Methodist Church Schizophrenic Rather Than Flip Flopping

[johnkarls]

.
There follows the e-mail correspondence between Yours Truly and Rev. J. Keith Cupples regarding the United Methodist Church (UMC) on abortion.

Keith has been a Reading Liberally member for the 18 months since 7/1/2012 that he lived in Utah with his sister following his retirement as a UMC Minister in the North Texas Conference of the UMC.

[He is returning to the North Texas Conference on 1/1/2014 to accept an 18-month assignment as the Interim Minister of a troubled United Methodist Church.]

For more than a year, Keith and Yours Truly would gab about Everything Under The Sun beginning at 6:30 pm every Monday evening and rarely finishing before mid-night.

The reason for posting this correspondence and including it in the Discussion Outline section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org is explained in the first e-mail which is the third one down since they appear in reverse-chronological order.

Namely, that during our Monday-evening session on 12/9/2013, Keith took issue with some of the comments made in the 11/21/2013 posting by Solutions in the Reference Materials section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Methodist Church’s Approval of Abortion” since Yours Truly had picked up Solutions’ points in the Suggested Discussion Outline and in Q&A-4 through Q&A-9 of the Short Quiz.

And the intent of Yours Truly in picking up Solutions’ points was solely to illustrate that there is no such thing as Monolithic Christianity over which the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church are authoritative -- using the UMC as an example.

Accordingly, since that point was relatively minor in the entire scheme of things, I was hopeful that Keith would not cause half of our 120-minute meeting to be squandered on the in-the-weeds details of the UMC position on abortion which had only been intended to be an example of the limits of the RCC’s writ in speaking for non-RCC Christian denominations.

As can be seen, the wrinkles were not ironed out before the meeting.

But, nevertheless, the details are posted herewith to show what the wrinkles were.

Without returning to amend the Suggested Discussion Outline, the Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz and Solutions’ original posting -- since they, however erroneous, are part of the historical record.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Your Position On The Position of the United Methodist Church Regarding Abortion
From: John Karls
Date: Fri, December 13, 2013 7:54 am
To: Rev. J. Keith Cupples
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Keith,

Thank you very much for the 21 pages of comments which you provided in response to my e-mail of Tuesday afternoon and on which you reported you spent 10.25 hours.

I hope you won’t be offended if your comments that relate to the two questions asked by me are summarized for your review so that we are able understand each other.

********************
THE UMC POSITION ON ABORTION

If I have read your Response correctly, you do not dispute anything that was said on this subject in my original e-mail.

You have added the additional background that the quotation from the 2008 UMC Book of Discipline regarding abortion (Paragraphs 15-22 of the 11/21/2013 posting by Solutions in the Reference Materials section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Methodist Church’s Approval of Abortion”) actually made its debut in 1972 and has been included in every quadrennial UMC Book of Discipline since then including the 2012 version.

********************
THE 2012 FLIP-FLOP REGARDING CIVIL GOVERNMENT TRUMPING CHRISTIANITY

You still did not cite any authorities that (1) contradict the provision of the 2012 Book of Discipline of the UMC that appears to provide that Civil Government Trumps Christianity, or (2) contradict the provision of the 2008 Book of Discipline of the UMC that appears to provide that Christianity Trumps Civil Government.

You did, however, provide a massive amount of material on three cases that were decided by the United Methodist Judicial Council regarding whether Christianity Trumps Civil Government or vice versa, and that arose in 1947, 1960 and 1968.

[The 1947 and 1968 decisions involved solely the theoretical question of whether Christianity Trumps Civil Government or vice versa, but the 1960 decision was based on a complaint by the Southern wing of the United Methodist Church concerning the participation by Methodists in the Civil Rights marches in the U.S. and, in that case, the United Methodist Judicial Council decided that Christianity Trumps Civil Government and Methodists are/were permitted to march with the Blessing of the Methodist Church.]

The striking technical point about all three cases is that they were based on the provision that appears in the Book of Discipline of 2012 (!!!) and appears to provide that Civil Government Trumps Christianity.

So although you had turned a blind eye to the inconsistency between the 2012 provision and the 2008 provision, the fact that the 2012 provision was being interpreted in 1947, 1960 and 1968 could not be ignored.

My insights in solving these mysteries???

Yes, the 2012 and 2008 provisions are inconsistent and both go way back!!!

John Wesley promulgated the original Articles of Religion as the Constitution of his Methodist movement (which WAS still a part of the Church of England, aka Episcopal Church, at the time of John Wesley’s death).

Neither the so-called 2008 provision nor the so-called 2012 provision was part of John Wesley’s Articles of Religion.

The so-called 2008 provision was contained in the original Articles of Religion of the Evangelical United Brethren Church (EUB) which merged in 1968 with the Methodist Church to form the United Methodist Church. And the so-called 2012 provision was contained in the pre-merger Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church which merged with the EUB in 1968.

And following the 1968 merger, both sets of Articles of Religion have continued in effect even though some of their provision are inconsistent, such as their opposing provisions on whether Civil Government Trumps Religion.

The three cases on which you provided information relate only to the so-called 2012 provision which was contained in the pre-merger Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church and which provides that Civil Government Trumps Religion.

So what explains the 1960 decision???

By way of background, the Methodist Church before the 1968 merger with the EUB was itself the result of a 1939 merger of three separate Methodist organizations, one of which was the U.S. Southern Methodists from which your alma mater, SMU, takes its name.

During the 1939 merger, the three separate Methodist organizations agreed that the Articles of Religion could NEVER be amended. And attempted amendments to the Articles as well as any church pronouncements inconsistent with the Articles would be “unconstitutional.”

[The reason why the United Methodist Book of Discipline since the 1968 merger with the EUB continues to list both the Methodist Articles of Religion and the EUB Articles of Religion is that it was agreed in the course of the merger that NEITHER set of Articles of Religion could EVER be amended (even though there were inconsistencies as previously noted!!!)!!! However, since the EUB Articles of Religion provide that Christianity Trumps Civil Government and the EUB was not even in the picture as of 1960, it becomes clear why the Southern Methodists relied solely on their historical Methodist Articles of Religion which provided that Civil Government Trumps Christianity.]

So were the Southern Methodists swindled???

The UMC Judicial Council examined the history of the Civil Government Trumps Christianity provision in the pre-merger Methodist Articles of Religion.

The Council discovered that the Civil Government Trumps Christianity provision in the pre-merger Methodist Articles was NOT included in John Wesley’s original Articles of Religion.

It was added in 1820 as a footnote to the Articles of Religion of the Northern Methodists (which included Canada as well as the Northern U.S.), because there was confusion resulting from the fact that Canada was still under the English King.

It was NOT added as a footnote to the Articles of Religion of the Southern Methodists until 1922 AND THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE did not comport with the Southern Methodist requirements for amending the Articles of Religion (NB: before the 1939 merger of the three Methodist organizations including the Northern Methodists and Southern Methodists, each of the three organizations did have provisions for amending the Articles of Religion and the Articles only became “fixed in stone” beginning in 1939).

Accordingly, the UMC Judicial Council in 1960 decided that the Civil Government Trumps Christianity provision of the Pre-EUB merger of the Methodist Church was NOT part of the non-amendable Articles of Religion with respect to the Southern Methodists!!!

[Presumably it WOULD HAVE BEEN a part of the non-amendable Articles of Religion with respect to the Northern Methodists who had added it to their version of the Articles of Religion in accordance with their pre-1939 rules for amending the Articles!!!]

***********
So where does that leave us???

With the conclusion that the UMC did NOT flip-flop between 2008 and 2012 BECAUSE THE UMC IS SCHIZOPHRENIC!!!

In other words, the Dr. Jekyll UMC believes that Christianity Trumps Civil Government and the Mr. Hyde UMC believes that Civil Government Trumps Christianity!!!

The Southern Methodists are the Mr. Hyde UMC. The other two wings of the Methodist Church plus the EUB comprise the Dr. Jekyll UMC.

So here’s a future question for the UMC Judicial Council!!!

Should inconsistent provisions of the Articles of Religion be determined at the level of the particular Church making the complaint, or at the level of the particular individuals making the complaint???

So there we have it (I think). Voilà.

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Response
From: Rev. J. Keith Cupples
Date: Wed, December 11, 2013 3:36 am
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grace to you and peace.

[The text of his e-mail is contained in the following Microsoft Word file because it comprises 21 pages and its salient points are summarized in the immediately-preceding reply. (It is no wonder that Keith’s “Response” is 21 pages because he worked on it for more than 10 hours, though some of it is cut-and-paste.)]

RL-zc11-KeithIncomingReUMC+Abortion.doc

(113 KiB) Downloaded 144 times

Grace to you and peace.

JKC


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Your Comments Requested Re My Notes Of Your Comments Yesterday Evening On The Position of the United Methodist Church Regarding Abortion
From: John Karls
Date: Tue, December 10, 2013 5:16 pm
To: Rev. J. Keith Cupples
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Keith,

At our most-recent weekly gabfest that we have had every Monday evening for the past 13 months starting at 6:30 pm and rarely finishing before mid-night, you commented for a couple of hours about the following two postings on the Reading Liberally website concerning the position of the United Methodist Church on abortion.

I did my best to take notes on your comments and have done my best to check your references.

The following are the results. Please review them and provide any comments you may have by noon tomorrow so that everything can be included in a handout at tomorrow evening’s meeting.

[The reason for my request is that our normal discussion time is only 120 minutes and the views of the UMC on abortion, which were only used as an example to contrast with the views of the Roman Catholic Church, are more in the nature of a footnote when contrasted with all of the more-central issues contained in the Suggested Discussion Outline and other materials posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org. However, with that said, I appreciate that as a retired UMC minister who will return in 3 weeks to the North Texas Conference of the UMC to become the Interim Pastor of a troubled United Methodist Church for the next 18 months, you would like to see the views of the UMC on abortion reported accurately.]

********************
THE 2012 FLIP-FLOP REGARDING CIVIL GOVERNMENT TRUMPING CHRISTIANITY

You have not cited any authorities that contradict the provision of the 2012 Book of Discipline of the UMC on the subject of “Of the Duty of Christians to the Civil Authority” which was quoted from the official UMC website in the 6th paragraph of the immediately-following posting.

And you have not cited any authorities that contradict the provision of the 2008 Book of Discipline of the UMC on the subject of “Civil Government” which was quoted in the 9th paragraph of the immediately-following posting and which was replaced by the 2012 provision.

********************
THE UMC POSITION ON ABORTION

Accordingly, your quarrel with the reported position of the UMC on abortion appears to be limited to the specific comments relating to abortion in the 2008 Book of Discipline of the UMC that are quoted in Paragraphs 15-22 of the immediately-following posting.

Nevertheless, you do not dispute that the quotation comes directly from the 2008 Book of Discipline of the UMC and have been contained in the Book of Discipline for many years.

Instead, your quarrel appears to be limited to whether the specific comments on abortion in the UMC Book of Discipline are binding on Methodists in general and Methodist clergy in particular.

Your first observation, which is correct, is that the specific comments on abortion that were quoted below come from Part IV of the Book of Discipline of the UMC which is entitled “Social Principles.”

Your second observation, which is also correct, is that the “Social Principles” are NOT based on specific quotations in The Bible but, instead, represent the considered opinion of the approximately 1,000 delegates who attended the most-recent quadrennial worldwide General Conference of the UMC and who, of course, comprise the top clergy and top non-clerical leadership of the worldwide UMC -- for what a Christian in general and a Methodist in particular ought to believe with respect to the issues addressed in the “Social Principles.”

Your third observation, which is also correct, is that since the “Social Principles” are NOT based on specific quotations in The Bible, Christians in general and Methodists in particular are free to adopt different beliefs.

In support of your second and third observations, you cite the Book of Discipline of the UMC which states in the Preface to its Part IV (“Social Principles”): “It is important to note that the Church’s Statements on Social Issues, such as abortion, represent the effort of the General Conference to speak to human issues in the contemporary world from a sound Biblical and theological foundation. They are intended to be instructive and persuasive, but are not Church law and are not binding on Members.”

Your second and third observations, of course, are the reasons why you personally have embraced and continue to embrace the Roman Catholic view that abortion is a sin.

I look forward to receiving your comments. And to your participation at our meeting tomorrow evening.

Your friend,

John K.


*******************************************************************
Methodist Church’s Approval of Abortion
Posted by solutions -- Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:39 pm

After reading John Karls’ comments about his personal experience with abortion, and the abortion views of his mother who, together with his father, had been stalwarts in the United Methodist Church, it struck me that it would be interesting to examine the position of the United Methodist Church on abortion.

********************
METHODIST CHURCH APPROVAL OF ABORTION

The “Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church” is to the UMC what the U.S. Constitution is to the United States -- the most authoritative statement of UMC beliefs.

Indeed, John Karls’ comments about his mother mentions in passing, that his late father “still holds the international record for the number of Quadrennial Conferences governing the national/international United Methodist Church attended as an official delegate = 13 over more than half a century.”

The primary function of each Quadrennial Conference is to make whatever revisions the conferees deem appropriate to the “Book of Discipline of the UMC.”

The most recent version of the “Book of Discipline of the UMC” approved by the 2012 Quadrennial Conference states:

“Of the Duty of Christians to the Civil Authority. It is the duty of all Christians, and especially of all Christian ministers, to observe and obey the laws and commands of the governing or supreme authority of the country of which they are citizens or subjects or in which they reside, and to use all laudable means to encourage and enjoin obedience to the powers that be.” [This provision is available on the official website of the United Methodist Church at http://www.umc.org > Our Faith > Beliefs > Beliefs: We Invite You To Learn More About Our Rich Theological Heritage > Foundational Documents > The Articles of Religion > The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church XXIV – XXV > Of the Duty of Christians to the Civil Authority.]

Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade must be observed and obeyed by United Methodists in the U.S. as of 2012.

********************
METHODIST CHURCH POSITION CONDONING ABORTION PRIOR TO 2012

The provision in the 2012 “Book of Discipline of the UMC” quoted above regarding “The Duty of Christians to the Civil Authority” replaced the following provision in the 2008 “Book of Discipline of the UMC” (page 71):

“Civil Government. We believe civil government derives its just powers from the sovereign God. As Christians we recognize the governments under whose protection we reside and believe such governments should be based on, and be responsible for, the recognition of human rights under God. We believe war and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ. We believe it is the duty of Christian citizens to give moral strength and purpose to their respective governments through sober, righteous and godly living.”

Quite different from 2012 provision!!!

2008 = Christianity trumps civil government.

2012 = Civil government trumps Christianity.

Any specific 2008 pronouncement on abortion???

Why yes, in the 2008 “Book of Discipline of the UMC” (pp. 105-106):

“(J) Abortion. The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.

“But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.

“We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We support parental, guardian, or other responsible adult notification and consent before abortions can be performed on girls who have not yet reached the age of legal adulthood. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.

“We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Before providing their services, abortion providers should be required to offer women the option of anesthesia.

“We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may cause them to consider abortion.

“The Church shall offer ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth.

“We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See 161.L.) We affirm and encourage the Church to assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion.

“Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, family, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.”

********************
CONCLUSION

As of 2012, the United Methodist Church for congregants in the U.S. bows to Roe v. Wade.

Prior to 2012, the United Methodist Church basically condoned abortion provided: (1) it is legal in the jurisdiction in which it occurs, (2) proper medical procedures are employed, (3) parental notification is required for minors, (4) abortion is not a means of gender selection, (5) abortion does not comprise “late-term abortion” (aka “partial birth abortion”); and (6) thoughtful and prayerful consideration is employed and is accompanied with medical, family, pastoral and other appropriate counsel.”


*******************************************************************
Portion of SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE SHORT QUIZ
Posted by John Karls -- Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:10 pm


Question 4

Does the RCC speak for Protestant Denominations such as the United Methodist Church?

Answer 4

Of course not. After all, the term Protestant comes from all the Protests over RCC policies and doctrines.

Question 5

What is the position of the United Methodist Church on abortion?

Answer 5

It embraces Roe v. Wade beginning in 2012 with the “flip flop” in its “Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church” (the UMC’s most authoritative document or, in other words, its Constitution) that Civil Government trumps Christianity.

Prior to 2012, the UMC’s Book of Discipline had provided that Christianity trumps Civil Government -- and with respect to abortion specifically that the UMC condones abortion provided: (1) it is legal in the jurisdiction in which it occurs, (2) proper medical procedures are employed, (3) parental notification is required for minors, (4) abortion is not a means of gender selection, (5) abortion does not comprise “late-term abortion” (aka “partial birth abortion”); and (6) thoughtful and prayerful consideration is employed and is accompanied with medical, family, pastoral and other appropriate counsel.

Question 6

Does the reason for the semi-flip-flop of the United Methodist Church beginning in 2012 have broader implications?

Answer 6

Yes. (Please read on Q&A-7 thru Q&A-9.)

Question 7

In other words, does the 2012 change in the United Methodist Church from “Christianity trumps Civil Government” to “Civil Government trumps Christianity” line up with the RCC’s “crack down” on its liberation-theology clergy? [Even though the RCC does NOT believe that its position on abortion and birth control are trumped by Civil Government.]

Answer 7

So it would appear.

Question 8

And, in other words, does the 2012 change in the United Methodist Church mean that it would now disapprove of Methodists marching with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King in a show of civil disobedience? Or disapprove of Methodists participating in the famous non-violent civil disobedience campaigns of Mahatma Ghandi?

Answer 8

So it would appear. (But please read on Q&A-9.)

Question 9

But isn’t the new position of the United Methodist Church regarding Civil Government trumping Christianity irrelevant for the individual Methodist because the essence of Methodism and many Protestant denominations is that everyone has personal responsibility for her/his actions and cannot hide behind the opinion of a clergy person who might be fallible (unlike, for example, the RCC Pope who is believed by Catholics to be infallible)?

Answer 9

Of course!!!

[Rev J Keith Cupples]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Your Position On The Position of the United Methodist Church Regarding Abortion
From: Rev. J. Keith Cupples
Date: Fri, December 13, 2013 3:41 pm
To: John Karls
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grace to you and peace.

Thank you for your thoughtful and sensitive response. I bend at the waist
to express my deep appreciation for the clarity presented and provided.

I completely agree that many if not most if not everyone I know, invoke the
law of the state over the Church when the law used buttresses their cause
and/or case.. Conversely, that same individual/group will invokes the law
of the Church over the state when when doing so gives them the advantage,
legally or theologically or spiritually.

It seems to be all about winning and maintaining the the status quo for the
individual/group at the expense of any and every other individual/group.

Indeed the delegate from Louisiana raising for a point of order and calling
for a ruling from the Judicial Council during the 1960 General Conference
in response to a resolution concerning sit-ins, seemed to be seeking
censure of the resolution based on the Methodist Protestant Article that
was part of the 1939 unification. Therefore, the delegate from Louisiana
and perhaps the whole delegation from Louisiana; and perhaps every delegate
and delegation standing against integration and for the law of the State
calling for legal segregation; was lifting a point of Church Law (so
he/they thought) that would remind the Conference that The Church was under
the State and any act of civil disobedience was against Church Law. Since
Louisiana became part of the ME Church South and was part of the ME Church
at unification, it was morally right to discipline the Church/Conference
that was placing on the backs of the southern Churches a northern Church
sympathy. The egg on the face was supposed to be realization by the
Conference that the Conference had violated the DISCIPLINE and therefore
Church Law.

When the JC ruled that the MPC Article was included with the other Articles
of Religion as a courtesy to the MPC without the weight of Law, i.e. the
Articles of Religion, what you described schizophrenia is indeed present.
So much for honoring the MPC as promised at unification by the ME Church
and the ME Church South, or the ME Church South by the ME Church and MP
Church, etc.

As a child of the 1960's I was for integration as was my family and
therefore glad that The Methodist Church was supporting a moral, spiritual,
and theological point that I supported. The segregationists and segregation
itself was damnable, not of God and of the Devil. The Church should lead to
way enlighten our Country that one nation under God could not make such a
claim while embracing segregation. The USA had remained in an apostate
state reducing the capacity of being blessed by God. Much the same
reasoning used by Saul of Tarsus to arrest Jews who had become Christians
such as the mission he was on to Damascus when according to Luke as found
is Acts and was blinded by God.

At the same time I was addressing the deplorable enemy of segregation, I
was being accepted into the honors program of the Dallas ISD which would be
segregated into honors and high academic. I did not mind the separation
from the lower students, yet was miffed when I was placed in the High
academics section and not the Honors section.

This past Wed. Bill stated with great passion that he did not like a person
like me (Christian) telling him how he should live while just as
passionately wanting to tell me how to live. When asked to defend the
double standard, he stated that he was not guilty of telling me as accused
but I and people like me were guilty as he charged. When I used his defense
to me on him, my defense was described as irrelevant and easily dismissed.

Double standards!

At times legalistic, at times not very legalistic at all. Seems to depend
on need because most everyone I know wants what they want when they want
it,

As a person of Faith, I seek to be a good citizen, rendering to Caesar what
belongs to Caesar. Yet when what Caesar want conflicts with What God wants,
God comes before Caesar. When I am faithful to this principle, I give
thanks. When I violate this principle, I am sad. When I try to convince
myself that i have been faithful when I have not, I am the incarnation of
the devil.

Roe is the law of the land. I will faithfully support the conditions it
places upon me. All the while I will state that it is as immoral as slavery
as it violates the life (including inalienable and State given rights) of
the gestating human being; and therefore needs to be appealed before the
full desensitizing of the USA and the world takes place and humanity
without sensitivity is the only definition available for use and all are
enslaved to what I am confident the Bible calls Godless and therefore hell.

If the point of order of the delegate of Louisiana during the 1960 GC was
upheld and sit-ins by Methodist college students would be legislatively
terminated with said students facing expulsion of they did not cease
participating at sit-ins, the decision would have been legally right but
morally wrong except for portions of society that had deep roots in
segregation, slavery and christian beliefs that supported same. From their
point of view, they held the moral high ground.

Hpefull history has proven the 1960 GC more right than wrong on this issue.
Remember women were still not allowed to be ordained as elders.

Grace to you and peace.

JKC