I recently received an email with links to these two videos by Maxie Dunnam regarding items that will be voted on at our upcoming Annual Conferences as possible constitutional amendments.
I thought I would repost the videos here. Here are the videos:
I am curious what you all think about the amendments. Should we pass them? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Russel,
I am glad you posted both videos, because the contrast between the two shows the hypocritical nature of the arguments. In the first video he makes it very clear that the reason he is against the Inclusion clause is that it might be used by GLBT persons in making a case for ordination. Its pretty clear what is really motivating this discussion.
The second video has no mention of this same issue which seems to be the major fight. But lets be honest, if the African votes had not been with the US conservatives in the numbers they were, the UMC would be ordaining GLBT clergy right now. Do you think if he had said openly: The reason to vote against these amendments is that they might allow the clear voice of the plurality of US UMs to be heard in US churches, his arguments would hold the same weight?
Nate,
How far should we take this? Will we see a day when we are splintering even further because we need to "allow the clear voice of the plurality of" XYZ geographical area?
The bottom line is that the 'plurality' of United Methodists has spoken on the issue of homosexuality time and time again...look at the votes, the margin gets larger and larger each year.
It seems to me that this is an issue on whether or not the non-US churches should have full representation in the United Methodist Church....should their voices be made silent because they don't agree with your chosen viewpoint or because God forbid they have sided with the "US Conservatives"? What ever happened to being "united", global church?
Post a Comment