Out the Door

Three Cheers for the Judicial Council

The Judicial Council during its spring meeting upheld the long standing position of the United Methodist Church that marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman.  Because of this UM pastors are forbidden to perform same sex unions. 

This decision involves the case of the California-Nevada Annual Conference.  The council affirmed Bishop Beverly J. Shamana’s decision voiding a resolution passed by the regional group backing retired pastors who perform same-gender marriages.

“An annual conference may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the (Book of) Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based on conscientious objections to the provisions,” the council ruled.**

In a separate decision, the council reversed California-Pacific Conference Bishop Mary Ann Swenson’s ruling supporting a conference resolution recognizing “the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.”**

Council members Jon Gray and the Rev. Kathy Austin Mahle rightly noted, “church law can only be made by the General Conference and cannot be achieved through piecemeal resolutions adopted in an annual conference session.”**

While the case should have been cut and dry, the UMC's stance on homosexuality has remained unchanged for 30 years, nation-wide judicial activism left me unsure as to how the Council would rule.  That concern was even greater given the fact that the Council members who were elected at the 2008 General Conference appeared to be left-leaning in their beliefs.  They are to be commended that they put their person opinions aside and ruled based on the statements of the Discipline.  Unfortunately that was universally true.   Council member Belton Joyner Jr. filed a dissenting opinion.  Obviously, this was a personal opinion and had no basis in church law. 

This is an issue which will not go away.  With the Iowa Supreme Court forcing their beliefs upon the people of Iowa by legalizing homosexual marriage, I am convinced that there will be some liberal members of the Iowa Conference who will seek to push the issue come June.  Hopefully, the Judicial Council's ruling will take some wind out of their sails and we'll be able to move beyond this divisive issue.  But I wouldn't count on it. 

**Quotes from UM Reporter article

When to draw a line in the sand

Our family traveled to Texas a number of years ago to see my sister who was living there at the time.  While we were there, we spent a couple of days in San Antonio.  We took a boat ride along the famous river walk, got soaked by the acrobatic stunts of Shamu at Sea World, and of course toured the Alamo.

In front of the Alamo embedded in the stone is a bronze line.  It represents the line in the sand which Col. William Travis drew when he challenged the defenders to stand and fight.

There are times in life when we need to draw a line in sand.  When we say, “This is as far as I will go and no further.”  In this age of relativism there is much which pushes us to compromise our morals and values.   If we’re going to keep from crossing the line, then we have to have a firm grasp of what our morals and values are.  The time to draw the line in the sand isn’t when the wall is breached and attackers are upon you.

The trick is as a wise old preacher once told me deciding if this mountain is worth dying for.  The patriots at the Alamo decided that liberty was worth dying for.  And they sacrificed their lives defending it. 

I’ve learned over the years that there are only a few mountains which are worth dying for, that it is a rare occasion when a line need be drawn in the sand.  Much of what I considered important as I looked at it in a new light, turned out to be more of a personal preference rather than a true deeply held value.

For instance, Julie and I never got worked up by the hair style choices that our boys made while they were growing up.  Whether it was spiked or shaved off or somewhere in between, several of which I thought were pretty strange looking, it was only hair.  We were willing to allow them the freedom to decide for themselves on such things, so that when we told them no to drugs, to drinking and driving, and the like they would understand that there was no room for compromise.

Each of us is confronted regularly with situations which challenges our likes and our values.  Deciding a head of time what things truly are our values can save a lot of unnecessary conflict, while at the same time providing us with a line which we will not cross.

New Perspective on Amendments

I've been speaking out against the amendments to the United Methodist Discipline for more than a year.  One of the reason I have opposed the restructuring on the denomination is that new levels of bureaucracy are bound to increase administrative costs.  These increased costs will result in increased apportionments which takes much needed money away from local church ministry.  While I believe we are stronger and can do more because of our connection, it is within and through the local church that the primary work of the kingdom of God is done.  Thus I am against most anything which diverts additional money away from local church ministry.

However, as I was considering the implications of the proposed changes to Amendment One I realized that if it is passed there would be considerable savings to the local church.  Since anyone who desires can become a member of the church and any member of the church can serve in any capacity they desire there would be some significant cost savings.  I've come up with four ways that churches can save money if Amendment One passes.

1.  Because the pastor could no longer make any judgment as to who is ready to take the membership vows, churches would have to do away with mandatory youth confirmation classes and adult membership classes.  Think of the savings in materials and time that would involve! 

2.  Because the pastor nor anyone else can decide who is properly prepared to serve in various ministries, there would not longer be any need to complete background checks on those working with children and youth.  After all, it doesn't matter what those checks might reveal, no person may be denied the right to serve wherever he or she desires.  Again more cost savings to the church.

3.  Because membership without any demonstration that one is serious about living out the membership vows would render membership completely meaningless there would be no need for membership records.  This will result in even more savings.

4.  Because pastors would be stripped of their God-given responsibity to shepherd God's flock, pastors who want to minister according to God's word will be brought up on charges and deflocked.  This will save many local churches the cost of having a pastor.

I guess the proposed amendments are good thing, if one just looks at them from the right perspective.

Vote No to Amendment One

Watch other videos about proposed amendments to the United Methodist Discipline.

China's abortion practices and the USA

Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently commented on the horrific practice of gender selection via abortion which is widely practiced in communist China.  It is a well established fact because of the atheist regime'sone child per family policy that millions of unborn Chinese girls have been killed in the womb.  Chinese culture puts a great emphasis on having a male heir.  With the advent of ultrasound machines, it has made it very simple for parents to determine the sex of their unborn child and if it is a girl to abort it.

Dr. Mohler concludes by saying this:  "Here we see abortion and totalitarianism hand in hand, resulting in the deaths of millions of baby girls and the abduction of at least thousands of young boys.  When human life is devalued and abortion is state policy, the Culture of Death is institutionalized.  When the "one child policy" and an ancient and ingrained preference for boys are combined, the womb becomes a deadly place to be a girl."

It's easy to look at what the Chinese are doing and condemn this inhuman practice.  But as Jesus said, don't worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye until you get the log out of your own.  So before we start pointing too many fingers at China, we'd better take a careful look at ourselves.  In America 80 - 90 percent of all Down Syndrome babies are not allowed to live. 

It has been my experience that children with Down Syndrome are among the happiest, friendliest people I have ever known.  Certainty raising a child with a disability is challenging in ways I cannot imagine and the child will never be able to live a "normal" life.  However, my life would be poorer had I not had the opportunity to know and love a number of Down Syndrome individuals.  My grandchildren likely will never get to have the joy of knowing anyone who faces incredible challenges with optimism and love, because in America the womb has become a deadly place for a Down Syndrome child.

Government thinks I'm a potential terrorist

A couple of weeks ago the Missouri Information Analysis Center released a report to law enforcement agencies across the state that tells local officials how to identify potential anti-governmental militants.  My father who lives in Missouri first alerted me to this report.  In brief it states that Ron Paul and Bob Barr supporters, people who have knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and people who display political bumper stickers are potential domestic terrorists.  Other possible signs someone may be a domestic terrorist  include people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag.  These individuals are equated with radical race hate groups and terrorists.  I guess that means that because I voted for Bob Barr and claim to be a member of the Libertarian Party on FaceBook, I'm among the potential terrorists.

Missouri Governor, Jay Nixon originally defended the report, but has since repudiated and withdrawal it.  So I thought maybe I was off the government's watch list.  Then this week, the Homeland Security Agency releases their own report on what to watch for when it comes to potential terrorist.  Among others, people who are red flagged are returning veterans and pro-lifers.  Thus far, governmental officials continue to stand by this report.  While I'm not a vet, I am a die hard supporter of the right to life and have made my beliefs known through this blog.  I guess I shouldn't have done that, after all Big Brother is watching.

I say all these things sort of tongue in cheek and don't want to anyone think that I'm caught up in some kind of conspiracy theories.  On the other hand, when the government starts naming names of opposition party members and their supporters as people to be watched, it does make me a bit paranoid.  History has shown us and continues to show us what governments are capable of doing to their citizens who don't agree with their leaders.  Anybody remember anything about McCarthyism?

PROS "Everything" Skit, Outstanding!

Our youth group, PROS, performed the "Everything" skit for our Easter services.  It was awesome!  Every time I watch it, I get goosebumps.

Is Polygamy Next?

In my post about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to legalize homosexual marriage, I asked what legal objection there could now be to polygamy.  Some may have thought that far-fetched, but check out the links in this posting from the BeliefNet blog.

A Canadian writes:

Those opposed to gay marriage said in 2004/2005 that if Canada allowed gay marriage then polygamy would follow. People who said that, like myself were called bigots, obviously detached from reality. Today we have had polygamy endorsed as inevitable by The Ottawa Citizen newspaper ("Sure, it strikes many people as a weird arrangement, but so did gay marriage -- which is now legal. Again, it's about consenting adults."), it gets op-eds endorsing it from law professors at top schools ("The Criminal Code's polygamy section, from its inception through its bizarre history of virtual non-use, has always been shrouded in an aura of xenophobia (note:  xenophobia; a fear of foreigners or strangers) and racism."), judges are deeming the practice of polygamy to be immaterial to an immigration application, and Ontario our largest province is granting polygamous men welfare benefitsand recognizing multiple marriages in family law.

Can Iowa and the USA be very far behind? I think not.

NT: The Church and The World

Iowa Supreme Court adds to the curses laid on our children

Note:  I originally posted this on Friday, April 3 just hours after the Supreme Court released their ruling.  Because I was chastised by my blogging buddy, Gavin who I highly respect, I decided that I needed to take a breathe and rethink what I have to say.  The original post was a little too Jerry Springerish, and hopefully this updated version will be more well thought out, though most of it remains unchanged.  I did remove the comments which were left after the original posting, in order to start with a clean slate.

My heart breaks today as I think about what our nation is doing to future generation of Americans.  God will not be called a liar or have His word twisted without there being terrible consequences.  It is now the law of Iowa that there is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one.  The long lasting outcome of the Court's decision is beyond what many can imagine. 

I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me.  Duet. 5:9b (NLT)  Iowans have now officially rejected God and His Word and our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

The decision makes me wonder if there are any type of human relationship which does not fall under the protection of the law.  I remember back in college when I was taking a psychology class, my professor stating that from a psychological standpoint any sexual relationship is permissible as long as it is between consenting adults.  The Supreme Court of Iowa has opened the door broadly to a legal acceptance of this idea.

That being the case, how soon will before American polygamists follow the suit of Canadians who have recently claimed in court that they have the right to marry whomever they choose, even if that choice means more than one individual?  When that happens, what possible objection can the state make against such things?  If a person can marry whomever they choose regardless of gender, why should person be denied the right to marry as many people as they wish?  I really wish that someone who supports homosexual marriage would address those questions straight on.

When I think about how all of this is going to affect my children and my children's children, I get sick to my stomach.  And when this kind action is combined with the unimaginable debt which is being place around their necks by the federal government, I find it hard not to despair.