every 100 people one loses their potential of gain is 3 or 4.  That means the wording has to be very carefully politically orchestrated or something bad might happen.

 

This is why most of these religious schisms are not based on theology, but more on political dynamics gone awry.  150 years ago it was slavery, 100 years ago it was woman's right to vote, 50 years ago it was racial, now it's sexual.  The processes never change and the schisms continue to polarize the political scene until it eventually collapses. 

[Gone]

From my experience, many UMC churches are "inclusive" and have been for some years.  Many, many folks who I know who are Methodist Scouters, who are friends of mine on FB, applauded the Oberfell decision as well as the BSA policy change.

 

My friends in the south are seeing a MUCH different response from their CORs in the UMC.

[vol_scouter]

For a doctrinal or policy change in the UMC, both the clergy and the laity must both pass it.  Ordaining homosexual clergy and allowing gay marriage would have to both pass the clergy and the laity.  The clergy have brought it up many times over the past 30 or 40 years where the clergy in turn passes it but it gets soundly defeated by the laity.  So whereas saying many Methodists support those changes might be correct but saying most would not be correct.  If past trends continue, it does not look like there will be a change for some time but with the rapid change in the nation there could be a dramatic shift.  

 

One way or the other, as the second largest Chartered Partner, the support of the clergy and the laity through the United Methodist Men is certainly a positive for the BSA.

[KenD500]

Now the statement from the General Secretary of the UMM is gone.

 

I find this out right after my IH (Methodist) asks for it.