I just read some excellent work over at the Institute of Religion and Democracy. Under the Discipline, which used to be ironclad and now Bishop Brucie Ough says are merely guidelines (or at least the sections that make him uncomfortable and that may be politically incorrect), both the new treasurer of West Ohio and the Bishop, as well as any other powers that be that voted to hire this Brownson person could be charged under the Discipline. Of course, this regime in the United Methodist Church, like the current Regime in Washington, does not care what its constituents want, nor do they care about what the rules say, just like Congress and President Obama. But, here is what the folks over at the Institute have found:
Though it is quite rare for formal charges to be brought against laypersons in the UMC, Mr. Brownson could be charged under Paragraph 2702.3 for the following offenses: (a) immorality, (c) disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC, or (f) sexual misconduct.
Therefore, if Brownson could be charged, then it follows that Brucie and Co. should be charged under at least (a) and (c).
And, the author of this piece raises some key questions:
This latest fracas raises at least the following questions:
1. Do the bishop and CFA of the West Ohio Conference believe that standards established by the General Conference do not apply to Annual Conferences?
2. Do United Methodist leaders in West Ohio believe that Disciplinary standards governing sexuality are for clergy only and do not apply to laypersons?
3. Is this an attempt to bring a test case before the Judicial Council for the purpose of changing the sexual standards of the UMC?
4. If Mr. Brownson were heterosexual and living unmarried with a woman, would he have been deemed an acceptable candidate for the position? And if the answer is no, then are we dealing with a double standard?
5. Among the more than fifty applicants for the CFO position, was there not a single one that was both professionally qualified and also in compliance with UM sexual standards?
Let me answer some of these:
1. Yes, Bishop Brucie thinks he is the arbiter of fate.
2. Yes, because the church is bleeding money because of unwise spending as well as misdirected initiatives, and membership is bleeding because of idiotic stands like this, so the church needs new butts in seats, because it is all about numbers, not faith to brucie and company.
3. Yes, Brucie and the libs in west ohio want to cause a showdown and hope that political correctness rules the day, or if it does not, then Nancy Pelosi will muscle the church.
4.No, Yes.
5. Yes, there were, but according to Brucie, only one other person was even considered by the search group. Hmmm, wonder what test case in political correctness they represented?
This is a disgrace and hopefully people in the church who believe in Immutable Truth will make plans to take action and separate themselves from those who believe that social decay and cultural depravity are ok if it puts butts in seats and money in the treasury.
