Question for Methodists: FULL Communion with ELCA?

[yankee_doodle]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

When I heard about the ELCA permitting homosexuals to be ordained (as long as they are in monogamous relationships ) little did I know that at the same conference they came into full-communion with the United Methodists. From the ELCA website:
Rest of the article here.

Why are you all in communion with them? Are you not guilty of their sin by “aiding and abetting?” I’m absolutely horrified by this. As a former Methodist, this is deeply saddening because I still retained some respect for them, but even now that is diminishing. I am even more grateful for Orthodoxy now.

If the Methodists have no qualms with this, I guess this is a perfect match…

In Christ,
Andrew

I applaud the UMC for taking this step toward solidarity with the ELCA. They apparently get the message … love doesn’t discriminate against good, productive people who happen to be a little different than average. Love forgives minor indiscretions as long as there’s real remorse (in action, not just words).

I’ve always found it ironic that secular folks tend to be at the forefront of fighting for equal rights & seem to be far more tolerant and forgiving than Christians (given the hallmark characteristics of Christianity is allegedly forgiveness and love).

 

[josie_L]

I applaud the UMC for taking this step toward solidarity with the ELCA. They apparently get the message … love doesn’t discriminate against good, productive people who happen to be a little different than average. Love forgives minor indiscretions as long as there’s real remorse (in action, not just words).

I’ve always found it ironic that secular folks tend to be at the forefront of fighting for equal rights & seem to be far more tolerant and forgiving than Christians (given the hallmark characteristics of Christianity is allegedly forgiveness and love).

Christianity is also about truth.

p.s. And tolerancy can turn into intolerance, when those who advocate tolerancy do so above and beyond everything else and every other virtue.

 

[RevNeal]

Firstly, it was in May of 2008 UMC General Conference voted to approve Full Communion with the ELCA. This year the ELCA first voted to approve that Full Communion, thus actuating the agreement. Then, afterwards, they voted to admit self-avowed/practicing homosexuals to the ministry within the ELCA. It’s not as if the UMC voted to enter into Full Communion with them AFTER they did this. Hence, you’re attack of the UMC on this matter may well equate to you attacking an injured party.

IF the UMC has an official response, the only body within the church that can issue such a response is the General Conference. So, until 2012 there is no official action that can be taken one way or another.

All of that being said, the Bishops of the UMC, acting in accordance with the Discipline, represent and lead the Church in-between General Conferences. While they cannot change the rules within the Discipline, nor can they back the church our of a relationship the General Conference has voted to enter us into, it is incumbent upon them to apply the Discipline in determining who is to be considered fit for appointment to ministry within the UMC. The Book of Discipline states, unequivocally, that self-avowed-practicing homosexuals are not fit candidates for ordination and that, if already ordained, they are not to be appointed to serve in any pastoral or sacramental ministry. Our having entered into Full Communion with the ELCA doesn’t change this rule. In short, while the ELCA may consider someone fit for ministry if they are self-avowed-practicing homosexuals, the Discipline of the UMC asserts that such would not be the case within the UMC and our Bishops will follow the UM Discipline accordingly. If an ordained ELCA pastor wishes to transfer to the UMC and/or serve under appointment within the UMC, they will have to meet the standards for ministry that the Book of Discipline outlines (including the prohibition against self-avowed-practicing homosexuals) in order to qualify for appointment.

Secondly, as for our moving toward Full Communion with the ECUSA, I think that since 2006 the interest has been shifting more toward Full Communion with the Anglican Communion. The process really began in ernest when the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke at the UMC General Conference in 2000 and articulated an interest in healing the breach and offering whatever we needed to help make that possible. For our part, the UMC Bishops have indicated a willingness to accept Anglican succession just so long as that wouldn’t undermine the pre-existing validity of our Orders. I think the negotiations with the ECUSA have floundered, although we are in a “Eucharistic Sharing” stage with the ECUSA right now. What happens next will depend upon what happens at the next Lambeth Conference and what the UMC does in 2012. Wouldn’t it interesting if the ECUSA ended up being tossed out of the Anglican Communion, only to be replaced by the UMC? I’m not saying that is what’s going to happen … only that stranger things have happened and that is certainly one possible outcome.

 

[cthulhubryan]

This ^^ statement could be taken different ways; perhaps you should add a clarifying note that Lev 18:22 says that the act, not the person guilty of the act, is an “abomination”.

You are correct, I should have said that they try to bring perpetrators of abominations into the clergy. Thanks!

 

[cthulhubryan]

UMNS:

According to the Rev. W. Douglas Mills, an executive with the United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, full communion essentially means “acknowledging one another’s ministries as valid,” as well as wanting to be involved in mutual decision-making.

I do not know if this means acknowledging homosexual ordinations or not. I certainly hope not.

You read the article on the United Methodist Church website Here

 

[RevNeal]

I do not know if this means acknowledging homosexual ordinations or not. I certainly hope not.

It means that the UMC will not re-ordain someone who has been ordained in the ELCA but will recognize their orders as being valid if they present themselves for transfer, as clergy, into the UMC. Additionally, it makes it easy for an ELCA pastor to be appointed across denominational lines to serve as the Pastor of a UM church, or visa-versa. HOWEVER, it does NOT mean that such would HAVE to happen. If an ordained ELCA minister who is also a self-avowed-practicing homosexual were to present him/herself for transfer, as clergy, into the UMC, according to the Book of Discipline they could neither be received as clergy nor appointed to pastoral and sacramental ministry by a UM Bishop. Just because we recognize their orders, this doesn’t mean that we MUST accept any/all who would like to transfer in.

In truth, this is more a formality than anything else. The UMC has long recognized the clerical orders of Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic clergy. The only time I saw someone “re-ordained” was when a Baptist transferred into the UMC as clergy. His congregational Orders as Pastor were recognized as if they were “Transitional Deacons Orders” and then, after a period of probationary ministry, he was Ordained an Elder. As a formality, it makes transfers and cross-denominational appointments easier … but that’s about it. it doesn’t mean that the UMC would HAVE to receive any ELCA pastor who wished to transfer in or be appointed to a UM church. The UMC doesn’t ordain or appoint Self-avowed practicing homosexuals from within, what makes anybody think that they would provide an express-way for such to get in from without?

 

[yankee_doodle]

p.s. And tolerancy can turn into intolerance, when those who advocate tolerancy do so above and beyond everything else and every other virtue.

sounds like philosophy from a Chinese cookie

 

[josie_L]

sounds like philosophy from a Chinese cookie

Daniel son, do not mock the philosophy of the Chinese cookie, it is an ancient and most wise philosophy. :bowdown2: All hail the cookie.