Please help: Where does it say that Rev. DeLong did not agree with the "Book of Discipline" in matters pertaining to sexuality at the time she was ordained?
That aside…
Referring to the General Rules, the Methodist Church stated in 1858, “‘the buying and selling of men, women and children with an intention to enslave them,’ is ambiguous in its phraseology, and liable to be construed as antagonistic to the institution of Slavery, in regard to which the Church has no right to meddle, except in enforcing the duties of masters and servants, as set forth in the Holy Scriptures.”
The General Conference also stated, “There is nothing here to warrant any construction looking toward a repeal of the laws of the United States
Tell me, were the abolitionist ministers who opposed the Church’s official stance as articulated in the “Discipline” not within their right and duty to do so?
Is a faith that blindly and legalistically follows the letter of the law, but not its spirit, authentic? Is a faith that fails to critically and constantly evaluate its Scriptural and doctrinal tradition, viable? Is a faith that fails to challenge oppressive social structures within the Church, as well as the political life of the nation, a legitimate one?
--ez duz it, Copyright © 23 June 2011
----------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment