Beth Stroud, the former UM pastor whose credentials were pulled after she "came out" about her homosexuality, has had her appeal turned away. The UM Judicial Council has upheld the initial action that pulled her credentials. She can no longer serve as a UM pastor.
Does this action mean that her credentials as a Christian person have been pulled? Of course not. However, the action and subsequent reactions tells a story about a people who are not the least bit interested in "justice". And I am not speaking exclusively of United Methodists, conservative or otherwise.
President Bush has named a new nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. The gentleman happens to have a conservative background. Without even giving the man a chance to speak, NARAL and other pro-abortion organizations as well as senators and congressmen are already having screaming fits that this man will not be fair to their cause.
Whether conservative or liberal, we are not at all interested in justice. We want what we want, and we will use any means at our disposal to be sure we get it. If it means disparaging remarks directed at those with whom we disagree, then so be it.
Of course we pretend that we have a special place in our hearts for justice, and we claim to be a nation of justice. It just is, however, that justice must be according to what suits us or pleases us. The truth be damned.
Regardless of one's position on homosexuality within the Church, the decision denying Ms. Stroud her credentials was right, according to what is written as church law in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The law is about as clear as the English language can allow.
Regardless of one's stand on abortion (which seems to be about the only issue facing the US Supreme Court, to hear NARAL tell it), there is no law written that justifies such an action. It is not written in the US Constitution, and the US Congress has not created a law to be signed by the President. In fact, there is no law that grants to any of us a right to destroy an innocent human being. And abortion, and a judge's refusal to abide by that ridiculous Roe v Wade decision, is an acknowledgement of the fact that among the rights of man is "life". A judge's refusal to rule otherwise, especially in abortion cases, is to rule in favor of those who cannot speak up for, nor protect, themselves - the unborn.
The rule of law is always in favor of what is right.
2 comments:
"Does this action mean that her credentials as a Christian person have been pulled?"
you're right that her credentials as a Christian person have not been pulled, but with the judgement on the case in virginia concerning denying people membership could exclude someone just like Beth from having credentials as a Christian person. that bothers me much more than the stroud case.
I don't disagree. In fact, my wife and I were discussing this very thing this evening. The implications of the VA case can go a long way toward giving a pastor just a little more authority than any single person within a congregation should have.
On the other hand, the pastor must serve as a shepherd. Some hard choices must be made. In the VA case, I've heard a lot but I've not had a chance to read for myself exactly what happened. On the surface, it could be that the pastor's denial could in itself serve as a ministry. I suppose it depends on one's perspective.
Thank you for visiting.
Post a Comment