The United Methodist church may be in for some fireworks in California; some active and many retired pastors are defying the church's contradictory laws to perform gay marriages. Though these pastors may be asking to lose their jobs, they seem resigned to it. Kind of an ironic slogan...

Defenders of gay marriage say they want to compel the 11-million-member denomination to live up to its slogan -- "Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors."

"I'm tired of being part of a church that lacks integrity," said the Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen of Santa Monica's Church in Ocean Park, who plans to conduct weddings for two gay couples in August and September. "I love my church, and I don't want to leave it. But I can't be part of a church that is willing to portray a God that is so hateful. I would rather be forced out."

I do not have a problem with feminists nor homosexuals. That said, I don't understand why a woman would pursue a career as a Pastor of a Church whose Holy Scripture forbids women from holding positions of authority in the Church and specifies the rules that women should follow in order to exhibit their subservience while attending the Church. This, I do not understand.

it's because she knows that the Holy Scripture DOESN'T forbid women from holding positions of authority

Not hard to understand, really

Pardon me...

I was under the false impression that the Methodist Church still used the KJV.

I guess it's all a matter of translation and interpretation anyway? I only know what I have read. It seemed clear enough to me.

The Methodist Church allows women Pastors.

Xianity as a whole is evidently conflicted on the issue; as with so many other issues of import, they find contradictory bible verses that can go either way. I'm no methodist of course, but I can do research. :)

I find an example of the pro- argument here. I find particularly interesting the argument on this page that churches often start out rather egalitarian, and then begin to exclude women once they become institutionalized.

I believe that Galatians 3:28 - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” may offer the clearest picture of what God intends his church to be like: a community where people’s access to God and spiritual roles are not determined by the typical cultural categories of race, class, and gender, but by the salvation offered in Jesus Christ and the gifting of the Holy Spirit.

Judging from this apparently more official source from the Methodist church, they seem to embrace the contradiction and deal with it in the context of culture and reason. The con- argument is also easy enough to find, such as this example.

1 Tim 2:12-15. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve

He is specifically speaking in the context of the church in this passage this doesnt pertain outside of the church context (before everyone is angry). In addition, there are many places in Scripture that list requirements of pastors, priests or deacons and specifically use the term men or husbands of one wife, etc.

Under the umbrella of Sola Scriptura, all verses of Scripture are considered true and given to us by God. In other words, you cant use another verse in order to ignore this one. Many cite Galatians 3:28 as approval of women pastors, but there are several problems with this. First, if you believe this to be true, then you do not believe some Scripture (particularly the verse above) to be infallible. Second, this is a complete misunderstanding of the verse, which is trying to say that all men and women are under the law and under the power of sin (all must be saved, in a collective sense).

So the con- side would seem to choose the verse that seems clearer to them and ignore historical and cultural counter-examples. And so even churches who are both trying to reconcile their holy book, seemingly using the same rule-set of assumptions, end up splitting over issues such as these.

OTOH, I guess that after ordaining women, maybe it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the methodists are now looking at gay marriage with their more egalitarian perspective, whereas other sects are trying to hold the line on their discrimination -- sort of the 'strict constructionists' of the bible world, I guess.

My impression (perhaps D_B can confirm or refute) is that most contemporary Methodists are not terribly hung up on the idea of Biblical inerrancy like the fundies/evangelicals tend to be, and interpret the Bible in the context of the times/social structures in which/for which it was written, so it in not particularly surprising that there is some evolution in their attitudes in these areas.

My understanding is that a number of Methodist churches have long held same sex "committment ceremonies" and that they have had openly gay/lesbian clergy for some time as well.

The church I grew up in, didn't preach about hell, it preached about love & kindness. It did preach about sin & used the 10 Commandments as the way to live. My church was about accepting, helping & togetherness. They loved their potlucks. They were strict about dancing & loud celebration.

Our youth group visited a different church once a month, & we would invite their youth groups to visit us. We were taught to be open to other religions & find the similarities that we all have.

Shortly after Reverend Story moved to a different congregation in the 80's, a woman pastor filled his shoes, not sure how long.

I don't know their stance on gay relationships, I haven't attend services for over 25 years. I only attend any church now for weddings, christenings & funerals. I stopped attending services when the I started questioning the Bible.

The east coast conferences... central and north east to be precise, were adamantly against same sex marriage, as of 3 years ago (When I last spoke on the subject with my now ex-father in law who is a united methodist preacher.

That's as current as I know.

silent.observer,

I have also been taught that the following scriptures are prohibitive of women holding positions of authority over men:

1st Corinthians Chapter 11

[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
[4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
[5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
[6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
[7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
[8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
[9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1st Corinthians Chapter 14

[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I am not averse to other interpretations, but I find it difficult to escape the historical record of Christianity and it's mother religion, Judaism, both being patriarchal in their very essence. If we are to continuously adapt the meaning of the scriptures to fit to the current views of society, (and I don't deny that this has often happened) then couldn't we just as well throw out the entire scripture and re-write it to our present day tastes?

Christianity has abandoned many of the old Jewish Laws. We are now allowed to eat pork and shellfish. Of course, Christians don't practice blood sacrifice -- Jesus performed the final blood sacrifice at Calvary. We no longer advocate slavery based on Holy Scripture. Even in my (relatively) short time on this Earth, I have seen many of the sacrosanct rules of various branches of Christianity change significantly:

Dancing, swimming, wearing of pants and of makeup by women... All of these rules have evolved to coincide with changing cultural norms. Yet they were all attributed to scripture when they were enforced.

How many rules and interpretations can change before the Sola scriptura simply becomes irrelevant?

I've noticed in the news lately that the Roman Catholic Church is refusing to budge regarding female priests or bishops. Dan Brown has drawn the ire of the Vatican because (among other things) he has postulated that Christian patriarchy was a heresy created by Rome. That may or may not be true, but patriarchy has certainly also historically existed in Protestant Churches.

Like I said, NightSwimmer, that there are bible verses that can go either way, that the bible is in fact self-contradictory, is no news to me and of no consequence to me. I leave it to the believers to sort it out.

If you're a Christian, you're "part of a church that is willing to portray a God that is so hateful."

Unless you simply bowdlerize the Scriptures to the point where you're making up your own version of Chrsitianity. Fact is, it's an intolerant, hate-filled faith. Always has been.

Perhaps that is because it is the faith of an intolerant, hate-filled people.

As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Still, there are much more noble and enlightened ideas embedded in the Bible. I guess that's why Jefferson took his scissors in hand and created his own version.

.

Interesting article on differences of opinion regarding homosexuality within the United Methodist Church at Religious Tolerance.