I thought gay clergy were ok in United Methodist circles?
quote: BOTHELL, Washington (AP) -- Despite efforts by dozens of protesters to block it, the United Methodist Church trial of an openly lesbian pastor got under way with one witness warning clergymen not to "replicate the crucifixion of Jesus."
Dozens of supporters of the Rev. Karen Dammann were arrested Wednesday in this Seattle suburb as they tried to block the start of the trial before a church panel that will determine whether she should continue her ministry.
Dammann, 47, is charged with "practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible to Christian teachings." Church law prohibits ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals, although the church's social principles support rights and liberties for homosexuals.
Dammann is on leave as pastor of First United Methodist Church in Ellensburg, 95 miles east of Seattle. Last week she married her partner of nine years, Meredith Savage, in Portland, Oregon, where officials began allowing gay marriages earlier this month. The couple has a 5-year-old son.
Dammann has pleaded not guilty.
One of her first witnesses Wednesday was Mary Ann Tolbert, a professor of biblical studies at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, and executive director of its Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies.
Tolbert said the church is inconsistent in how it applies its Book of Discipline. At one time, for example, divorce was not allowed, but the church has since changed its stance, she said.
"It seems to me that, with all due respect, you are acting as a hypocrite," she said.
Tolbert reminded the jurors that Jesus was killed because he disagreed with the religious norms of his time.
"We have to be very careful, you have to be very careful, that you don't replicate the crucifixion of Jesus in what you do," she said.
In an opening statement, Dammann's church counsel, the Rev. Bob Ward, compared the struggle of gays and lesbians with the struggle that women and minorities had in gaining rights.
The difference, he said, is that "with gays and lesbians, they are encouraged to hide, as we have adopted a policy of 'don't ask, don't tell."'
"Karen has chosen not to live the lie," Ward said.
But the Rev. James Finkbeiner, representing the church, called on the jury to find Dammann guilty of the charge of being a self-avowed, practicing homosexual. He told jurors that because Dammann disclosed her homosexuality to the bishop as well as to the entire church, that is all the proof needed to find her guilty.
"It is not the law of the church that is on trial here," Finkbeiner said.
United Methodist officials have said the trial is the first against a homosexual pastor in the denomination since 1987, when the credentials of the Rev. Rose Mary Denman of New Hampshire were revoked.
"Clearly the jury has to look at this prohibition and decide if it's consistent with the rest of our Methodist rules and with the Bible," Lindsay Thompson, Dammann's private lawyer, said earlier.
Dammann has said she hopes her trial will help move society and the church toward greater acceptance of gay clergy.
"We accept the gift of sexuality as God-given and holy," she said in defense papers released by Reconciling Ministries Network, a group favoring inclusion of gays and lesbians in the United Methodist Church.
Nine votes are needed for conviction, which would be followed by a decision by the same jury on a penalty that could include loss of ministry. If Dammann is acquitted, she would be considered in good standing and be available for new assignments.
About 100 people protested loudly Wednesday morning outside Bothell United Methodist Church, and many tried to block church officials from entering the building. Police arrested 33 when they refused to move.
1) clergy are supposed to be celibate outside of marriage.
2) The church doesn't recognize homosexual marriage.
3) So...gay & lesbian clergy must remain celibate.
I'm wondering whether this situation might end up changing the UM standpoint on homosexual marriage, though.
This woman's congregation is almost totally behind her. The case against her was dismissed twice on the way to her conviction, and now there's a panel set to review it and they may just say that the rules are unjust.
I'll be very interested to see what they do.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This woman's congregation is almost totally behind her.
I don't think this makes a good argument supporting her. I would think that most of the congregation that would not support her has left that church and moved on to another.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if I gave that impression, Banna. The current position of the UMC is not to ordain “self avowed practicing homosexuals,” or to solemnize same-sex marriage. The question comes up every four years at General Conference, and probably will continue to do so. My prayer is that by the time the policy changes (which I have no doubt it will) it will have broad enough support that it won’t split the church.
The petition up for consideration at this quadrennium’s conference would change the language of the discipline from “although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching” to “faithful Christians disagree on whether the practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching.” Which I think would better reflect the current reality in our denomination.
Historical note – this isn’t the first of these trials, by a long shot, and I don’t think this one will precipitate the crisis either, though I suppose it might. The media tends to underestimate the ability of United Methodists (and Christians in general) to work through their differences.
posted
I think the church panel will, of course, find her guilty of breaking the current church rules, and therefore, no longer let her preach.
But this could, in the future, cause a reform of the rules being used as a guideline for this case, as dkw mentioned.
As the article said, it is this person and whether she did/didn't break current church policy and teachings that is on trial at this time, not the validity of the teaching itself.
posted
Finding her guilty would not necessarily result in no longer letting her preach. She’ll lose her ordination, but she could still be commissioned as a lay missioner or lay speaker. If the congregation supports her and her Bishop is willing, it's possible she could stay in leadership at that church, though she could no longer perform the sacraments. Assuming she’s willing to make that compromise, which she may not be.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tolbert reminded the jurors that Jesus was killed because he disagreed with the religious norms of his time.
So anyone who disagrees with religious norms is like Jesus?
quote:"Karen has chosen not to live the lie," Ward said.
Being honest about your actions is the first step of repentance, not a free pass to continue doing them. If it's officially decided that the actions aren't a problem, that would be different.
I know I'm being hard on them, but I think clergy/priests/missionaries et. al. are held to a higher standard. It's like... students who go to BYU and break the honor code. No adult has to keep curfew and avoid tube tops if they don't want to, but you do if you want to go to BYU. If it's too much to ask, don't go to the Y!
quote:Being honest about your actions is the first step of repentance, not a free pass to continue doing them.
In this case it is neither, as her honesty has given her anything but a "free pass". But then it's hard to fully understand the cost of something you've never had to pay.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
However, you're judging the validity of someone else's faith and honesty, here, and that's not your place. One might call it "catty", even. It would be a terms of service violation if she was a member of the board. You shouldn't be able to attack her faith any more than she--or I--should be able to attack yours.
I suppose I should have said that rather than implying that you obviously don't understand what this woman has gone through for her faith. I'll try to be more succinct and less catty.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, one one level I agree with you. I think this position of the church should change, and I think it will change, but until it does I think clergy should live by the commitments they made and follow the rules. (Ask Bob – I actually read him the disciplinary provisions on “celibacy in singleness, fidelity in marriage” over the phone when he asked me out on a first date. I think I startled him.)
But I also know that that is easy for me to say, since the church does bless my relationship. In fact, when I had my annual interview with the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry last week, (in which they inquire into my professional, spiritual, and personal life) they prayed for Bob and asked God to bless both of us. So, while I can intellectually say, “wait, be patient,” I have no idea how it would feel to be this much in love with someone and be told that the relationship could never be. And I ache for the clergy I know who are in that position. I also weep for our denomination when those people decide that living with integrity means transferring to a denomination that does ordain openly homosexual clergy. We just lost a brilliant clergywoman and professor of Old Testament Theology to the UCC. She’s happy, and I’m happy for her, and she and her partner are nauseatingly cute together, but I’ll miss her.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:(Ask Bob – I actually read him the disciplinary provisions on “celibacy in singleness, fidelity in marriage” over the phone when he asked me out on a first date. I think I startled him.)
I love it. And not that my opinion means anything, but I'm really proud of you.
quote: I have no idea how it would feel to be this much in love with someone and be told that the relationship could never be.
I do, actually. <following story is told because it may help, not becuase I'm trying to ... you know> I was head over heels crazy in love with my boyfriend my junior year of college. He was an English grad student, fellow Latin student, and liked about me all the things that I liked about me that horrified the Mormon guys I was forced to associate with. Our first date, we went to lunch at noon and talked until they kicked out us that night at nine o'clock. He was married and in the classics PhD program at Arizona, last I heard. I broke up with him because I absolutely want to get married in the temple, and I won't marry a non-member, and that's where it was headed. I know exactly what it is like to give up someone and something that I desperately wanted because the Lord wanted me to.
I realize that there's certainly hope for me, and in that sense I don't know compeltely the feeling. But... I DO know what it's like to not fit in. I know what it's like to be told that if I want to be acceptable, I have to change just about everything. And I know what it's like to live without sex, frankly. The accusations of no empathy aren't working on me, because those who throw them don't know what they are talking about. Aim at someone who isn't a virgin in her mid-twenties.
P.S. *thinks* The thing is, I'm really happy right now. And... it's a matter of ... things being worth the "sacrifice." If the commandments are true, if the Lord's telling the truth, if it is really true, then it's worth everything. It's worth some temporary heart break. I mean, it was temporary, if you define "temporary" in terms of a couple of years. I still love and believe in the doctrine that meant I had to give up the person that I wanted. And I do believe that things work out in the end according to the Lord's plan.
posted
Kat, I salute you in your religious fidelity, but do the LDS not marry non-members as a personal choice or because it is forbidden?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference, though, between waiting for marriage and a lifetime vow of celibacy. I would argue that neither of us fully understand that difference, at a visceral rather than intellectual level.
There’s also the fact that when you gave up the relationship you believed/knew that God wanted you to. We’re talking now about people who believe that the church’s current position is not God’s will – that their relationships are blessed by God, though not yet by the church. So they can’t console themselves that they’re giving something up for the Lord.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We’re talking now about people who believe that the church’s current position is not God’s will – that their relationships are blessed by God, though not yet by the church.
I guess I don't understand why someone would want be part of a church that they don't believe was in line with the will of God.
Stormy: Oh, you can marry anyone you want. My mom wasn't a member when my parents got married, and both my step-sister and one of my best friends are happily married to non-members. It wasn't right for me, though. Which in a way was harder...why does my friend get the Lord's approval to marry her boyfriend, and I don't?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess I don't understand why someone would want be part of a church that they don't believe was in line with the will of God.
I think it has to do with that they love the Methodist Church and rather than leave, they want it to change, as they see it, to be closer to what God wants.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I was on the opposite end of a relationship just like the one you described...
..except HE was the LDS, and I wasn't. I am/was a Christian, but this difference in beliefs was strong. I loved him but didn't feel like God was leading me to his church; and he, likewise, will always be a devote Mormon.
I guess my love for God, in the way I believed, was stronger at that time. And I had just seen so many marriages that had problems with unlike religious beliefs.
quote: It's just like I said before: it's easy to not call it a right when you're not denied it.
Except that I'm denied things everyday that I wouldn't consider rights. I wasn't let into the Boy Scouts-type group that our church formed, did you know that? I realize that it isn't a right to be let in.
I'm not allowed to rent a car. I don't think I'm being denied a right.
My point is that sympathy isn't always formed just because you're in a similar boat. And being denied a gay relationship might not make one think it's a right.
Yet they always do, and I think it's because we Americans have forgotten how to distinguish between a right and a privilege. I don't want to get into a fight over who gets to decide what a right is, but I do think that REMARKABLY FEW things could ever be considered rights. It might even be said that I don't have the right to life, because if I'm murdered and the guy gets the death penalty, I'm still dead. Was life really an unalienable right? Can I defend it in court? Not if I'm dead.
I wouldn't even say that being married to my husband is my right. I would fight for it, but I wouldn't claim it as a right.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if you think the church is in line with the will of God on all the major issues, but lagging behind in a few points? You aren’t seriously telling me you think the CJCLDS is infallible, are you?
posted
PSI, I wasn't talking about renting a car, I was talking about marriage. It's easy to say marriage is not a right when you have nothing stopping you from getting married.
Since LDS eat babies and other evil stuff, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have healthcare (I don't mean socialized or privatized, I mean at all). Or, maybe we could give them something "separate but equal," where doctors are allowed to see them, but not allowed to call them patients, and not allowed to write them a prescription. That sounds fair, doesn't it? After all, being able to seek out healthcare isn't a right, right? It's perfectly fine to deny people the ability to do so (with whatever economic system of your choice), right?
Welcome back to the Middle Ages, people.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I also think it’s not as big an issue in our theology as it is in yours, since we don’t link marriage to “eternal progression.” For the LDS church to condone same-sex marriage would be a MAJOR revision of a lot of core beliefs. For the UMC, it’s really a trivial detail.
Albeit a trivial detail that’s getting far more than its share of attention lately.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
out of curiosity only -- so please don't answer if this is offensive to you -- what would a person who believes as you do decide to do if their spouse fell away from the church?
Maybe this doesn't happen much (or at all???) in the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, but it seems to me that it must. Sometimes people have a reverse "awakening" and go on a different path. Should that couple divorce if one member wants to stay LDS and the other does not? Which stricture is more important; the one that says "no divorce" or the one that says "be in the church."
Or is it like Catholicism, where the person doesn't get to choose whether they are considered "in the church" or not. Once you are Catholic, they say you are Catholic forever unless THEY excommunicate you.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI: If everyone else had healthcare, but you were denied it because of your religion or sexual preference, wouldn't you protest? Wouldn't you argue that you had the same right as everyone else?
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:out of curiosity only -- so please don't answer if this is offensive to you -- what would a person who believes as you do decide to do if their spouse fell away from the church?
Maybe this doesn't happen much (or at all???) in the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, but it seems to me that it must. Sometimes people have a reverse "awakening" and go on a different path. Should that couple divorce if one member wants to stay LDS and the other does not? Which stricture is more important; the one that says "no divorce" or the one that says "be in the church."
Bob, my first impulse would be to say no question. Married is married. Having your spouse lose their testimony would suck, but you're still married.
It's a big deal, too, for when one half of a couple joins the church and the other doesn't. The best account I ever heard - this was years ago, but it made an impression on me - was a story told by a woman of some of the tension caused in her marriage when she got baptized. She was feeling sorry for herself that she had to sit in church by herself, and felt impressed to go home and tell her husband how much he meant to her, and how much she appreciated him. That eased most of the tension, because much of the resentment of the church came from him feeling he was losing part of his wife. I'd think you'd have to be really careful to make sure that doesn't happen.
The only reason I don't give free reign to that first impulse is because I'm not sure what reasons there are for a divorce. I'm not going to speculate. I don't know, and I'm not going to pretend to. *thinks* I think...that if someone is falling away from a testimony they used to hold, it is most often (not always, but most often) because there is some action their life that no longer fits with that belief system, and the belief system is that which is being given up. Depending on what the action is, THAT could be a cause for a divorce.
My heart hurts for anyone in that situation, though, because it sounds like a mess.
posted
Bob- it depends on the person. I'm pretty sure the only hard and fast recommendations for divorce in our church are for abuse of spouse or children and repeated adultery. But folks get divorced because they can't stand each other as well. (In our church, even the ones married in the temple have pretty much the same divorce rate as the rest of the culture).
I think the bigger news is how two women have a child.
Is she really going to be executed at the end of this trial? Is losing your ordination really equivalent to being executed after leading a sinless life? I'm not a supporter of the Passion, but I think this kind of comparison is just as distasteful as the major detractors find that to be. Jesus wasn't the ultimate victim.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: (In our church, even the ones married in the temple have pretty much the same divorce rate as the rest of the culture).
That's not true.
The general rate of divorce in the church is the same as the culture in which the members reside, but the rate of divorce for those active and married in the temple is much lower.
*goes off to look for stats*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think it's something like 24% of all Mormons divorce, but only 7% of Mormons in temple marriages do. Which means that the divorce rate for Mormons married outside of the temple is actually significantly higher than the national average (25%), but that temple marriages -- which only happen when the couples share the same faith, philosophies, and relatively clean lifestyles -- are very, very successful.
(Edit: this seems to make sense, as I just found that 42% of marriages between Mormons and non-Mormons end in divorce within five years, usually over religious differences.)
quote:I think...that if someone is falling away from a testimony they used to hold, it is most often (not always, but most often) because there is some action their life that no longer fits with that belief system, and the belief system is that which is being given up.
Well, I think there's also the problem of people making a commitment too lightly. People join churches for all kinds of reasons, some of them pretty flimsy and unlikely to last. What comes later can be pretty messy if they (and their spouse/others) built on that crumbling foundation.
I think "belief" in and of itself takes place on a continuum, just like everything else involving human thought and action. And some beliefs for some people are just tendrils while others are threads of steel wire.
And, I also think people get married hoping that things will grow in a particular direction (including hoping that their own faith will grow in compatible ways), but there are no guarantees.
I like the idea of making sure that the spouse feels secure when things this big change. But how many people are that smart or that aware? I'm betting most people get wrapped up in their religious conversions and look at it as "leaving the other person behind."
posted
Thanks, Tom. Those were the numbers I remembered, but I wasn't sure, and I couldn't find a link for them. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the stats I've seen say the rate of temple divorce is much lower, but its also much harder to get a temple divorce. In other words, it doesn't show anything about general divorce.
posted
Okay, then we don't know what the actual number is. From the link:
quote:A 1993 study published in Demography [magazine] showed that Mormons marrying within their church are least likely of all Americans to become divorced. Only 13 percent of LDS couples have divorced after five years of marriage
posted
There is nothing in the Bible or any related text which can even be interpreted as banning lesbian relationships. Just another case of scuzzballs pretending their nastiness is the Word of God.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, aspectre, there is. But it is a matter of interpretation. So I will repeat the proposed new UMC language, which I heartily support – faithful Christians disagree on whether or not the practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching. And add that very few people on either side of the issue are “scuzzballs.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, dkw. That particular passage is clearly a condemnation of what is now know as workplace sexual harassment. And to interpret it otherwise is as absurd as equating failure to impregnate ones dead brothers wife with masturbation.
The same place my distaste for other forms of terrorism comes from, katherina.
And only scuzzballs condone terrorism.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think we've had enough invective for one thread. Ad hominem attacks on individuals or a group of people are not part of reasoned debate...period.
Of course the use of the Bible is subject to interpretation. So is the use of any source material. Frankly even when the source comes right out and says "do this; don't do that" there is room for interpretation. Otherwise we wouldn't have any Jews or Christians supporting war and the inconsistency between the commandment against killing would be completely inconsistent with God's orders to rid the Holy Land of Philistines.
There are lots of ways to handle these issues. And people of faith can disagree about the best way to handle it and still be co-religionists and honor each others beliefs. If they don't also make claims that their way is the only way.
In the same manner, people who reject religious reasoning altogether, and who deny that faith is a good basis on which to make decisions can still enter into a dialog with those who make their decisions based in whole or in part on their faith. But it takes a willingness to respect the other person's point of view first.
That doesn't happen if namecalling is considered valid.
I really thought we were past this here. It's been painful to go through this EVERY darn time we try to have a dialog on these issues.
It also requires that people not be overly sensitive.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
According to the UMC website the church cannot appeal the verdict of the panel.
dkw--so does this mean she keeps her ordination and will continue to preach.
And, more importantly, is this a strong indication of a precedent that will be upheld in the General Council next month?
by the way, if the General Council is seemingly THIS likely to take up the issue of homosexual clergy and sexually active homosexual clergy, why did they feel the need to hold a trial when the GC is just next month?
Anyway, I'm totally in favor of this outcome.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And not that my opinion means anything, but I'm really proud of you. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
