United Methodist Church in Ministry to All Amendment

[meredithscott76]

I love this sentiment, but unfortunately, not all UMC's operate this way. That is why we have ammendment one being voted on right now.

[jdasash]

Yes, all does mean people who are gay, who are lesbian and who are transgendered.

As an added benefit, changing the list to all will mean that no class of person will ever have to wonder whether or not they will be excluded because of their class.

[jdasash]

This amendment was presented to the annual conferences by the GENERAL CONFERENCE. It truly is an effort to include all...ALL classes of person, even people who are foreign to you.

[scientastic]

This amendment is not primarily about being open to all. It is primarily about forcing congregations and pastors to accept practicing homosexuals as members.

However, it has been intentionally couched in these vague terms of "inclusivity for all" because multiple attempts to change church teaching on homosexuality have failed. To pretend this is not about homosexuality is to be completely disingenuous, and to anyone familiar with the background history of this amendment, completely laughable.

[scientastic]

Everyone who knows the debate knows the intended and actual effect this amendment will have. It will remove the ability of churches and pastors to decide whether to accept practicing, unrepentant homosexuals as members.

Good legislation-- and especially an amendment-- should be clear, specific and unambiguous about its purpose and outcomes. Since this is the intended and actual effect, why not state it accurately? Again, because it has been tried and has failed multiple times.

[necktie101]

It also means that those with disabilities can't be kept out, or people who don't have a lot of money, or people who don't dress the 'right' way, or people who are divorced, or people whose spouses aren't Christians, or people who don't speak the 'right' language.

It may have been gay Methodists like me who brought the issue to the fore, but Amendment One reaches many other groups who could be or are discriminated against.

This is a good thing, if we mean to be the church of Christ.

[scientastic]

It is entirely and intentionally disingenuous to suggest that if this amendment does not pass, disabled or poor people, etc. will be kept out.

The intention of this amendment is to make you look hateful if you vote against it, and for keeping the traditional doctrine that says homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching.

By couching it in such terms of universal openness and inclusiveness, the intent is to mislead and/or make it hard to vote against the true purpose.

[scientastic]

In fact, even practicing homosexuals are already not being "kept out" of many churches. A gay couple became members of our church several years ago, and there are plenty of churches already giving them membership. Even most churches that might not want to give them membership do not have a problem letting them attend.

The goal of this amendment is to take away all discretion in such matters from the local pastor. This is dangerous and divisive.

[scientastic]

The slogan "all means all" really shows the biggest flaw in this amendment-- it is too broad and vague. If all really does mean all, it can also be extended even to extreme cases. No one likes these examples to be brought up, but the point should be made. The local pastor will no longer have any choice but to accept a "practicing" kleptomaniac or a pedophile-- both of who may be able to say they were born that way, but who we expect to be able to regulate their behavior.

[scientastic]

Finally, even in matters of church discipline and clergy, this amendment is dangerous because it is too broad.

If someone is removed for disciplinary reasons, they would be able to force the local church to take them back.

Not only that, the language of the amendment says no member can be excluded from any organizational unit of the church. This could be a back-door way to force the church to accept practicing gay clergy.

This is a disingenuous amendment in its purpose and language.