Tuesday, November 01, 2005


from The United Methodist Social Principles contained in the Book of Discipline:

"Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."

It would seem that yesterday's ruling by the Judicial Council to allow the pastor sole discretion to reject someone from membership in the UMC, and given the spirit and circumstances that it was determined, is not in the same spirit as our BOD. If this ruling is used as ammunition against the GLBT community to keep them out then it would seem that pastors could be brought up on charges against the discipline?


jay v. said...

True, except the Judicial Council has already ruled that the Social Principles do not have the weight of law.

St.Phransus said...

of course they have...

Thunder Jones said...

Social principles... sounds like socialism to me! Are you red, Phransus?

St.Phransus said...

you know it thunda

... thunda

... thunda

... thunda


Joel Thomas said...

Social Principles have the weight of law depending on how they are worded, not where they are located. Most of the Social Principles were written as recommendations, so aren't binding. However, the Judicial Council has ruled that anything that appears in the Social Principles section that has mandatory type language has the force of law. So, it isn't what section something is contained in, it is how it is worded. One of the original arguments against enforcability of a gay-related prohibtion was that it was in the Social Principles section. The Council said the only thing that mattered was that it was written not as a recommendation but as a law. Eventually, however, that section was relocated outside the Social Principles section.