The Judicial Council upheld most of the results of the recent special General Conference thereby upholding the ban on clergy conducting same-sex marriages and people actively engaging in homosexual activities being ordained. There is no ban on celibate same sex attracted persons being ordained. Bishops may not ordain self-identified homosexual persons who are engaging in ongoing sexual relations (same standard for heterosexuals).

Quote:

---

Petition 90032 - Footnote 1 Qualifications for Ministry - 304.3
Expands the definition of "self-avowed practicing homosexual" to include those "living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union, or is a person who publicly states she or he is a practicing homosexual."

Petition 90036 - Episcopal Responsibilities - 415.6
Prohibits bishops from consecrating, commissioning or ordaining self-avowed homosexuals. (The text does not include the word "practicing.")

Petition 90042 - Minimum Penalty - 2711.3
Mandates penalties for clergy convicted of performing same-sex wedding ceremonies. Those penalties are a one-year suspension without pay for the first offense and termination of conference membership and church credentials for a second offense.

Petition 90043 - Qualifications for Ministry - 304.5
Prohibits conference boards of ordained ministry from approving candidates not meeting ordination standards regarding sexuality.

Petition 90044 Complaint Process - 362.1 e) and 413.3 d)
Allows complaint dismissal only if it has no basis in law or fact and mandates information shared with the complainant during the complaint process.

Petition 90045 (excluding the second sentence) - Just Resolution 362.1, 413.3(c), 2701.5, 2706.5(c)3
Expands just resolution requirements to include a statement of harms involved and how the resolution addresses them. [Note: A sentence mandating that each just resolution include a commitment by the respondent not to repeat the violation was ruled unconstitutional and is therefore null and void.]

Petition 90046 - Just Resolution - 362.1(c), 413.3(c), 2701.5, and 2706.5(c)3
Requires the complainant to be a party in the just resolution process.

Petition 90047 - Church Appeal - 2715.10
Allows the church to appeal errors of law from trial court findings to the Judicial Council.

CONSTITUTIONAL PER DECISION 1379
Effective immediately (U.S.) / Jan. 1, 2021 (Africa, Europe and the Philippines)
Petition 90066 - Disaffiliation - NEW 2553
Establishes "limited rights" and requirements for churches to disaffiliate for reasons related to church law on homosexuality and retain local church property.

---

The ruling also allows churches to disaffiliate with the United Methodist Church after meeting certain apportionment/pension contribution requirements.

https://www.umnews.org/en/news/2019-general-conference-legislation-judicial-council-decisions

Quote:

---

Expands the definition of "self-avowed practicing homosexual" to include those "living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union, or is a person who publicly states she or he is a practicing homosexual."

---

I don't like this language to be honest. I think there should be a path for the person who wants to take advantage of all the legal benefits of marriage while proclaiming that they aren't married "spiritually" (I hate the way this reads, but I can't figure out a better way) and remaining celibate.

I fear this is far from over for the Methodist.

Youth Group Stands Up to Church's Anti-LGBT Policies

Quote:

---

An 8-student confirmation class at First United Methodist in Omaha, Nebraska announced that they have chosen not to become members of the church at this time. Their decision comes after the United Methodist Church as a whole, adopted a formal stance of anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

---

I get that.

It will be interesting to see what happens once the first domino falls. I'm also curious to see where the churches that leave go.

Curious if the ELCA or Episcopal Church tries to suck them in.

AgLiving06 said:

---

I fear this is far from over for the Methodist.

Youth Group Stands Up to Church's Anti-LGBT Policies

Quote:

---

An 8-student confirmation class at First United Methodist in Omaha, Nebraska announced that they have chosen not to become members of the church at this time. Their decision comes after the United Methodist Church as a whole, adopted a formal stance of anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

---

---

How woke of them.

NoahAg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I fear this is far from over for the Methodist.

Youth Group Stands Up to Church's Anti-LGBT Policies

Quote:

---

An 8-student confirmation class at First United Methodist in Omaha, Nebraska announced that they have chosen not to become members of the church at this time. Their decision comes after the United Methodist Church as a whole, adopted a formal stance of anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

---

---

How woke of them.

---

Since the liberal churches will soon form their own denomination they will certainly have a choice.

Good thread here:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/disunited-methodists-disunited-states/

Methodists: if you have ever thought about joining the Apostolic church (Catholic / Orthodox), now is the time - we have many problems, including priests who abuse Christ by their lusts, but the deposit of faith remains strong in the Sacraments

Redstone said:

---

Good thread here:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/disunited-methodists-disunited-states/

Methodists: if you have ever thought about joining the Apostolic church (Catholic / Orthodox), now is the time - we have many problems, including priests who abuse Christ by their lusts, but the deposit of faith remains strong in the Sacraments

---

The split is really over how we read the Bible. Progressives will invariably characterize their opposition as "fundamentalists" and to be fair, Bishop Oliveto is trying to be generous in her demeanor. But progressives and their allies will meet later this month in Kansas City to "determine the next step"...which will be a denominational fission. I have it on good authority that the progressive conferences are already aligning their finances and make no mistake, this is really about insuring that progressive clergy are financially secure. So they will sell off church properties and shore up clergy pension funds while ministry to rural and poorer communities suffer as churches close. As for the apostolic remnant? My conference will undoubtedly go progressive leaving me without a church home. Suddenly that Assembly of God down the street looks pretty good.

UTExan said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Good thread here:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/disunited-methodists-disunited-states/

Methodists: if you have ever thought about joining the Apostolic church (Catholic / Orthodox), now is the time - we have many problems, including priests who abuse Christ by their lusts, but the deposit of faith remains strong in the Sacraments

---

The split is really over how we read the Bible. Progressives will invariably characterize their opposition as "fundamentalists" and to be fair, Bishop Oliveto is trying to be generous in her demeanor. But progressives and their allies will meet later this month in Kansas City to "determine the next step"...which will be a denominational fission. I have it on good authority that the progressive conferences are already aligning their finances and make no mistake, this is really about insuring that progressive clergy are financially secure. So they will sell off church properties and shore up clergy pension funds while ministry to rural and poorer communities suffer as churches close. As for the apostolic remnant? My conference will undoubtedly go progressive leaving me without a church home. Suddenly that Assembly of God down the street looks pretty good.

---

What Conference you in UTExan?

Mountain Sky, along with Bishop Oliveto.

UTExan said:

---

Mountain Sky, along with Bishop Oliveto.

---

Gotcha..understood..

1). I pray for those in these struggles, our Protestant brothers and sisters
2). The Bible being argued over is a product of the Apostolic faith - the Church came first, not the Bible, which is not the word of God because Jesus the Logos is the Word of God

Leave the heretics to their heresy
Consider the Apostolic faith, engage the Sacraments, and fight the demonic forces trying to debase the Sacraments from the "inside"

UTExan said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Good thread here:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/disunited-methodists-disunited-states/

Methodists: if you have ever thought about joining the Apostolic church (Catholic / Orthodox), now is the time - we have many problems, including priests who abuse Christ by their lusts, but the deposit of faith remains strong in the Sacraments

---

The split is really over how we read the Bible. Progressives will invariably characterize their opposition as "fundamentalists" and to be fair, Bishop Oliveto is trying to be generous in her demeanor. But progressives and their allies will meet later this month in Kansas City to "determine the next step"...which will be a denominational fission. I have it on good authority that the progressive conferences are already aligning their finances and make no mistake, this is really about insuring that progressive clergy are financially secure. So they will sell off church properties and shore up clergy pension funds while ministry to rural and poorer communities suffer as churches close. As for the apostolic remnant? My conference will undoubtedly go progressive leaving me without a church home. Suddenly that Assembly of God down the street looks pretty good.

---

Yes, the Adam Hamilton/Scott Jones are already witholding millions of dollars from the denomination because it didn't vote their way. I am sure Adam wants to be the first gay marriage/clergy supporting splinter denomination 'methodist pope,' and has the backing/funding to do it.

I think it's disgusting how harmful their brand of politics is to a denomination/body that does so much good.

Quote:

---

I think it's disgusting how harmful their brand of politics is to a denomination/body that does so much good.

---

Yes, it's disgusting to see partisan politics infect the body of Christ.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Expands the definition of "self-avowed practicing homosexual" to include those "living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union, or is a person who publicly states she or he is a practicing homosexual."

---

diehard03 said:

I don't like this language to be honest. I think there should be a path for the person who wants to take advantage of all the legal benefits of marriage while proclaiming that they aren't married "spiritually" (I hate the way this reads, but I can't figure out a better way) and remaining celibate.

---

Why is the church concerned with legal benefits? What marriage involves celibacy? What is spiritual marriage?

---

I didn't mean to post and disappear, but I will explain my thoughts anyway:

I am asking the same question on why the church cares if they are in a domestic partnership or civil union. They are actively bringing one's legal standing into the discussion.

in the end, I don't see a problem with a pastor with same sex attraction being "married" on paper for things like asset transfer, etc while maintaining a spiritual and sexual separation.

To me, this seems to empower the state to be the one who defines marriage.

Quote:

---

I am asking the same question on why the church cares if they are in a domestic partnership or civil union. They are actively bringing one's legal standing into the discussion.

---

Excellent question!

Probably nobody would give a hang about their civil marriage status. What the progressives want is for the (entire) general church to give the same status to same-sex spousal relationships as to heterosexual spousal relationships. The problem is that there is no Biblical precedent for that type of relationship.

Furthermore, they want "practicing" gay and lesbian clergy to be ordained, which means recognition throughout the church. "Practicing" gay clergy have been a huge problem for the Catholic Church if you look at their history of late.

Let's put it this way: if a heterosexual seminary student/candidate for ordination was found to be sleeping around, the bishop should remove them from consideration. Yet, for years, this has not happened.

Quote:

---

What the progressives want is for the (entire) general church to give the same status to same-sex spousal relationships as to heterosexual spousal relationships. The problem is that there is no Biblical precedent for that type of relationship.

Furthermore, they want "practicing" gay and lesbian clergy to be ordained, which means recognition throughout the church.

---

It depends on what you call progressives. I don't believe there's a "big gay agenda" to subvert the church. However, there are very well-meaning gay christians that range on the spectrum from wanting church-wide acceptance of their lifestyle to just wanting to not be yelled at.

And so we can avoid the discussion, I am defining a "gay christian" as someone who identifies in some way into both communities. You can debate the merits of that but I have no desire to.

Quote:

---

"Practicing" gay clergy have been a huge problem for the Catholic Church if you look at their history of late.

---

I think their problem has been caused by creating a safe haven for monsters and not taking responsibility for it rather than gay clergy.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Expands the definition of "self-avowed practicing homosexual" to include those "living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union, or is a person who publicly states she or he is a practicing homosexual."

---

diehard03 said:

I don't like this language to be honest. I think there should be a path for the person who wants to take advantage of all the legal benefits of marriage while proclaiming that they aren't married "spiritually" (I hate the way this reads, but I can't figure out a better way) and remaining celibate.

---

Why is the church concerned with legal benefits? What marriage involves celibacy? What is spiritual marriage?

---

I didn't mean to post and disappear, but I will explain my thoughts anyway:

I am asking the same question on why the church cares if they are in a domestic partnership or civil union. They are actively bringing one's legal standing into the discussion.

in the end, I don't see a problem with a pastor with same sex attraction being "married" on paper for things like asset transfer, etc while maintaining a spiritual and sexual separation.

To me, this seems to empower the state to be the one who defines marriage.

---

I viewed it more as seeking to be as all-encompassing and specific as possible of what is prohibited, rather than caring which legal status the person had. So a person might respond that they're not married since they're in a civil union of domestic partnership. The response was, well I guess we better rule those out too. Or they might preach sound doctrine and seek to remain in the denomination but profess to be a practicing homosexual. Rather than deal with the problems arising from it or strife that may come from within in the future, just cover it all.

Do you really not see a problem with a sham marriage set up for asset transfer? Or do you not oppose gay marriage? I guess the rest doesn't follow for me since I interpreted it differently.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

What the progressives want is for the (entire) general church to give the same status to same-sex spousal relationships as to heterosexual spousal relationships. The problem is that there is no Biblical precedent for that type of relationship.

Furthermore, they want "practicing" gay and lesbian clergy to be ordained, which means recognition throughout the church.

---

It depends on what you call progressives. I don't believe there's a "big gay agenda" to subvert the church. However, there are very well-meaning gay christians that range on the spectrum from wanting church-wide acceptance of their lifestyle to just wanting to not be yelled at.

And so we can avoid the discussion, I am defining a "gay christian" as someone who identifies in some way into both communities. You can debate the merits of that but I have no desire to.

Quote:

---

"Practicing" gay clergy have been a huge problem for the Catholic Church if you look at their history of late.

---

I think their problem has been caused by creating a safe haven for monsters and not taking responsibility for it rather than gay clergy.

---

Why would you think there's no gay agenda to subvert the church? Certainly it's bombarded politically and has been co-opted regularly not only presently but in Europe throughout time immemorial. I saw a post today about the Swedish national church that's worth a read:

https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/05/10/secularizing-church-sweden-politics-alone

If it serves God there is certainly going to be an attempt to subvert it. Just because it's one group today doesn't mean it won't be another in the future. Revoice and reconciliaiton movements are working very hard to change it. The lead singer of imagine dragons wore a shirt for his SB halftime performance for an lgbt .org and talks about wanting to dialogue with the Mormon church about it. Dialogue is the big buzzword now, rather than agenda, but what's to dialogue about unless the church changes? You say there's no agenda but there seems to be a common thread through many denominations about this issue. How is acceptance not the agenda?

Quote:

---

I viewed it more as seeking to be as all-encompassing and specific as possible of what is prohibited, rather than caring which legal status the person had. So a person might respond that they're not married since they're in a civil union of domestic partnership. The response was, well I guess we better rule those out too. Or they might preach sound doctrine and seek to remain in the denomination but profess to be a practicing homosexual. Rather than deal with the problems arising from it or strife that may come from within in the future, just cover it all.

Do you really not see a problem with a sham marriage set up for asset transfer? Or do you not oppose gay marriage? I guess the rest doesn't follow for me since I interpreted it differently.

---

This clarity is giving the state the power to define marriage, though. There's no need to do this. If a person is not married but in a civil union, then they are not allowed to "practice" homosexuality anyway because they'd be committing other sins.

As far as sham marriages go, I am for domestic partnerships for everyone and the state can allow who it chooses and does not choose to allow to be legally married. Whatever church can then define whom it does and does not allow to be married.

Quote:

---

Why would you think there's no gay agenda to subvert the church? Certainly it's bombarded politically and has been co-opted regularly not only presently but in Europe throughout time immemorial. I saw a post today about the Swedish national church that's worth a read:

https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/05/10/secularizing-church-sweden-politics-alone

If it serves God there is certainly going to be an attempt to subvert it. Just because it's one group today doesn't mean it won't be another in the future. Revoice and reconciliaiton movements are working very hard to change it. The lead singer of imagine dragons wore a shirt for his SB halftime performance for an lgbt .org and talks about wanting to dialogue with the Mormon church about it. Dialogue is the big buzzword now, rather than agenda, but what's to dialogue about unless the church changes? You say there's no agenda but there seems to be a common thread through many denominations about this issue. How is acceptance not the agenda?

---

Their agenda is only "please stop trying to change the laws that make it harder for me to live my life".

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I viewed it more as seeking to be as all-encompassing and specific as possible of what is prohibited, rather than caring which legal status the person had. So a person might respond that they're not married since they're in a civil union of domestic partnership. The response was, well I guess we better rule those out too. Or they might preach sound doctrine and seek to remain in the denomination but profess to be a practicing homosexual. Rather than deal with the problems arising from it or strife that may come from within in the future, just cover it all.

Do you really not see a problem with a sham marriage set up for asset transfer? Or do you not oppose gay marriage? I guess the rest doesn't follow for me since I interpreted it differently.

---

This clarity is giving the state the power to define marriage, though. There's no need to do this. If a person is not married but in a civil union, then they are not allowed to "practice" homosexuality anyway because they'd be committing other sins.

As far as sham marriages go, I am for domestic partnerships for everyone and the state can allow who it chooses and does not choose to allow to be legally married. Whatever church can then define whom it does and does not allow to be married.

---

They're defining specific qualifications for ministry. It says that right above the paragraph. This has nothing to do with defining marriage for the church. Are you trying to troll?

Quote:

---

They're defining specific qualifications for ministry. It says that right above the paragraph. This has nothing to do with defining marriage for the church. Are you trying to troll?

---

I guess I could ask you the same thing. They are incorporating legal definitions of a marriage into the conversation with no reason to. A civil union and a domestic partnership are not marriages. Therefore, it's already covered until sins relations to being extramarital.

Quote:

---

That's not the cause of denominations splitting which we are discussing in this thread. That's not the logic behind Revoice. And that's certainly not a current issue; it's well out of date at this point with the speed of social change which is currently running the other direction roughshod over religious rights (such as the equality act in the house which is trying to circumvent RFRA and the courts for remedies). In order to make that argument you have to ignore all of the specific references to groups seeking doctrinal change that I made and the core of the issue in this thread.

It wouldn't see out of bounds to ask which side of the church divide you're on.

---

The same side you're on. I just don't have any animosity towards those with misguided approaching to trying to love people like Jesus would.

My point is that homosexuals, as a whole or as a community, have no desire to infiltrate the church and destroy it. Are there people trying to figure out "how to gay and christian"? Sure. Are people going overboard due to "hate" they feel by Christians on the topic? Of course they are. They are human.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're defining specific qualifications for ministry. It says that right above the paragraph. This has nothing to do with defining marriage for the church. Are you trying to troll?

---

I guess I could ask you the same thing. They are incorporating legal definitions of a marriage into the conversation with no reason to. A civil union and a domestic partnership are not marriages. Therefore, it's already covered until sins relations to being extramarital.

---

As someone who wasn't privy to the discussion yourself and who hasn't gone to the conference your base assumption is that it's not necessary. Clearly they disagree and there's probably more to it. On what basis do you assert there's no reason, given your ignorance of all of that? Shouldn't you give them leeway as fellow believers who have been debating this for years? (And I don't use ignorance as an insult but simply the base definition of the word, meaning a person who simply does not know - you were not party personally to any of this).

I asked you if you were trolling because your argumentation doesn't follow the thread but has become about equal rights and treatment rather than doctrine and expectations of ministry. It may seem insulting to you but it's a logical question give them that you're not engaging with the OP but defending gay marriage and behavior while slinging arrows at others.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's not the cause of denominations splitting which we are discussing in this thread. That's not the logic behind Revoice. And that's certainly not a current issue; it's well out of date at this point with the speed of social change which is currently running the other direction roughshod over religious rights (such as the equality act in the house which is trying to circumvent RFRA and the courts for remedies). In order to make that argument you have to ignore all of the specific references to groups seeking doctrinal change that I made and the core of the issue in this thread.

It wouldn't see out of bounds to ask which side of the church divide you're on.

---

The same side you're on. I just don't have any animosity towards those with misguided approaching to trying to love people like Jesus would.

My point is that homosexuals, as a whole or as a community, have no desire to infiltrate the church and destroy it. Are there people trying to figure out "how to gay and christian"? Sure. Are people going overboard due to "hate" they feel by Christians on the topic? Of course they are. They are human.

---

Did you read the article I posted about the Swedish church? Corrupting or changing doctrine is destroying the church, even under the guise of things like figuring out 'how to gay and Christian.' That's the point of the divide. There are always people or things trying to infiltrate and destroy the church. We live in a fallen world. It's the same premise as systemic racism.

There's no animus in my responses. I'm sorry you're reading that into them. I asked if you were trolling because you're not replying to the OP, not to be insulting. You've mistaken honesty inquiry for hostility. I'll bow out since it seems you'll take the rest of my posts that way.

Quote:

---

As someone who wasn't privy to the discussion yourself and who hasn't gone to the conference your base assumption is that it's not necessary. Clearly they disagree and there's probably more to it. On what basis do you assert there's no reason, given your ignorance of all of that? Shouldn't you give them leeway as fellow believers who have been debating this for years? (And I don't use ignorance as an insult but simply the base definition of the word, meaning a person who simply does not know - you were not party personally to any of this).

I asked you if you were trolling because your argumentation doesn't follow the thread but has become about equal rights and treatment rather than doctrine and expectations of ministry. It may seem insulting to you but it's a logical question give them that you're not engaging with the OP but defending gay marriage and behavior while slinging arrows at others.

---

I don't understand what you are doing here. You aren't party to any of this either, so none of your arguments hold any weight either. You seem to want to go by some internet ruleset for debate. I made a point, responded to the OP and others, and the OP is free to come back or not at all.

On the note of "leeway", I think the debate is part of the problem. Trying to codify everything has opened many doors that they never needed to open.

Quote:

---

Did you read the article I posted about the Swedish church? Corrupting or changing doctrine is destroying the church, even under the guise of things like figuring out 'how to gay and Christian.' That's the point of the divide. There are always people or things trying to infiltrate and destroy the church. We live in a fallen world. It's the same premise as systemic racism.

---

No. You posting an article doesn't confir any authority or any necessity to read on anyone's part. It's a particular account of a different society with different religious and cultural values than our own. They have a different history than our own. No one is America is doing any doctrine changes under the GUISE of anything. They genuinely think their actions are what Jesus would advocate for. You can agree or disagree with their thoughts on what Jesus would do.

I don't think the JJ Warren speech was to intentionally bring destruction to the church. I think he genuinely wants to fulfill what he thinks is his calling to be a minister as a gay man. While I disagree with him, I don't think he's trying to do what you saying he's doing.

I think we do ourselves a disservice by assuming that misguided attempts are the same as intentional destruction.