For years, the United Methodist Church has been plagued by a growing, powerful movement of denominational leaders openly defying our denomination’s clear, biblical standards on marriage and sexual morality. Indeed, the unsustainability of such church anarchy and the increasing stridency of liberal activists was the immediate (but definitely not the sole) cause of our denomination’s current slow-motion split. However, several recent rulings, from both bishops and our denomination’s Judicial Council, have dealt significant blows against the United Methodist disobedience movement.
These recent rulings all show how faithful, theologically traditionalist United Methodists can still make a positive difference in defending biblical standards on marriage within the UMC, even when we are badly outvoted. And they showcase how liberal United Methodists should expect to continue seeing their agendas challenged and sometimes even thwarted the more and the longer theologically orthodox believers remain in the UMC.
On the one hand, no one should exaggerate the significance of these rulings. Even after these rulings, we still have a de facto reality in American United Methodism across the country in which we have non-celibate gay clergy (including bishops) and clergy who perform same-sex weddings (even apparently in conservative Mississippi), despite this blatantly violating our supposedly governing rulebook, the UMC Book of Discipline.
On the other hand, these rulings do strike significant blows against the United Methodist disobedience movement. An important reality that many overlook is how in most situations when a formal complaint has actually been filed against a minister for violating our sexuality standards, the bishops charged with enforcement try to be careful to stay within the technical letter of the law, even when they are searching for ways to avoid accountability. So, for example, in one infamous case in which a bishop simply dismissed a complaint against a minister clearly violating our standards, the bishop was able to say, with technical accuracy, that UMC Discipline ¶ 362.1.e gave him the right to choose to dismiss complaints, without firm limits. After that, the 2019 General Conference’s adoption of the Traditional Plan closed that particular loophole.
These new rulings similarly close some loopholes.
Again, they do not redirect the overall trajectory of the denomination or fundamentally change the big-picture reality of widespread United Methodist disobedience. But in some specific situations, these rulings may very well make a practical difference for a particular unqualified ministry candidate who will now be denied approval (and provide relief for any congregation rescued from having this person appointed as their pastor), or for a particular minister who will now be prevented from or face accountability for officiating a same-sex union.
These rulings further limit the tools rogue liberal bishops and others have used to promote unbiblical standards, and give tools to faithful, orthodox United Methodists demanding accountability.
Last November, all five U.S. jurisdictions of our denomination overwhelmingly adopted nearly identical resolutions entitled the “Queer Delegates’ Resolution to Center Justice and Empowerment for LGBTQIA+ People in the UMC.”
It was immediately legally challenged by traditionalist delegates in the North Central, South Central, and Southeastern jurisdictions, who requested rulings of law.
These rulings have now been issued by the bishops who were presiding at the relevant moments. Each ruling remains provisionally binding in its respective jurisdiction, until the Judicial Council, our denomination’s supreme court, has a chance to affirm, reverse, or modify it.
All three rulings basically re-affirm the longstanding principles that:
- regional bodies may adopt “future-oriented” resolutions that merely express some hope, in a merely “non-binding and aspirational” way, that the UMC will someday be more liberal on sexuality, but
- such resolutions may not in the meantime encourage disobedience to the Discipline’s prohibition on gay weddings and “self-avowed practicing homosexual” clergy or discourage enforcement of these prohibitions.
What is a bit new about these three resolutions, however, is their pressuring United Methodist bishops to declare that they are “holding in abeyance” complaints against clergy who violate these standards.
More and more bishops have recently treated “abeyance” like a magic word that they can toss out to suddenly erase the obligation to process complaints. By these bishops’ logic, any bishop can use this trick to unilaterally declare an unchecked, dictatorial right to effectively nullify any church-law standard—including those against racism, sexism, harassment, or abuse—that some bishop may not feel like enforcing in his or her area.
In the Southeast, South Carolina Bishop Jonathan Holston clearly declared this approach to be out of bounds. His decision of law (which is confusingly listed as Exhibit 2, on pages 7-12 of this case’s official docket listing), rules:
“Further, the resolution entitled in part, ‘Queer Delegate’s Call…’ is out of order due to its violation of Book of Discipline ‘Complaint Procedures” paragraph 362.1(g) which defines ‘abeyance’ only in the context of whether, ‘civil authorities are involved or their involvement is imminent on matters covered by the complaint.’ To use the word ‘abeyance,’ which is only defined by the BOD in 362.1(g), in any other way that forestalls adjudication of actions that are clearly in violation of our BOD is completely out of order.”
Holston is correct that sub-paragraph 1.g of United Methodist Discipline ¶362 limits the holding of complaints “in abeyance” to only situations involving civil authorities, some alleged crime being investigated by the police. This sub-paragraph he cites also imposes two crucial requirements for even such limited abeyances: that the abeyance be approved by the executive committee of the board of ordained ministry (rather than just unilaterally declared by a dictatorial bishop) and that the complaint “shall be reviewed at a minimum of every 90 days” (rather than just extended indefinitely).
The Southeastern legal challenge, submitted by Mississippi Pastor Stephen Sparks, challenged all three resolutions that were adopted in all five jurisdictions. Bishop Holston’s response broadly ruled that all three of these liberal resolutions inappropriately exceeded the constitutional limits of a jurisdictional conference’s authority. In doing so, he affirmed the jurisdictional Agenda Committee’s reasoning in initially ruling all three resolutions out of order (see pages 44-45). He further ruled that liberals’ extraordinarily hypocritical “Leading with Integrity” resolution, seeking to purge non-liberals from delegations and other leadership positions, imposed impermissible restrictions on who may serve in leadership.
Bishop Holston’s official ruling—and its most important part, that complaints against gay weddings and non-celibate gay clergy cannot just be indefinitely “held in abeyance”—now provisionally applies throughout the Southeastern Jurisdiction. This includes the Western North Carolina Conference, where former Council of Bishops president Ken Carter has declared such an illegitimate United Methodist “abeyance” policy.
In the South Central Jurisdiction, Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey’s ruling nullified parts of the “Queer Delegates” resolution that went beyond being merely aspirational, although her ruling avoided directly addressing the conflict with ¶362.1.g’s rules for abeyances.
In the North Central Jurisdiction, however, I submitted and framed my legal challenge in a way that asked about ¶362.1.g in a more pointed way.
Like in the Southeast, Illinois-Great Rivers Conference Bishop Frank Beard judged that United Methodist bishops indefinitely “holding in abeyance” sexual-morality complaints is out of bounds. Beard ruled, “The resolution’s call for ‘abeyance’ does contradict the Book of Discipline’s requirement for complaints held in abeyance as outlined in paragraph 362.1g and therefore is null, void, and of no effect.”
His decision of law goes onto acknowledge, “An abeyance or moratorium was proposed to the General Conference, but the General Conference Session was not held, and delegates were not able to adopt or reject the proposal by the authors of the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, the only provision for abeyance or moratorium are those outlined in our current 2016 Book of Discipline” (¶362.1g).
Bishop Beard’s decision further ruled, multiple times, that the same “Queer Delegates” resolution’s promotion of an LGBTQ liberationist ethos in the UMC violates the biblical standards of the UMC Discipline and therefore is “null, void, and of no effect.”
Bishop Beard’s ruling, including his invalidating the idea that complaints over sexual-morality violations can be indefinitely “held in abeyance” without following ¶362.1.g, is now provisionally authoritative across the North Central Jurisdiction.
By logical necessity, Holston’s and Beard’s reasoning would apply to all UMC jurisdictions. After all, they all have the same Book of Discipline, and there has been no valid United Methodist action to erase ¶362.1.g’s limitations for abeyances.
Again, these ruling remains remain provisionally authoritative in their respective jurisdictions until the Judicial Council gets around to reviewing them.
But that may take a while.
Back in November 2021, I submitted another legal challenge at a North Central Jurisdiction special session. The Judicial Council only issued its ruling on that matter last week, nearly sixteen months later!
The most important part of this new Judicial Council decision (#1469) is that it let stand the ruling of Bishop David Bard (now retired) that even though the jurisdiction had overwhelmingly adopted a resolution promoting a more liberal ethos on LGBTQ matters than the UMC Discipline, “the resolution does not, therefore limit or restrict the rights or obligations of bishops, district superintendents, counsels for the church, committees on investigation, trial courts, boards of ordained ministry, or district committees on ministry to fully comply with and uphold Paragraphs 304.1-3, 341.6, 362, 635, 2701, 2702, 2704, 2706, and 2711 of The Book of Discipline.” The quoted Discipline paragraphs include the UMC’s strong prohibitions against same-sex weddings and “self-avowed practicing homosexual” clergy. As this decision explained, whatever this resolution may request or urge, “bishops and district superintendents are still bound by Church law.”
But this new Judicial Council decision went further. Bishop Bard’s ruling included his judgment that the jurisdiction had the right to adopt this particular sentence in the resolution: “We will not restrict God’s calling based solely on a candidate’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” The Judicial Council reversed Bard, declaring that this sentence “crosses the line between aspirational and prescriptive as it is a declaration of non-compliance,” while those entrusted with screening ordination candidates are still obligated to thoroughly examine candidates for their compliance with the UMC’s biblical standards.
The Judicial Council also issued another welcome decision (#1468), arising from my own Indiana Annual Conference. Like in Decision #1469, the Judicial Council reversed Bishop Julius Trimble to invalidate the right of an annual conference to adopt an approach of “seek[ing] to not restrict God’s calling solely on the basis of a candidate’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” This decision further reversed Bishop Trimble by declaring that since the Discipline has a biblical definition of marriage as a covenant “between a man and a woman,” no annual conference may adopt a different understanding, such as by encouraging “clergy to choose which weddings they officiate and congregations to choose which weddings they host, so long as they are between two consenting, committed adults.”
Again, we should have no illusions about the UMC’s liberal trajectory or the reality of how the personnel of the UMC bureaucracy is overwhelmingly and increasingly stacked.
But each of these recent traditionalist legal victories were thanks to a lone traditionalist United Methodist individual submitting a valid legal challenge. The Judicial Council has already effectively ruled that any single voting member of an annual or jurisdictional conference has a right to request such decisions of law, and that not even General Conference can restrict that right without meeting the high bar of amending the UMC Constitution.
Liberal propagandists frequently demonize theologically orthodox United Methodist individuals submitting such legal challenges or filing formal complaints as somehow being unloving or cruel.
But what would actually be unloving and cruel would be if we failed to teach the clear biblical truth about how certain behaviors lead to people not inheriting the Kingdom of God, if we failed to warn leaders of our own denomination against sinful practices, and if we failed to challenge such officials when they lead others astray.
Bizarrely, many liberal United Methodists are pursuing a schizophrenic approach of claiming that they do not want to hear or face such biblically grounded challenges while at the same time pursuing heavy-handed bullying, draconian restrictions on free speech, and anti-Golden-Rule barriers to prevent traditionalist congregations from leaving the UMC, for as long as possible.
As long as orthodox United Methodists remain coerced into remaining United Methodists, we must be prepared to continue offering such faithful challenges to the harmful United Methodist disobedience movement. And the rest of the denomination should expect us to continue doing so.
As much as others may try to attack our character and motives, this is a very basic and necessary matter of loving the God who has communicated clear truths to us in Scripture and loving the people in our own denomination who are harmed whenever leaders of our denomination promote unbiblical agendas.
Comment by Phillilp Shoemaker on March 16, 2023 at 2:54 pm
A couple facts about the future of the UMC. A high percentage of the Churches income comes from the South eastern conference. Even unjust charges will not cover the loss ofChurches in this conference. Rejection of the biblical premise of marriage shows a rejection of science and reason and leaves no basis on which to establish truth as truth and reality as reality. As Schaeffer said you have the “Death of reason.”
Comment by Huebner on March 16, 2023 at 3:27 pm
I can trace my family line as Methodists, on my mother’s side, back to the early “circuit rider” movement of the American Frontier, starting in colonial times in the Virginia and North Carolina. My father and paternal Grandfather were both ordained Methodist clergy – and I grew up sitting in the front row every Sunday, listening to my dad’s sermons until I left home at 18. While folks on my mother’s side were always rather conservative – they read the King James aloud daily – my dad’s side was and still is – very much part of the Liberal Wing of the Church. That included a staunch, outspoken resistance to the Vietnam War – from the pulpit – and the integration of an all-white congregation in Los Angeles vis a vis the appointment of a black music director, well before the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Now, wouldn’t you know, it turns out that I am the father of a young woman who proudly calls herself LGBTQ. And guess what? Her mother and I support her in that “calling” 100 percent. And that includes marrying another woman, if she should so choose. I am sorry to let you know, but the Culture Wars that you are choosing to fight, are based – in my view – on a flawed interpretation of the true meaning of The Teachings. It’s really very simple. As Jesus taught, we must learn to “Love One Another, even as I have loved you.” In my view that teaching unequivocally means to do so with complete acceptance, without moral judgement, regardless of a person’s sexual identity.
Comment by Ron Thompson on March 16, 2023 at 6:33 pm
Now some 40 years ago my wife felt the calling. We sang in our UMC chior, she was the organist, our “non-compliant” minister (with beatnik goatee and guitar accompanied sermons) loved her pure enthusiasm. He encouraged her to apply to the UMC ministerial program, as one of the first woman candidates.
Her “mentor” / gatekeeper, had total power. Just like today he was part of the old UMC power structure. A retired army Chaplin, married and divorced and dating. And just like today he knew God’s will.
He told her women ministers were not biblical, blasphemous, that a congregation would ignore a woman’s sermons, that her heartfelt inspiration did not come from God but herself (the Bible said only men recieved the Word), that her very presence in the pulpit would undermine traditional families. She would never, EVER, get his sign off on the next level. And any appeal would be to his beer drinking divorced vet buddies.
Furthermore, anything she said was wrong. Despite her two semesters of divinity school, and being full of God’s love. Unlike male candidates every verse, ever thought, every prayer every word she spoke to him was WRONG. And it all went into her file.
He won. He protected the UMC church from the biblical upheaval of a woman minister. She withdrew from the program. And we left the UMC. For several decades we were active Unitarians, a denomination that loves all members without question, as the saviour taught us. Many denominations follow the Savior’s true lesson of pure love.
My wife passed away and I’m remarried, but I laugh out loud reading about “united” methodist churches voting these days to schism. Like the Episcopal church beforce them. All holier than thou.
“United” in who they hate.
Following the Bible of hate.
Good riddance to old rubbish.
Comment by Norma Bayers on March 16, 2023 at 6:33 pm
I am so happy to be in the church I am in. Your statements here are so backwards, and out of touch with what really matters. The fact that you choose not allowing same sec marriage to be the hill you stand on, shows how little you care about scripture. As a Christian, I do tend to put what Christ said ahead of other things in the Bible. Same sex marriage and relations are given very little discussion anywhere in the Bible. Christ certainly didn’t find it important enough to discuss. However, he did discuss forgiveness, loving your neighbor (any other human being), and taking care of the sick, poor, and imprisoned multiple times. He put those things at the top of the list. If all the so called Christians that get so upset about LGBTQIA+ issues would put the same amount of time and energy, into trying to be the sheep, and not the goats, our entire world would be much better. The very fact that you bring up the amount of money the conservative parts of the church bring to the denomination, shows how far away from scripture you have gotten. “It is easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than to get into the kingdom of God.
Comment by Stephen Getsinger on March 16, 2023 at 8:36 pm
I am an ordained United Methodist Clergy since 1968 and also a clinical psychologist since 1973. I have seen the Church’s stance on LGBTQ actually contribute to mental health problems including the suicides of a number of persons told they were “abominations”. Thanks be to
God for science and redirection to the teachings of Jesus.. Love above all.
Comment by Bobbie Ross on March 16, 2023 at 9:15 pm
Having been reared in a Methodist household and maintained my commitment to the church along with participation in local, district and jurisdictional offices, I sincerely regret that anyone cannot accept the truths of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in that we are all accepted into God’s Kingdom regardless of our
sexual orientation.
Comment by Rev. James Ek on March 17, 2023 at 3:50 am
I’m confused about the fuss over homosexuality but not divorce. The former does no harm to the community, either religious or secular. However, the latter has shown to be the source of great physical and mental trauma. The conservative sources of comment (the above article) are quite vocal about violation of church law and seem massively concerned with the salvation of the offenders while labeling those who speak in support of LGBTQ rights as radical propagandists, etc. Yet, the articles I find by those same conservatives on divorce say “God clearly wants married persons to stay married,” but it’s really between God and the individual. While in truth, scripture states that divorce is only possible in the case of fornication (infidelity). The Mennonite church doesn’t beat around the bush. They assert that if you divorce and remarry, you are committing adultery and living in sin. Can you see why I’m confused? There’s no acceptance or tolerance for the relatively small percentage of sinners who choose to live in sin because they have a loving, committed relationship with a person of the same gender. But there’s maximum flexibility and acceptance of the over 50 percent of us sinners who choose to live in sin with a person who is not our first spouse. Why is divorce, which destroys a family, so readily accepted while LGBTQ, which provides a stable relationship in the face of great adversity, is aggressively attacked? I think it’s a fair question. But I’m pretty sure things will continue the legalists on one side and the progressives on the other. I can’t condemn anyone for their beliefs. But I do caution everyone on their behavior. Don’t be mean. God loves you. Gay or straight, God loves you. Monogamous or polygamous, God loves you. Just make sure that there’s some evidence that you love God. Come judgment day, I’m putting all my cards on loving God.
Comment by Susan Lanes on March 17, 2023 at 5:25 am
I grew up in the ’50s believing the literal word of the Bible which my mother, who was raised Baptist before changing, would argue was much more parable than I was taught. After having been in education for over three decades including religion, science, and history I learned that there is too much conflicting information available to be closed to wider interpretations. My students understood that the planets in our solar system had different lengths of days and that would mean around the universe the same would apply. So God creating the universe in six days means nothing in human terms, as we don’t know what is a day for God. People have used Biblical verse to do good and to excuse awful things. It can be dangerous to constrain your thinking in light of new knowledge, and dangerous to be the one with that knowledge as Galileo found. Several years ago I saw a program with brain researchers discussing how the mother’s hormones affect the fetus’ brain development as it sincs up with sexual orientation. During that program was the first time I ever heard that some babies are born intersexed, and doctors had been allowing parents to choose which sex the baby would be, then surgically fix it. I further researched that and found that 1 in a 1,000 children are born with both male and female genitals, and that doesn’t account for those with missing, defective, or mismatched interior/exterior sexual organs. I thought that night how terrible for children whose parents chose the wrong sex for them to be stuck in that prison. I was staying with my mom at the time after she broke her hip and told her about the show the next morning. After a breakfast she said, “I have something to tell you, when ***** was born we were in that position and your father wanted a boy. It all seemed to be fine, he played with trains and balls, and when your sister would dress her dolls and he joined her I didn’t think anything about it. He played baseball and hockey with his friends, but then in middle school I found him dressed in my fancy red nightgown from dad. It took me by surprise, but I knew I had to stay calm, so after he changed we went for a walk. He told me how he felt, and I said if dad finds out he’ll kill you.” All these decades she had been shouldering this burden alone, dad died a few years later, and she still kept silent, not knowing that we three kids knew that our brother was different. We were used to everyone, even strangers remarking that he was such a beautiful child, with his big blue eyes, long eyelashes, and blond hair. Although he was always involved in sports and a sharp dresser, when we discovered he was cross dressing it wasn’t a shock. Then at 50 he told us he wanted to have a sex change. If only mom and dad chose girl to begin with his life would have been so much easier. He didn’t get to follow through, he had shoulder surgery from a fall out playing with his kids, then had a series of strokes. The moral of this story is God didn’t make just two sexes; not only has medicine known that intersexed babies are born all the time, but now science tells us that in utero hormones can make the brain a different gender than the sexual organs. When your brain is attracted to males, and your sexual organs are also male that was formed in utero by hormones. When we say God doesn’t make mistakes we have to include all his creations, even those we are just beginning to understand.
Comment by David on March 17, 2023 at 8:22 am
Let us not forget that when conservatives took over the UMC, and SBC for that matter, policies regarding abortion, etc. were reversed. This takeover was due to the decline of the Methodist population in liberal areas that had a lower birthrate and a higher degree of secularization. We see the rise of Southern Neoscessionism in many aspects of the Culture Wars these days. Nearly all divides mirror those of the Civil War. Had the Methodist Episcopal Church, South not rejoined in 1939 what became the UMC, the present situation may not have arisen.
I fail to see how science enters into the marriage debate given that history shows many different forms of marriage. Multiple wives and concubines are all quite biblical. Frequently, obtaining a wife was arranged as a financial transaction between families. In the coveting commandment, wives are lumped in with the rest of the family livestock. No marriage ceremony is even described in scripture nor is any involvement of religious leaders. Paul can hardly be described as being pro-marriage. It is obviously true that for reproductive purposes one needs a member of each gender if that is what the reference to science implies. Why people feel the need to deny others an official status for companionship seems more of an imposition of religious views on others. A large major Americans reject this violation of rights.
Comment by Sheree on March 17, 2023 at 8:27 am
I am not Methodist but have long admired the outreach and social advocacy of the denomination.
As a fellow believer, I believe that God is still speaking. I find it disheartening in several denominations that they are looking to exclude the full love of God from individuals different than themselves. My prayer for us is that we keep our arms open and let the love of God shine through.
Comment by Marta on March 17, 2023 at 9:11 am
The idea that there were many types of marriage arrangements in the Bible does not make them right. The arrangement that God ordained was one man and one woman. I don’t recall any concubines in the New Testament among Jews or Christians. The Bible has been very clear that homosexual relationships are wrong. That being said, it doesn’t mean we don’t love all people because we are all sinners. Allowing gay marriage within the church goes against what Christianity has taught. Love the sinner, not the sin.
Comment by Kyana on March 17, 2023 at 11:48 am
So what’s the bottom line ? I was hoping for summary at the end of the article because I was going to skip to it but it’s not there.
Everyone’s question is does a church have to pay to leave the organization ? If so how can it be enforced if the church has a clear title or deed without liens ?
Comment by Dan E on March 17, 2023 at 12:31 pm
Huebner, unfortunately you have fallen for the bait. The UMC is not splitting up because your daughter wants to marry a woman. The UMC is not splitting up because the Western Jurisdiction wants a lesbian bishop, in a same sex union to lead them. The UMC is splitting up because a house divided against itself cannot stand.
If traditional methodists are wrong, let us go about our business and let The Lord deal with us. The Bible is clear, marriage is the union of man and woman. A man cannot become a woman, nor can a woman become a man.
Comment by Pastor Mike on March 17, 2023 at 1:06 pm
Sorry, David, but you’re confused about what scripture *proscribes* and what scripture *describes*.
While scripture (in the Old Testament) describes polygamy, it does not proscribe, or support it. If you’re reading these passages and stories carefully and honestly, you see in every case that when a man had more than one wife (or children with a concubine), it led to conflict, broken relationships, and loss of blessings for the children of some of those relationships (Isaac vs. Ishmael). Any serious reading/interpretation of the Old Testament by Jews and/or Christians down through history (“in all times, in all places”) draws the same negative conclusion about polygamy.
In Matthew 19, Jesus also refers to Genesis 2:24 in his discussion on divorce with the Pharisees, reinforcing God’s creation of male and female for marriage (Jesus never mentions polygamy or same-sex marriage as options). He goes on to discuss the difficulty of both marriage and celibacy with his disciples (regarding “eunuchs”) as part of that discussion (19:10-12).
Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, is very much in support of marriage for those who cannot remain single and chaste, as he is (vv. 6-7, etc.). He is responding to the Corinthians’ (who were Gentiles) questions about marriage and singleness, and he outlines what is God’s order in creation for us as male and female. P.S.: Like Jesus, Paul NEVER mentions polygamy or same-sex marriage as an option.
Comment by Robert on March 17, 2023 at 1:29 pm
“A house divided cannot stand”. Divide and conquer game plan. Church attendance will continue to decline until the Truth is spoken. “The truth will make you free.” Left unsaid is the truth hurts. My connection with the Lord is direct. I don’t need an intermediary to debate scripture. “False teachers, false prophets” making lot more sense.
Comment by David on March 17, 2023 at 2:56 pm
Well, some Mormons might take a different view on polygamy. Generally, the usual feeling is whatever is not prohibited is allowed. This includes slavery. I fail to see where I mentioned proscriptions in my posting. There are many things Jesus did not mention such as those verses in Job that deny an afterlife and resurrection.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 17, 2023 at 3:16 pm
John Lomperis continues the worthy fight. The brawling of the agonistas in the comment box is amusing but adds nothing to the argument or our enlightenment.
Comment by Robert on March 17, 2023 at 8:10 pm
Thank you for censoring my comment. Churches by omission are serving the dark side. As a Vietnam vet(drafted) I had to learn the truth the hard way. Now I thoroughly understand “wars and rumors of wars”. The “truth will make you free” is so true. I’m free. Thank you Lord
Comment by Kanishia on March 18, 2023 at 2:04 pm
The Methodists got here by listening to the hissing of immitating the world, ignoring or worse, rewriting to change the distinct Word of God. Seminaries and congregations are infiltrated by the satanic movement of reforming Christianity into the image of God-defying opposition. By appeasement and weak conviction, church “authorities” could not take a firm stand against feel-good “social justice” culture defining the UMC. NEVER should have shown such willingness to cave to the darkness to protect positions of power and ambitions of being elevated to titles and collars. This conflict had dragged on too long, and the result is fear of offending. Shame and failure follows.
Comment by Anthony on March 18, 2023 at 6:05 pm
Strikes blow against UMC disobedience? Not a chance. The liberal establishment will only follow the Judicial Council when it benefits them, and ignore it when it does not. This whole Judicial Council process is rigged against traditionalists and for liberals. In other words, the process is throughly corrupt.
Comment by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth on March 20, 2023 at 7:57 pm
John, thank you for your legal activism, journalistic prowess, and evangelical-orthodox wisdom. This report proves that The United Methodist Church is not yet a church without reason. Keep up the good work — even now, especially now.
Comment by Ted on March 20, 2023 at 8:05 pm
OK, all you propagandists from the LEFT …….. please provide one Bible verse, where God or Jesus provides any sign of acceptance for homosexual marriage, homosexual activity or abortion. I’m quite confident Jesus will have returned for his flock before you do.
Comment by George on March 20, 2023 at 10:07 pm
Ted, I’m sure that all those propagandists on the left can justify deviant behavior and the murder of the unborn simply by spouting the love of Jesus. Love love love. They justify just about everything by using love as their “permission slip”. For them, the only sin is standing up for biblical values. They cherry pick the Bible verses they feel will justify their claims.
These are serious times we are in. Times that require serious thought and serious decisions.
Comment by Wade Compton on March 22, 2023 at 6:08 pm
John,
Keep on writing the best stuff with the most truth about the UMC war!