This past Monday, the West Ohio Conference, consisting of almost 2,000 clergy and lay delegates, representing approximately 1,100 United Methodist churches, voted 948 to 920 to elect Mr. Bill Brownson as our new conference treasurer, replacing Rev. Stan Sutton, who is retiring. The Toledo Blade has a well written article about the vote.The close vote had nothing at all to do with Mr. Brownson's financial qualifications for the positions. The reason for the close vote was due to his admission that he is in a twenty plus year committed partnership with a gay man. If the nominee would have been clergy, this would have been a clear violation of the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. There is no specific language about the hiring of laity.
Obviously, there are a number of people who have strong feelings on either side of this issue. For example, before the vote, one lay delegate went to the microphone and offered inappropriate sarcastic comments against the nominee. A clergy member sitting near me yelled, "shut-up" during the committee's presentation and recommendation for our conference to vote in favor of Mr. Brownson.
The positive in all of this was that we suspended the rules to do away with the open microphone approach and instead allow prepared speeches which were delivered by very seasoned and mature lay and clergy members of our conference who showed respect for both sides of the debate. These speeches, void of inflammatory rhetoric and yet passionate about their respective position on the issue, helped our conference delegates to make an informed vote on whether or not we should elect Mr. Brownson.
While I uphold our Book of Discipline's stance that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, I also find it irresponsible to deny someone of a position of which they are thoroughly qualified by basing that decision solely on that person's same sex partnership, not to mention that our own church polity is silent on the issue as it pertains to the hiring of laity for church related positions. My hunch is that the 2nd best candidate would have to readily admit that he or she also struggles with sins but since we are living in 2010, many would say that's OK, since sexual orientation is the current hot issue and the one that we are directing most of our focus.
The real test in moving forward is in how we receive Mr. Brownson as our new conference treasurer. Will we extend God's compassion and grace to him as he begins his new position? Will we pray for him and ask God to give him strength and guidance as he seeks to address the financial challenges facing our conference?
The denomination that I know and love, as diverse as we are, leads me to believe that we will.
May it be so.
6 comments:
I to have question myself over this CFO hiring. I have come to the conclusion that as you stated that the second canidate for considerastion would be struggling with sin (as we all are),the diffrence is we as christans must repent and ask for forgivness. Mr.Brownston has not repented nor feels that his sin is out of step with God's laws and Christ teachings. The fact is if he would repent his sin work on changing his ways his election would be less of a slap in the face of many, but sadly this is not his position. No openly gay person or for that matter a unrepentent sinnner should be put into a leadership position in the UMC lay or otherwise. We should all strive to reach for God's standards and not give up so quick. We should expect better of our leaders. We will never attain God's perfection, but we should always search for our best in leadership. God Bless us all
I appreciate your comments on this issue. While realizing that there are uneasy feelings over the hiring, my prayer is for the conference to support Mr. Brownson's work as our treasurer regardless of our theological stance. He does not have an easy task ahead of him regarding our conference's financial situation.
I am pleased to see that response from many of the area Methodist churches. Our job, as Christians, is to "Love the Sinner, hate the sin." That is nothing short of the theme I have seen develop in the response from many congregations. There were so many underhanded instances that came about during the voting of Mr. Brownson v. his opponent that it is very clear that the WOC knew very well what it was doing. Why was Mr. Brownson allowed to address a group of young voters privately and uncontested the night before the vote? Why were rules suspended just for this vote? Why did our "leader" the Bishop address groups later with an apologetic tone, but refuse to make changes?
I have to wonder if this same appointment would have taken place if Mr. Brownson would have been an unrepentant sinner in some other light. What if he were a womanizing alcoholic whom spent most of his nights in bars? What if he were an unapologetic adulterer? The fact of the matter is that the WOC and it's leadership have allowed the viewpoint of a dark world to shape their own understanding... This should never happen. We should lean on the Word of God and not on the word of man.
As for Brownson not having an "easy task" in regards to the conference's financial situation? How easy will it be when many more churches decide to withhold the apportionments, just as my church and many others already have?
I am interested why you haven't responded to my comment... Not looking for recognition, but I am wondering what you feel is the correct course of action of the United Methodist Church in reaction to the conference's backhanded practices and blatantly denying the outcries of many of it's member churches...
To recent Anonymous poster (it's really helpful when you include a name.)
Regarding your questions:
Why was Mr. Brownson allowed to address a group of young voters privately and uncontested the night before the vote?
I don't personally have an issue with that at all. Was this a violation of our conference's election rules?
Why were rules suspended just for this vote?
From a parlimentary procedural standpoint, this was totally in order. The rules can be suspended for other issues as well. It was actually refreshing to hear well spoken arguements that were civil and respectful and prepared ahead of time with thoughtful theological reflection from both sides of the issue. Based on previous experiences at annual conferences, open speeches by anyone have not been very helpful in providing discernment on the issue.
Why did our "leader" the Bishop address groups later with an apologetic tone, but refuse to make changes?
I don't have enough context to respond to your final question.
To Anonymous - Sorry, that I didn't catch the question in your recent post.
"Not looking for recognition, but I am wondering what you feel is the correct course of action of the United Methodist Church in reaction to the conference's backhanded practices and blatantly denying the outcries of many of it's member churches..."
I didn't feel that the vote on Mr. Brownson was backhanded and that has nothing to do with where I side on the issue. Bottom line - the vote was made by clergy and laity of our West Ohio churches. If the vote would have gone the other way, there would have still been outcries.
I acknowledge that you and I disagree on the appropriateness of how the vote was handled.
Thank you for expressing your thoughts.
Post a Comment