so today the umc judicial council reversed a successful appeal to have rev. beth stroud reinstated, thus upholding the original judgment by the pennsylvania conference almost a year ago.
i've mentioned rev. stroud, and her case, a time or two before (here, here, here, here)
many friends are talking about the decisions today, which i'd encourage you to read:
- updated: jonathon gives my favorite take, a youth ministers take
- updated: mike gives a nice pre-decision call
- shane gives an update, *only engage in the comments if you have extra time on your hands (and a lot of patience, imho). he is sure to give a more thought out response in the coming days, which i look forward to hearing
- dean, is upset by the decisions, it seems he is most upset with the pastor who kept someone from becoming a member of the church is being reinstated
- cole has a conversation going which is disheartening
- jay is really pissed
i'm confused, not with the stroud decision, that seemed a bit closer to doctrine as the 'practicing' of homosexuality was not clearly defined in winning the appeal. however, the part of giving a pastor sole authority to allow membership seems completely out of line with doctrine and methodism.
to argue that one i always felt that our open communion was a powerful statement, now it is that we can give you that which is most sacred to us as Christians, but you just can't become one of our community if our pastor doesn't agree. thus eliminating the discernment & power of the laity of that community to bring in those who wish to find Christ. made even more insane with our itinerary system, pastors could have lasting affects on congregations completely against congregations wishes. this is short sighted and a bad move. if we wanted to reinstate rev. ed johnson then go ahead, with some warning or whatever, but don't pave the way that pastors are now the gatekeepers to the umc... or maybe they are and they are not telling
