Methodists elect 1st openly gay bishop in defiance of ban

[ltwin]

It’s an interesting conundrum for the Methodists it seems based on their structure. It seems odd to me coming from a Catholic and Episcopal background, where bishops even if elected in the Episcopal Church case, must still be approved of and ordained by the church to take office, that the Methodist Church as a whole has no recourse to this election in violation of their current rules.

Bishop Ough did not say that the “Methodist Church as a whole has no recourse”. He said the “The Council [of Bishops] does not have constitutional authority to intervene in the election . . .” He went on to say that “Being a self-avowed, practicing homosexual is a chargeable offense for any clergyperson in The United Methodist Church, if indeed this is the case.”

The point is that Methodist bishops do not have authority to remove other Methodist bishops. This is going to have to work itself out through the church’s ecclesiastical court system, which does have the power to defrock and/or suspend Methodist clergy.

You can read more about UMC church trials here.

There are separate trial procedures for bishops, clergy, diaconal ministers and laypersons, but in all cases the accuser and the accused have an opportunity to appear before a committee on investigation.

These standing committees of annual, jurisdictional and central conferences function as grand juries. They decide whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. The person bringing the original complaint (complainant) and the person whom the complaint is against (respondent) may be present during testimony, but not during deliberations.

If the committee on investigation decides there is insufficient evidence for a trial, the matter is considered settled unless the Judicial Council rules otherwise. The investigating committee might also refer concerns to church officials for administrative or other action.

When an investigating committee decides there is sufficient basis for the accusations, it prepares a bill of charges and cites alleged occurrences to support the charges.

A trial court is convened after all parties have made every reasonable effort to resolve the matter.

Counsel may represent the respondent. A clergy respondent may select a clergyperson in full connection as counsel. A lay respondent may select either a lay or clergy member to serve as counsel. Church officials appoint a clergyperson as counsel to represent the claims of the person making the complaint.

The 13 members of the trial court and two alternates are selected from a pool of 35 people.
Trial procedures generally follow those of secular U.S. courts. Counsels enter pleas, make opening statements, question witnesses, present documents and offer closing arguments. However, witnesses do not take oaths.

All deliberations of the trial court are closed. All other sessions of the trial are closed unless the counsel for the respondent requests otherwise.

A conviction requires at least nine votes; fewer than nine votes results in an acquittal. The trial court makes a decision on each charge. If the respondent is found guilty, the findings may be appealed to a committee on appeals. The church or complainant cannot appeal an acquittal.

If the trial results in a conviction, further testimony may be presented before the trial court determines the penalty, on which at least seven members must agree.

Penalties can be as severe as expelling the respondent from the church or terminating the conference membership and/or revoking a clergyperson’s or diaconal minister’s credentials of ordination or consecration. The trial courts may affix a lesser penalty. The penalty usually takes effect immediately. Convicted clergy may, with the unanimous consent of the district superintendents, be suspended from all clergy responsibilities, but not from financial compensation and benefits pending the outcome of appeals.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, I agree that people do have a remarkable capacity for seeing what they want to see. Catholics are quite good at ignoring all of the slavery, polygamy, and patriarchy that is sanctioned in the Bible and Church history and scholarship.

Perhaps you would enjoy reading reasonable explanations of OT slavery and other difficult issues:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Perhaps you would enjoy reading reasonable explanations of OT slavery and other difficult issues:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Sm5VPT0CL.jpg

Thank you. I appreciate you offering a resource. I have read this book, and while I appreciate the breadth of subjects addressed and structure utilized by Dr. Copan, and can find agreement with him about a great number of points, his argumentation ultimately falls short and is terribly unsatisfying and unconvincing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you. I appreciate you offering a resource. I have read this book, and while I appreciate the breadth of subjects addressed and structure utilized by Dr. Copan, and can find agreement with him about a great number of points, his argumentation ultimately falls short and is terribly unsatisfying and unconvincing.

Interesting.

I’ve just started reading it, so I haven’t formed any final conclusions, but what specifically did you find to be inadequate?