one last thing about that Methodist stuff I was semi-ranting about the other day. Usually I tend not to rant until I’ve really mulled a subject over for a long time, and (more importantly) checked out enough information that I feel like I can actually make an educated statement about what I’m saying, and (possibly still more importantly) even then I refrain until I actually figure out something I can say that somebody else hasn't already said a lot better.
Those are good rules for ranting, I think, and I forgot to follow them this time & said something vague without bothering to find out all the details.
Found more details today.
What that article I linked to didn’t mention, being a very short article & only a few hours after the announcement, was that the "technicality" referred to was apparently that the Conference had never provided a proper definition for the term "practicing homosexual".
Which just seems-much though I hate to say it & had wanted to see this as some good news for a change-like a bit of a cop-out.
Y’know – if you’re faced with a rule that you think is unjust, and you are in a position where maybe you have some level of influence over what the rules actually are, I think the thing to do is try to show why you think it’s unjust and get it changed if you can.
Not claim that people don't understand it.
Of course now all the more conservative Methodists are going to just jump all over that, I bet - we'll see how far it gets. Well, as I responded to a comment yesterday, I think Beth Stroud was a very smart lady to not resume her duties immediately - it will probably be easier on both her and her congregation - or her former congregation? - to stick with the status quo until things have more time to develop. It is going to be interesting to see where this goes.
I just really hoped that this was a serious move against the prevailing fundamentalist hoo-hah.
Oh well.
No comments:
Post a Comment