June 6th, 2007

that which IT has not [fox1013]

The Future of the Methodist Church ("the homosexual problem")

Tiffany posted the second of her series of posts on "Homosexuality and the United Methodist Church," and on the 7Villages page Trelawney made an intriguing suggestion:
This is what I propose, and I know it will be unpopular... it is certainly risky:
I propose that we take the approach to interfaith dialogue used by the United Church of Canada: We take all the reconciling groups and all the confessing groups, and put them together on some projects that have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality. We declare a moratorium on talking about the issue of homosexuality for a period of around ten years, but we keep the reconciling and confessing groups in constant contact and cooperation on these joint projects (about, let's say, poverty - something they can agree on). In the meantime, we do not expel any clergy for their sexual orientation/activity, but nor do we attempt to change the discipline. (Thus, the confessing movement must halt their attempts to remove clergy, but the reconciling movement must halt their attempts to get clergy accepted or even bring up the issue at GC. VERY hard for both sides, I imagine.)
Then, after ten years of working together closely and intimately, we get the reconciling groups and confessing groups together to begin a dialogue about the issue of homosexuality. By this time, they will have built relationships of trust, and perhaps even Christian love. They will no longer be talking across a great divide, but discussing something as friends, who care about each other.
[GC = General Conference]

I'm not sure I support this suggestion, but I'm very intrigued.


In other news, her opening paragraph made me think of glacierscout talking about Episcopalianism: Collapse )