Jonathan Marlowe of Theolog writes:
The recently concluded United Methodist General Conference retained its claim that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” The vote was relatively close, and of course there were faithful, intelligent people on both sides.
At one point, a legislative committee proposed replacing the “incompatibility clause” with nonjudgmental language declaring that the United Methodist Church (UMC) is not of one mind on this issue. Part of me agrees with the idea: I would like very much simply to acknowledge our “separate minds” and move on. But then I wonder . . .
How consistently would we apply this principle? For example, the UMC has a clear statement in our social principles opposing capital punishment. I am glad that we take this prophetic stand. Should we apply our principle of nonjudgmentalism to this area and say simply: “United Methodists are not of one mind with respect to capital punishment,” and leave it at that? I would be deeply disappointed.
Read it all.