Problems within the Methodist Church

[CryptoKnight]

As an apparently conservative Methodist, I truly feel that the UMC has failed me by pardoning the ordained homosexual minister, Ms. Dammann. While I expected this liberal denomination to pardon her, I expected there to be a representation of the Book of Discipline within the vote to some degree. I believe there were 13 "jurors" and 9 votes were needed to convict.

11 votes were for a pardon, and two were undecided. There were no votes siding with the Book of Discipline (i.e. for conviction). (if you aren't familiar with the issue, but it is of concern to you from either side, please read up on it before responding). Things to consider:

The Bible specifically identifies homosexuality as "an abomination".
The UMC Book of Discipline clearly states that homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching."
The "prosecuting clergy", Rev. James C. Finkbeiner, made a statement afterwards that "I'm glad I lost, on a personal basis." Clearly this was not the man to represent the Methodist Book of Discipline as a prosecutor in a church trial.

Before you jump on my case, realize that the primary problem I have is that the church did not adhere to its own rules. I understand that "abomination" can mean "ritually unclean" and pertain only to Jews. Fine, but then we need to change our Book of Discipline. As it stands, a ruling was made in direct contrast to the BoD.

If the Protestant churches wonder why they are losing members, it's because they are losing their souls. Hard(er) line churches like the Catholic and Mormon churches gain members by standing their ground, while Protestant churches like the Methodists and Episcopalians are tripping over themselves trying to please anyone.

2..4..6..8..why are they going a-pos-tate?

(EDIT: as a side note, while I've yet to read notes on the decision, I have a feeling it was a technicality. The BoD prohibits ORDAINING practicing, self-avowed homosexuals. When Ms. Dammann was ordained, she was not self-avowed (by the UMC's definition). The BoD doesn't say anything about an ordained minister "coming out", as she did.)

[seebs]

I know other methodists who were worried that the church would "fail them" by deciding the other way.

Welcome to ongoing disputes and division within the church. This will be going on for some time. We've come out pretty well out of some of them, and pretty badly out of others.

Keep in mind that, down in the trenches as we are, we may well be blind to God's leading for us.

[Bro. Gabriel]

Truly a sad decision for a "Church" to make. I'd encourage you to seek God's will and if He might be leading you to a different Church since the Holy Spirit is obviously convicting you about this issue.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

As an apparently conservative Methodist, I truly feel that the UMC has failed me by pardoning the ordained homosexual minister, Ms. Dammann.
As it stands, a ruling was made in direct contrast to the BoD.
When change occurs in institutions, it's often messy.

If the Protestant churches wonder why they are losing members, it's because they are losing their souls. Hard(er) line churches like the Catholic and Mormon churches gain members by standing their ground, while Protestant churches like the Methodists and Episcopalians are tripping over themselves trying to please anyone.
That's the party line from such as the Southern Baptists and various non-denominational bodies, but, it's not exactly accurate. The number of members of Mainline liberal Protestant Churches leaving to go to more conservative churches is actually small. Most who are leaving are just becoming unchurched; or, more accurately, older members are dying off and not being replaced. In the 19th Century it was a social norm to belong to a church though not necessarily in the West, the region of the U.S. that has always had and still does the highest number of unchurched. So many joined whatever Protestant church was least intrusive. These days religion is often considered a private matter so more people feel comfortable with being unchurched.

And don't for a minute mistake this and the Episcopals' action naming a gay Bishop as "tripping over themselves trying to please anyone". It actually took great courage and much prayerful consideration to make these bold descisions to advance the inclusiveness of Christ knowing it would offend so many.

2..4..6..8..why are they going a-pos-tate?
Disagreement over human sexuality and relationships is not apostacy.

In applying Wesley's maxim "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity" this is clearly a "non-essential".

(EDIT: as a side note, while I've yet to read notes on the decision, I have a feeling it was a technicality. The BoD prohibits ORDAINING practicing, self-avowed homosexuals. When Ms. Dammann was ordained, she was not self-avowed (by the UMC's definition). The BoD doesn't say anything about an ordained minister "coming out", as she did.)
That's actually a very good legal argument, though it's by no means clear this was the reasoning of the jurors.

In the Yahoo story on this, it stated a prayer service was led by the minister of the church at which the trial took place after the trial, and he invited all to voice their thoughts. One woman said "I pray for our church, for those who will rejoice and for those who will gnash their teeth and wail." That was a very wise woman.

[dsdumpling]

I think all churches have their "dirty little secrets". I thank God that my little Methodist church is so far away from the orthodoxy of the "main stream" church.

[OnederWoman]

It is sad. I grew up UMC and it is heartbreaking to me to see this happening. Most of my family is UM... my Mother just became a UM pastor last year. I haven't gone to the UMC for years and this is yet another reason I most likely will never return (dh and I consider ourselvees non-denom, currently attending a SBC).

Another sad thing is that while some (I would hope many) may leave the UMC or demand a split or something... many will, out of tradition, stay even though they don't agree with what's going on (like my family whos attitude is "we've always been Methodist and we're going to remain Methodist"... this is where my Grandparents are at, who are Bible believing Christians... I think in their younger days they may have made a fuss, but they're all in their 80's and probably think they're too old to make a big change like that).

[kdet]

My husband has attended a Methodist church his entire life until his work has caused us to move around so much. We have seen this coming for awhile now and it is one reason we have looked elsewhere for our spiritual needs.
This was the final straw for him. We were talking this over yesterday and cannot help but wonder how a church can go against it's own church discipline this way?
God's word speaks of a great falling away..I believe we are seeing this in our churches today.

[countrymousenc]

:sigh:

[Eusebios]

I grew up in the UMC and have many fond memories from MYF. Our minister, The Rev. Paul Offenheiser, was one of the last of the "Old School" UMC preachers, and I loved him dearly. The man who followed him did not sit well with many, myself included and so I left to go on the oddysey that has brought to to where I now am.
My prayers go out to those in the UMC who are now faced with very difficult decisions.:pray:
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[belladotcom]

Hey,

I am not from a UMC but from a FMC (Free Methodist Church) and I do understand you in your points. One thing that I would like to make clear first is that I personally am AGAINST the homosexuallity in churchs over the U.S and the world. But most of all, is that it is biblical and it is what the bible says it is. People tend to twist around the words of the bible to fit their own interests (which let's mention it's also a sin).
Now, the UMC made a TERRIBLE choice when took that step towards satan's door, and I will put my word here in the name of Jesus Christ, that this 'little' step it's going to bring many, MANY conflicts within the church.
The only thing we can pray :prayer: for now is that the leaders of UMC doesn't make the same mistake of the ancient minister that were leading their churchs based on political benefits.
That is my understanding!

In the Love of Christ,:amen:
Bella

[repentandbelieve]

In the eyes of God is a homosexual minister any less qualified to preach than those ministers who practice adultery or fornication?.

[eldermike]

That's the party line from such as the Southern Baptists and various non-denominational bodies, but, it's not exactly accurate. The number of members of Mainline liberal Protestant Churches leaving to go to more conservative churches is actually small. Most who are leaving are just becoming unchurched; or, more accurately, older members are dying off and not being replaced.

Got supporting data on this?

[CryptoKnight]

Thanks for all the comments. I think, having chosen Methodism as my way to celebrate Christianity, and having deliberately chosen a Methodist congregation, I must apply Wesley's maxim

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity" this is clearly a "non-essential".
however painful that may be. Though I fear for the UMC leaders, I think it best for me to continue to work from within the church, rather than to flee it. Our congretation is on the conservative-yet-progressive side (we have a divorced pastor and a few homosexual members) and we stick pretty much to the Book of Discipline, so this deviation is hard.

Maybe the Episcopals and Methodists will both split, and rejoin as two different denominations??? Naw...

[P_G]

In the eyes of God is a homosexual minister any less qualified to preach than those ministers who practice adultery or fornication?.
Gahhhhhhhh

I am so dying over this!

No your right those people are not appropriate to minister either. And they are openly in sin. Publicly, unrepentatently flaunting their sin in everyones face, tell me Oh PLEASE tell me some one how they step onto the pulpit and proclain a gospel of righteousness????????

What part of this don't we understand in today's world?

*** 1:6 If anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having faithful children, not in accusation of loose behavior, or disobedient,
*** 1:7 (for the overseer must be blameless as a steward of God), not self-pleasing, not prone to anger, not given to wine, not a quarreler, not greedy of ill gain;
*** 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of good, discreet, just, holy, temperate,


I am sorry but this just disgusts me all of it does.
Shame on the church shame on us all!


Blessings

Pastor George :cry:

[CryptoKnight]

In the eyes of God is a homosexual minister any less qualified to preach than those ministers who practice adultery or fornication?.
No, but let's clear up the point. In the eyes of God, one who is *committed* to sin (i.e. sins, is not repentent, and intends to sin again) is "less qualified" than one who is repentent, even if the repentent one occasionally "falls off the wagon."

Would I have a problem with a homosexual pastor who followed the Word (and the Discipline) and was repentent towards his/her homosexual behaviour? No. I could accept this, since the world-view espoused by most Christian churches is that homosexuality is a sin.

Heck, I could even have a pastor who had murdered, so long as they were repentant. One who flaunts their sin, however, I have a problem with. We all were born with some "-ism" that we must resist, whether it's homosexuality, tendencies towards violence, dispensations to addiction, or whatever. Some are "victimless" and some are not. All are to be resisted in coming closer to our Lord. (IMHO).

[nyj]

In the eyes of God is a homosexual minister any less qualified to preach than those ministers who practice adultery or fornication?.IMNSHO, anyone who openly, and without repentance, wallows in sin, is unfit to minister to those who need guidance in the Lord. So, a homosexual, adulterous or fornicating minister is an oxymoron. You cannot preach God's word while directly contradicting it. Matthew 12:30.

[Knight]

Heck, I could even have a pastor who had murdered, so long as they were repentant. One who flaunts their sin, however, I have a problem with. We all were born with some "-ism" that we must resist, whether it's homosexuality, tendencies towards violence, dispensations to addiction, or whatever. Some are "victimless" and some are not. All are to be resisted in coming closer to our Lord. (IMHO).
I cannot recall the name but there's a pastor in FL who was on death row for murder (before he was a Christian).
Long story short:
He repented and placed faith in Christ
Was granted clemency
Became a pastor.

[eldermike]

1TI 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.


Notice that these requirments are based on fitness for Spirtual warfare. If outsiders can eaisly bring charges on the lifestyle of a pastor they are not going to win the spirtual battles, even if they win the worlds battles.

The Bibles standards for leaderhship within the church is not based on the worlds standards. The leader of a flock will face spirtual battles.

[P_G]

Notice that these requirments are based on fitness for Spirtual warfare. If outsiders can eaisly bring charges on the lifestyle of a pastor they are not going to win the spirtual battles, even if they win the worlds battles.

The Bibles standards for leaderhship within the church is not based on the worlds standards. The leader of a flock will face spirtual battles.
Mike:

I don't see this as outsiders bringing questions regarding the leadership of the pastor

But rather the church as a whole as being represented by the eclisastical judiciary body. This would fall right in line with Matthew 18.

I think if anything it is the world that is trying to demand that the church change to what is currently politically correct as opposed to what is biblically correct.


Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

People tend to twist around the words of the bible to fit their own interests (which let's mention it's also a sin).





the UMC made a TERRIBLE choice when took that step towards satan's door

That is certainly an unfortunate characterization. Again, who is to say the opposite is not true? By affirming the inclusion of Christ to Rev. Dammann the UMC has actually taken a step toward Christ's love rather than toward Satan's hate.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Got supporting data on this?
Martin E. Marty wrote about it in Christian Century last month.

I also believe Rev. John Killinger mentions it in Ten Wrong Things I Learned From A Conservative Church.

[kdet]

[/font][/color][/size]






[size=2][color=magenta][font=Lucida Console][b]

That is certainly an unfortunate characterization. Again, who is to say the opposite is not true? By affirming the inclusion of Christ to Rev. Dammann the UMC has actually taken a step toward Christ's love rather than toward Satan's hate.

They don't appear to mention homosexualit,y they do mention it. Calling sinful behavior wrong is not stirring up hatred towards anyone.
IMO what steps that have been taken is toward Satan...and against the word of God...we see a great falling away of churches at the end times...IMO this is one of them.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Thanks for all the comments. I think, having chosen Methodism as my way to celebrate Christianity, and having deliberately chosen a Methodist congregation, I must apply Wesley's maxim


however painful that may be. Though I fear for the UMC leaders, I think it best for me to continue to work from within the church, rather than to flee it. Our congretation is on the conservative-yet-progressive side (we have a divorced pastor and a few homosexual members) and we stick pretty much to the Book of Discipline, so this deviation is hard.

Maybe the Episcopals and Methodists will both split, and rejoin as two different denominations??? Naw...
Thanks for a thoughtful post. As a liberal UMCer I've often thought our more conservative UMs would probably feel better if they turned Baptist. I mention occasionally in my journal here on CF about problems we have with a couple who are fundamentalists in our church, cryptically, as I don't want this to attract the attention of anyone who would invade their privacy, but suffice it to say they are our bete noire (I'm not a cultured as I'd like to be but I believe that's French for a personal pain in the you-know-where.) Now our pastor is a peacemaker and he has shared with us some things maybe he shouldn't have about their personal lives (and probably ours as well, which bothers me less because we have nothing to hide) and I see his point. I actually pray prayers of thanks for them because of the challenging they offer. I believe having them around has made us better Christians. I wish they'd change, but, surely they wish the same about us. As always the challenge is to get along.

One wag said the nation needs both liberals and conservatives-using the metaphor of the "Ship of State" the liberals are the sails and the conservatives are the anchors. Can the church need both any less? I've seen churches that veer too far off course either way and wreck.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I think if anything it is the world that is trying to demand that the church change to what is currently politically correct as opposed to what is biblically correct.
No offense but both political correctness and "Biblical" correctness (as if there were a way to measure such) are nothing but what Jefferson called "tyranny over the minds of men" toward which he swore "eternal hostility".

Times change, so do institutions. Or not. You can choose to change or not, but you cannot expect to do either without criticism.

[kdet]

No offense but both political correctness and "Biblical" correctness (as if there were a way to measure such) are nothing but what Jefferson called "tyranny over the minds of men" toward which he swore "eternal hostility".

Times change, so do institutions. Or not. You can choose to change or not, but you cannot expect to do either without criticism.
But God does not change!

[La Bonita Zorilla]

They don't appear to mention homosexualit,y they do mention it.

Cryptically and ambiguously.

Calling sinful behavior wrong is not stirring up hatred towards anyone.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

But God does not change!
No, but our understanding of him does; his true nature is constantly being revealed.

[Starcrystal]

I've attended a UMC before (Haven't been there in 4 years) and found the fellowship great, and a wonderful communion service that was more personal than the impersonal communion I've seen in some other churches. I also like that they made a formal appology to Native Americans for any wrongs they may have committed against them in the past.
However, when it comes to allowing homosexuality to flourish and be accepted as an alternative lifestyle, here's where we must draw the line. Its one thing to love the homosexuals and not shun them. (We need to share the gospel with them in its correct context regarding homosexuality) Its another thing altogether to allow homosexual ministers in the pulpit and treat it like that lifestyle is OK.
We need to pray that peoples eyes are openned to the truth about this. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. A little sin will spread. Now we have the Episcopalian church ordaining homosexuals. Homosexuals will demand the RIGHT to pastor churches, and if such a thing is ever passed into law it could affect the whole body of Christ.

[ufonium2]

No, but our understanding of him does; his true nature is constantly being revealed.
:wave:

[P_G]

No offense but both political correctness and "Biblical" correctness (as if there were a way to measure such) are nothing but what Jefferson called "tyranny over the minds of men" toward which he swore "eternal hostility".

Times change, so do institutions. Or not. You can choose to change or not, but you cannot expect to do either without criticism.



Thats right I agree and it apears that this once very conservative institution that proclaimed the pure gospel of Christ Jesus and the eternal dangers of sin has changed. And I am criticizing them for it.

I as a pastor do not understand how one can stand on a pulpit of G-d and preach an effective sermon regarding the need for redemption and repentance of sin when you yourself are openly living in a sinful state.

It seems to be more than just a tad hypocritical to me.

Well I guess to each his own.

And if you want to sit under the teaching of a public sinner then more power to you.

If you want to sit the teaching of some one who lives to dwell in the righteousness that G-d has described in his word - drop me an e-mail I will send you my schedule.

blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[DaleC76]

The UMC and ECUSA should answer the question once and for all: Is homosexuality a sin?

As it stands now, they're still straddling the fence. They've made a de facto change of doctrine, now they should make it official. To give lip-service to orthodoxy, then blatantly disregard it is unfair to the members of the churches. They should make a stand, one way or another.

[countrymousenc]

No, but our understanding of him does; his true nature is constantly being revealed.
:wave:

[Dominus Fidelis]

I feel for you all. You must feel betrayed by your own church and that has got to hurt.

:pray:

[countrymousenc]

It does hurt, DOF, even though I've already left. My family is still UMC, and largely unaware of all this. (Pastors out here are not telling the people about it, and if people in the congregation know, they seem to be keeping it quiet.) A "Don't ask don't tell" policy will just allow this to spread all over.

:sigh:

[Dominus Fidelis]

It does hurt, DOF, even though I've already left. My family is still UMC, and largely unaware of all this. (Pastors out here are not telling the people about it, and if people in the congregation know, they seem to be keeping it quiet.) A "Don't ask don't tell" policy will just allow this to spread all over.

:sigh:

My Dad was a UMC minister for 36 years, and my whole family is Methodist. I'm kind of hesitant to mention anything to them...

:sigh:

[countrymousenc]

I don't know how much I should tell my family either. Whether to disturb their consciences or not. These are difficult times.

We'll pray for each other. :)

[Knight]

It's sad to see a prominent church ignoring Biblical truth.

My parents currently attend a Methodist church. I'll have to make it a point to ask them about it.

[breezynosacek]

Well this thread redeems the entire board! Over in Current Events they are rejoicing that the lesbian wasn't kicked out of the ministry.

I thought the whole world had gone apostate over night!

[Dominus Fidelis]

Well this thread redeems the entire board! Over in Current Events they are rejoicing that the lesbian wasn't kicked out of the ministry.

I thought the whole world had gone apostate over night!

It would certainly seem that way.

:eek: :cry:

[Matrona]

My Dad was a UMC minister for 36 years, and my whole family is Methodist. I'm kind of hesitant to mention anything to them...

:sigh:
My friend's father is a Methodist minister. My friend said that when the whole thing went down in the Episcopal church, her dad had said that he thought the Episcopalians were making a big mistake. I wonder what he thinks of this, now. :( I feel so bad for both of these churches now.

[CryptoKnight]

Thanks for a thoughtful post. As a liberal UMCer I've often thought our more conservative UMs would probably feel better if they turned Baptist.
I can see that. Surely, there are those of a more fundamentalist lean in my congregation. Problem is, though I'm conservative, I'm *far* from fundamentalist! I'm conservative in that I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and is infallible. However, I concede that we lack so much understanding of what it says that we cannot know certain truths (though, thankfully, the "required truths" are plain to see).

Therefore, what do you do with a self-proclaimed conservative-yet-old-earth Christian? ;-)

Along these lines, I'm even willing to investigate the use of the word "abomination" as it pertains to homosexuality. I can see a good argument for it meaning "ritually unclean", rather than the "abhorrent" we typically associate with "abomination" in modern times.

Still...I have to question whether a priest should be willfully partaking in "ritualistically unclean" behaviour. Then, of course, I'd have to slap his hand when he eats shellfish...

*sigh*, back to the books.

[countrymousenc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by: La Bonita Zorilla




As a liberal UMCer I've often thought our more conservative UMs would probably feel better if they turned Baptist.
:wave:

[Knight]

You are proposing that conservative UMs move out to churches that deny the sacramental nature of Holy Communion and Baptism, who are non-creedal, and who will not baptize their infant children.
Take it easy or you're going to branch this thread off in a whole lot of different directions.

[countrymousenc]

To branch off this thread is not my intent. As one who has very recently left the UMC and whose family members are still United Methodist, I find the callousness of proposing that conservative UMs should casually give up beliefs that have always been held dear in Methodism offensive. I am not bashing Baptists - I was originally Southern Baptist, and still have Baptist friends who would equally object, if the tables were turned, at the suggestion that they might be more comfortable in paedobapist, creedal, and sacramental churches.

[Knight]

I know.
Your original post seemed somewhat hostile and I wanted to make sure. To give you a chance to clarify. :)

[countrymousenc]

I know.
Your original post seemed somewhat hostile and I wanted to make sure. To give you a chance to clarify. :) :wave: Hello, Knight:

I would be dishonest if I didn't admit that, in the light of what has happened and things that have been said, I am feeling just a wee tad hostile!

[Knight]

:wave: Hello, Knight:

I would be dishonest if I didn't admit that, in the light of what has happened and things that have been said, I am feeling just a wee tad hostile!
That is understandable. Let's just make sure that's directed the right way. ;)

I'm not happy with it myself.

[ufonium2]

Thanks for a thoughtful post. As a liberal UMCer I've often thought our more conservative UMs would probably feel better if they turned Baptist.
First of all, they were here first. They want to adhere to the beliefs stated in the church doctrine that the church has held since inception. Why should they be the ones to leave because you want to change beliefs?

Second, Methodists and Baptists aren't even related. They stem from two seperate reformations and have virtually no similarities (aside from not being Catholic.) Baptists are historically Calvinist and Methodists historically Anglican. Methodists have more in common doctrinally with Episcopals, and probably even Roman Catholics, than they do with Baptists. You can't divide denominations into "liberal" and "conservative." They are religious groups, not political parties or social activists.

[Origen]

No [God does not change], but our understanding of him does; his true nature is constantly being revealed.

So, do you think that God reveals Himself in ways that contradict His earlier revelations of Himself? If so, then, He changes. So, then, we've misunderstood something else in the Bible.


When Michelangelo was asked how he was able to sculpt The David, he answered that 'Creating The David was easy - all I had to do was remove all that was not the David from the stone.'

[Plan 9]

Well this thread redeems the entire board! Over in Current Events they are rejoicing that the lesbian wasn't kicked out of the ministry.

I thought the whole world had gone apostate over night!

I don't feel one bit betrayed by my church, and I am no apostate. When people say the our church has gone against its discipline, they don't quote everything our discipline says on the subject.
Those of you who are United Methodist and feel so betrayed had your chance to vote, as did we all.
The General Conference is meeting late next month, and this subject is on the agenda. Any United Methodists who fervently disgaree with what they decide have numerous Methodist denominations to choose from; no one is forced to belong to a particular denomination.

[countrymousenc]

Our ever-improving understand of God's self-revelation in Holy Scripture is similar to Michelangelo's creation of The David whenever we allow to fall away from that revelation our own bits of ignorance and hatred.

:wave:

[Yitzchak]

I don't feel one bit betrayed by my church, and I am no apostate. When people say the our church has gone against its discipline, they don't quote everything our discipline says on the subject.
Those of you who are United Methodist and feel so betrayed had your chance to vote, as did we all.
The General Conference is meeting late next month, and this subject is on the agenda. Any United Methodists who fervently disgaree with what they decide have numerous Methodist denominations to choose from; no one is forced to belong to a particular denomination.
I agree. Ultimately, each person has a chance to decide for themselves how to conduct themselves. I do feel sorry for the immature christians who are hurt by all of this and do not have the maturity to handle it well.

[Yitzchak]

Church institutions tend to die after a while. We could speculate as to the causes but historically churches don't maintain their original vision forever. My opinion is that God allows this because he doesn't want us to make an idol out of our church. God is a living God who wants a current relationship with us. My question is where is God in all of this? Meaning a bigger concern among methodists ought to be what God thinks and not what people think. Is the methodist church a dead church or a living church?

Myself, I prefer to seek the Lord today and not go on someone else's experience , whether living or dead.

[countrymousenc]

:wave:

[Plan 9]

Thanks for a thoughtful post. As a liberal UMCer I've often thought our more conservative UMs would probably feel better if they turned Baptist. I mention occasionally in my journal here on CF about problems we have with a couple who are fundamentalists in our church, cryptically, as I don't want this to attract the attention of anyone who would invade their privacy, but suffice it to say they are our bete noire (I'm not a cultured as I'd like to be but I believe that's French for a personal pain in the you-know-where.) Now our pastor is a peacemaker and he has shared with us some things maybe he shouldn't have about their personal lives (and probably ours as well, which bothers me less because we have nothing to hide) and I see his point. I actually pray prayers of thanks for them because of the challenging they offer. I believe having them around has made us better Christians. I wish they'd change, but, surely they wish the same about us. As always the challenge is to get along.

One wag said the nation needs both liberals and conservatives-using the metaphor of the "Ship of State" the liberals are the sails and the conservatives are the anchors. Can the church need both any less? I've seen churches that veer too far off course either way and wreck.
Actualy, I think that some might be happier as Free Methodists than as Baptists, but Im pleased to read your last paragraph, since I'm one conservative United Methodist who isn't going anywhere. ;)

[Plan 9]

I agree. Ultimately, each person has a chance to decide for themselves how to conduct themselves. I do feel sorry for the immature christians who are hurt by all of this and do not have the maturity to handle it well.
Yes; ultimately, it is always between the individual and God. We all must act according to our own consciences.
In the UMC, for the most part, congregations choose their own ministers, and need not renew the contracts of those they are unhappy with for any reason. The same is true of our ministers, who are not obliged to maintain their contracts. In all my years as a United Methodist, I have only seen a bishop intervene once, and I know why he did, although other United Methodists may not have understood because they didn't ask around. No one congregation need have a minister it doesn't want for long. Our local churches are not set up to revolve around their ministers, because no one recognized the power of the pulpit more than John Wesley, and that's why the bishop of my conference intervened once.

I am equally sorry for those members of my church who feel hurt by this, but the UMC has weathered worse controversies, and however ignored or passed-over our more conservative members may feel, that's simply not true.

I feel that threads like this one do more harm than good; some people participating are already more upset than they were before they posted here.

Peace to all posting here. Be of good cheer; God will help all of us through this difficult time. :)

[Knight]

Baptists are historically Calvinist and Methodists historically Anglican.
I think you mean Arminian (sp?).

BTW, I know many Baptists who are not Calvinists.

[ufonium2]

I think you mean Arminian (sp?).

BTW, I know many Baptists who are not Calvinists.
Notice I said "historically." The Methodist church is an offshoot of the Anglican church, its founder was an ordained Anglican. The Baptist church, if you trace it back to England, was originally Calvinist. I never said "all Baptists are Calvinists." I was pointing out that Baptists aren't just conservative Methodists, that there are many doctrinal and historical differences.

[Plan 9]

Notice I said "historically." The Methodist church is an offshoot of the Anglican church, its founder was an ordained Anglican. The Baptist church, if you trace it back to England, was originally Calvinist. I never said "all Baptists are Calvinists." I was pointing out that Baptists aren't just conservative Methodists, that there are many doctrinal and historical differences.
Agreed. :)

[Origen]

:wave:

[countrymousenc]

:wave:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

:wave:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

:wave:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

:wave:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

First of all, they were here first.
Who was?

They want to adhere to the beliefs stated in the church doctrine that the church has held since inception.
Wrong. No one even knew what a homosexual was until the late 19th and early 20th centuries until the term was used by Freud and Kraft-Ebbing. So there's no way you can prove anti-gay bigotry predated that. Heck, before they codified it, homosexuals didn't even know what a homosexual was.

Why should they be the ones to leave because you want to change beliefs?
Their choice, or mine.

Second, Methodists and Baptists aren't even related. They stem from two seperate reformations and have virtually no similarities (aside from not being Catholic.) Baptists are historically Calvinist and Methodists historically Anglican. Methodists have more in common doctrinally with Episcopals, and probably even Roman Catholics, than they do with Baptists. You can't divide denominations into "liberal" and "conservative." They are religious groups, not political parties or social activists.
Not the issue, but it appears you got mixed up by the other poor fellow's misspeaking.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

When Michelangelo was asked how he was able to sculpt The David, he answered that 'Creating The David was easy - all I had to do was remove all that was not the David from the stone.'


Very well said, and such a beuatiful metaphor.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

First, you equate believing that homosexual behavior is immoral with bigotry and hatred. News flash: I do not hate homosexual people. It is not necessary to hate practicing homosexual people in order to believe that they should not be ordained as clergy.
No, but it does make one bigoted against them, whether or not one "hates" them.

In fact, I believe it is dangerously unloving to tell them (especially since before the 20th century, the Church has always called their behavior a sin), that their behavior is okay with God.
Actually your claim "it's always been thus" is false; no one even knew what homosexuality was till about 100 years ago.

Second, your "ever-improving understanding" smacks, to me, of interpretational revisionism.
Every time somebody reads a verse, "interpersonal revisionism" is occurring.

This is what has to inevitably happen when we cut ties to Holy Tradition because we think we know better than the Church Fathers.
No one is doing that. Anyone who thinks we can and will do exactly what they would have us do is not living in reality, though.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

My question is where is God in all of this? Meaning a bigger concern among methodists ought to be what God thinks and not what people think. Is the methodist church a dead church or a living church?
My belief is God smiles upon his servants who have decided a reason to exclude another servant from ministry is wrong.

[praying]

No, but our understanding of him does; his true nature is constantly being revealed.


Thank goodness for that!!

[countrymousenc]

:wave:

[Yitzchak]

My belief is God smiles upon his servants who have decided a reason to exclude another servant from ministry is wrong.
" He that is not a son of Peace is not a son of God. All other sins destroy the Church consequently; but Division and Seperation demolish it directly... Many Doctrinal differences must be tolerated in a Church: And why? but for Unitie and Peace? Therefore Disunion and Seperation is utterly intolerable."
Richard Baxter, The Saints' Everlasting Rest, 1650

This is a quote from a book on The church of England, church history. In the late 1940's and early 1950's an ecumenical push was inspired by a sermon by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher. This push for ecumenism involved the methodist church which of course came out fo the church of England (Anglican). I am sure that the Lord smiles down on all who work for unity between people, espeacially among the church.

[Momzilla]

LBZ,

To say that "no one knew what homosexuality was 100 years ago" is just silly. The term might not have been coined yet, but certainly homosexuality both existed and was known to exist.

[ufonium2]

LBZ,

To say that "no one knew what homosexuality was 100 years ago" is just silly. The term might not have been coined yet, but certainly homosexuality both existed and was known to exist.
Yup, and it is precisely because there was no name for homosexuality that the Bible never says the word. Had there been a word for "sexual acts with someone of the same sex" in ancient languages, we wouldn't be having these arguments now. In fact, the Bible never comes out and says "don't be a pedophile" but nobody is arguing that because the Bible never says "pedophile" that it is somehow Biblical to molest children. The authors of the Bible used the words they had, and there were no words for these acts in those languages at that time.

And LBZ, how is it that although homosexuality didn't exist until 1900, we apparently know that Michaelangelo was homosexual? How do we know that if he didn't know it himself?

[Yitzchak]

The parable of the wheat and the tares comes to my mind when thinking of this issue the methodists are dealing with. There is a time to compromise on pulling out tares.

[PatrickM]

Yup, and it is precisely because there was no name for homosexuality that the Bible never says the word. Had there been a word for "sexual acts with someone of the same sex" in ancient languages, we wouldn't be having these arguments now. In fact, the Bible never comes out and says "don't be a pedophile" but nobody is arguing that because the Bible never says "pedophile" that it is somehow Biblical to molest children. The authors of the Bible used the words they had, and there were no words for these acts in those languages at that time.
As a matter of fact, there wasn't even the English language 2000 years ago! But there sure was a word for this act, "men lying with men in a bed belonging to marriage" was coined by Paul, arsenokoites.
And LBZ, how is it that although homosexuality didn't exist until 1900, we apparently know that Michaelangelo was homosexual? How do we know that if he didn't know it himself?
Oops!

[Dark_Lite]

Ah but there were the beginnings of it though.. (the English language)

In the early middle ages (500-1000) there was Old English. Now THAT language is one to learn. Forget this Latin stuff.

[LuxPerpetua]

Butting in

I just thought I'd add that in the Middle Ages, there were laws against homosexuality. Homosexuality was called buggery and it was a capital offense. So, this is proof that homosexuality was well-known before this century.

Butting out now

[seebs]

The problem here is a shift in terminology. When LBZ says "we didn't know about homosexuality", she's referring to the modern theory that a small percentage of people have an apparently inborn attraction to members of the same sex. What everyone else is pointing at is rules about homosexual activity, not orientation; the idea that there could be an orientation had not occurred to anyone yet. There were vague thoughts in that direction, but no one really formalized it or studied it.

[Yitzchak]

Butting in

I just thought I'd add that in the Middle Ages, there were laws against homosexuality. Homosexuality was called buggery and it was a capital offense. So, this is proof that homosexuality was well-known before this century.

Butting out now
It is an exceedingly good idea to have the facts straight no matter what our position is on something. Thank you for the information. I am 100% ignorant of the history of laws against homosexuality.

[Plan 9]

The parable of the wheat and the tares comes to my mind when thinking of this issue the methodists are dealing with. There is a time to compromise on pulling out tares.

If the tares represent sinful members, then I would be pulled along with the rest; I both commit sins and omit doing what is right, which is also sin. God has been merciful to me when we both know I don't deserve it. When I first converted, my new pastor said that the church is a hospital, a metaphor I've never forgotten.

[LuxPerpetua]

I love that analogy, Plan 9. Jesus himself said he came to heal the sick (Matthew 9:12-13).

[Yitzchak]

If the tares represent sinful members, then I would be pulled along with the rest; I both commit sins and omit doing what is right, which is also sin. God has been merciful to me when we both know I don't deserve it. When I first converted, my new pastor said that the church is a hospital, a metaphor I've never forgotten.
Exactly my point. We are unqualified to judge rightly. Secondly, even if we get the judging part essentially correct in a given instance, our timing or methods may be destructive not just to the one being judged but also to others around that person. How many non-christians have had stumbling blocks put in their way by watching christians judging others harshly?

I do believe that sin will be judged by God. I do also believe each one of us will have the chance to stand before God and give account. I appreaciate those people who have warned me about my sins. But we must be very very careful when we try to "fix" or "cleanup" the church. We can do more harm than good even if our intentions are good.

the Methodist church is being wise in not going wild over the issue, They likely recognize that they might hurt people in their walk with the Lord if they come down hard on this issue.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

The problem here is a shift in terminology. When LBZ says "we didn't know about homosexuality", she's referring to the modern theory that a small percentage of people have an apparently inborn attraction to members of the same sex. What everyone else is pointing at is rules about homosexual activity, not orientation; the idea that there could be an orientation had not occurred to anyone yet. There were vague thoughts in that direction, but no one really formalized it or studied it.Thank you, seebs, you have stated my position well (so I won't reply directly to posts #72 and 73).

There was an intense rivalry between Michaelangelo and DaVinci that was exacerbated by a rivalry over attractive younger men. They were Renaissance artists though so hardly representative of the population.

In the past, most marriages were arranged and many (including apparently St. Paul) believed men who had sex with men were going against their "nature" and also cheating on their wives. In the new issue of Zion's Herald a liberal United Methodist journal, John Spong commented that "...homosexual people were once defined, with biblical undergirding, as sinful people. It was assumed by this negative definition that gay and lesbian people either chose to homosexual, as an act of moral depravity, or that they were mentally ill and could not help themselves. That definition has simply been rendered inoperative by new knowledge."

[ChiRho]

LBZ,

If you care to see the Lutheran Missouri Synod position it is found here:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Human_Sexuality1.pdf

page 36

In Christ,

ChiRho

[Momzilla]

seebs and LBZ, thank you both for clarifying. I kind of thought that was what you meant, but I wanted to be sure.

I guess in large part, the importance of how homosexuality was understood in the biblical era depends on how you understand scripture. If you view it as man-written, and therefore subject to error on notions of morality, then it's important that Paul would not have understood that, at least in some cases,* sexual orientation is inborn. On the other hand, if you view scripture as God-breathed, and thus inerrant on questions of faith and morality, Paul's understanding is irrelevant, because surely God knew then, as He knows now, that at least in some cases,* sexual orientation is inborn (because He created homosexual individuals).

*I say "in some cases" because while I accept that homosexuality is inborn in numerous cases, in others I think homosexual conduct is chosen out of depravity.

Personally, I hold the latter view of scripture. It's something I struggle with, because I don't understand why God would create a homosexual person, knowing that he/she could never express the sexual nature given to him/her. Thus far, I have only concluded that God creates us all with weaknesses and crosses to bear, for our own ultimate benefit as well as that of others (who may learn mercy from dealing with the inborn flaws of others). Some crosses are heavier than others, and homosexuality is perhaps the heaviest of all.

[eldermike]

Personally, I hold the latter view of scripture. It's something I struggle with, because I don't understand why God would create a homosexual person, knowing that he/she could never express the sexual nature given to him/her. Thus far, I have only concluded that God creates us all with weaknesses and crosses to bear, for our own ultimate benefit as well as that of others (who may learn mercy from dealing with the inborn flaws of others). Some crosses are heavier than others, and homosexuality is perhaps the heaviest of all.
Amen

[CryptoKnight]

Personally, I hold the latter view of scripture. It's something I struggle with, because I don't understand why God would create a homosexual person, knowing that he/she could never express the sexual nature given to him/her.
I don't stuggle with this concept, because I see God as having created a *ton* of "problems" that individuals are not able to express, or are looked down upon. Such "God created tendencies may include"

desire for violence
personally inflicted pain
depression
excessive libido
as well as many handicaps that prevent people from communicating and expressing even simple love in the most basic of terms.

IMHO, homosexuality is a "cross to bear" just as much as another's tendencies for violence, and yet another's pedophilia. It just so happens that, aside from the Body of Christ, homosexuality is a victimless crime, as are some others mentioned above.

As always, though, I'm talking a specific sin because it is the subject of discussion. I do not hold homosexuality any higher or lower than any other sin against the Body of Christ. But, as with any sin, repentence is key to expressing your love for Christ.

[countrymousenc]

IMHO, homosexuality is a "cross to bear" just as much as another's tendencies for violence, and yet another's pedophilia.
```
As always, though, I'm talking a specific sin because it is the subject of discussion. I do not hold homosexuality any higher or lower than any other sin against the Body of Christ. But, as with any sin, repentence is key to expressing your love for Christ.

Amen.

[Patristic]

seebs and LBZ, thank you both for clarifying. I kind of thought that was what you meant, but I wanted to be sure.

I guess in large part, the importance of how homosexuality was understood in the biblical era depends on how you understand scripture. If you view it as man-written, and therefore subject to error on notions of morality, then it's important that Paul would not have understood that, at least in some cases,* sexual orientation is inborn. On the other hand, if you view scripture as God-breathed, and thus inerrant on questions of faith and morality, Paul's understanding is irrelevant, because surely God knew then, as He knows now, that at least in some cases,* sexual orientation is inborn (because He created homosexual individuals).

*I say "in some cases" because while I accept that homosexuality is inborn in numerous cases, in others I think homosexual conduct is chosen out of depravity.

Personally, I hold the latter view of scripture. It's something I struggle with, because I don't understand why God would create a homosexual person, knowing that he/she could never express the sexual nature given to him/her. Thus far, I have only concluded that God creates us all with weaknesses and crosses to bear, for our own ultimate benefit as well as that of others (who may learn mercy from dealing with the inborn flaws of others). Some crosses are heavier than others, and homosexuality is perhaps the heaviest of all.
Wonderful post Momzilla.

[PatrickM]

I don't stuggle with this concept, because I see God as having created a *ton* of "problems" that individuals are not able to express, or are looked down upon. Such "God created tendencies may include"
desire for violence
personally inflicted pain
depression
excessive libido
as well as many handicaps that prevent people from communicating and expressing even simple love in the most basic of terms."
"Then God saw that everything [He created] was 'very good'", regarding His original creation. He didn't "create" any such tendencies, Adam's sin did.
IMHO, homosexuality is a "cross to bear" just as much as another's tendencies for violence, and yet another's pedophilia.
Jesus' words regarding "crosses to bear" do not include the sins we choose to commit. The cross He bore had nothing to do with anything He did. (See "The Passion of the Christ")
It just so happens that, aside from the Body of Christ, homosexuality is a victimless crime, as are some others mentioned above.
But, in the context of the OP, there is no "aside from the Body of Christ". The OP is regarding the actions of the "Body of Christ."

There are no "victimless crimes" in God's eyes, as David said, "Against Thee, and thee only have I sinned and committed what is abhorent in Your sight."
s always, though, I'm talking a specific sin because it is the subject of discussion. I do not hold homosexuality any higher or lower than any other sin against the Body of Christ. But, as with any sin, repentence is key to expressing your love for Christ.
Amen to this!

[visionary]

It is amazing how in the last 20 years there has been many disrobing of the shepards of God's flock going on before the world. There seems to be no church that has not suffered from the experience. We were told that "Judgment begins at the House of God." and now for the first time, it seems to be very true.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Personally, I hold the latter view of scripture[see post above for details]. It's something I struggle with, because I don't understand why God would create a homosexual person, knowing that he/she could never express the sexual nature given to him/her. Thus far, I have only concluded that God creates us all with weaknesses and crosses to bear, for our own ultimate benefit as well as that of others (who may learn mercy from dealing with the inborn flaws of others). Some crosses are heavier than others, and homosexuality is perhaps the heaviest of all.
If the anti-gay forces would simply say, "we don't approve of homosexuality, but we will not seek to harm homosexuals" truthfully there would be no problem.

[countrymousenc]

:wave:

[CryptoKnight]

If the anti-gay forces would simply say, "we don't approve of homosexuality, but we will not seek to harm homosexuals" truthfully there would be no problem. But the organized religious right groups are committed to oppression and serious harm to LGBTs.
Again, the problem is that other sinners (I use this term advisedly, in the Christian context, of course) do not push their agenda to gain acceptance. There do not exist (to large degrees) "Up With Pedophilia" or "Legalize Rape" or "Let Me Hit You Again" or other organizations trying to push their "sins" into the cultural mainstream in the way that homosexuals do.

So, in this case I could turn it around: When LGBTs stop pushing for "acceptance", the Religious Right and Religious Near-Right the Religious Fairly Middle and even the Religious Just-Left-Of-Center will stop blocking their efforts.

They'll always have the Religious Left-Overs on their side, though.

[wvmtnkid]

I have been wanting to post something on this and I am glad to have found this thread. I have been thinking alot about this issue as it concerns my church, my denomination.

Maybe I would be considered one of those immature Christians mentioned earlier, but this whole controversy has deeply hurt me. I love my church and what it stands for. I am a United Methodist for a reason. I love that the Methodists have open doors and open hearts for whoever want to come into the church and set down in a pew and that our communion table is open to all who desire to share communion with us and with the Lord. I love the fact that we are inclusive in our memembership. But, as a conservative United Methodist, I feel that this decision made out West is contrary to what our Book of Discipline states and more importantly to what the Bible states. If this United Methodist church wants to have a gay minister, then they need to call themselves something other than a United Methodist church, because that act and decision is against current church law. I know other Methodists will take issue at that statement, but that is my personal opinion. Take it or leave it.

I think the church has strict directions in place for it's leadership. Those are given in the Bible. The Methodist church should be no execption. Yes, we have open doors. All churches should. Jesus didn't come for those who were well. He came to save all. But, our goal is to not let those who come into the church stay in the same condition they entered. That is what spiritual growth is all about. So, I am not against anyone being a member of the church, if they are willing to be repentant of their sin. But to be a leader in the church, more is requried of you, like it or not. You don't have to be perfect, but you sure can't be wallowing in your sin either. You can't let your sin be taking up residence in your life and it can't be owing you. How can you be leading someone to cultivate a more righteous path if you can't be working on the same thing yourself?

As for the whole homosexuality issue, I like what momzilla said. I lean along those lines myself. Since God is our creator, why would He create someone to be something that His Word calls sinful? Why would He create someone who He has no intention of fulfilling their desires? That just doesn't line up with His nature. He isn't going to fulfill a sinful desire. Again, this is my opinion, my interpretation. (And before my words get twisted, I am just as sinful if I don't follow the command to love.) I don't think you can pick and choose what you want to believe is truth in the bible. Either it all is truth or nothing is. I might not like some teachings or find some teachings hard to follow or understand, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth to them.

Now I would like to ask something of you. Please, instead of taking this and every opportunity to deride and tear down the United Methodist church, I am asking you to please pray for us. As your brothers and sisters in Christ. You may not like us or what we stand for or how we govern ourselves. But, as Christians, we are your family. This issue is causing division in our church. And we all know who is behind division in churches. So I am asking for your prayers for my church. We are going to need it in the days to come.

[Yitzchak]

Again, the problem is that other sinners (I use this term advisedly, in the Christian context, of course) do not push their agenda to gain acceptance. There do not exist (to large degrees) "Up With Pedophilia" or "Legalize Rape" or "Let Me Hit You Again" or other organizations trying to push their "sins" into the cultural mainstream in the way that homosexuals do.

So, in this case I could turn it around: When LGBTs stop pushing for "acceptance", the Religious Right and Religious Near-Right the Religious Fairly Middle and even the Religious Just-Left-Of-Center will stop blocking their efforts.

They'll always have the Religious Left-Overs on their side, though.This is certainly a factor in the anti-homosexual tendencies but I do not think it can be the only factor. Looking at statistics for hate crimes and remembering back to my childhood days when Homosexual agendas were not pushed and it was "open season" on homosexuals among most Americans. I think that the whole scapegoat issue is the most dominant in the mistreatment of homosexuals by Christians. Meaning that the christian community looks for a "scapegoat" to put their corporate guilt and shame upon. Of course biblically speaking, Jesus took the corporate as well as individual shame and guilt of sinners. However, In the church world, we do tend to look for the proverbial "scapegoat". Maybe if the homosexual "scapegoat" becomes a less convient target, the church world will select a new target to take it's place.

[intrepid]

I'm UM and am dismayed by the decision. I am not homophobic. I have a sister who is both a lesbian and an athiest. If I could "fix" only one of those conditions, I would **poof** make her a Christian and worry about the other later. I would love to have her sit next to me in church every Sunday.

I don't think that my feelings are contradictory. Using the Bible as a guide, we should have asked the lesbian minister to resign, then invited her to attend church with us.

You cannot reach them if you will not converse with them.

[Momzilla]

You make a good point, intrepid. In his book "The Orthodox Church", Fr. Timothy Ware relates the story of a homosexual being drummed out of a church. A monk got up and followed him, saying "I too am a sinner."

[PatrickM]

You make a good point, intrepid. In his book "The Orthodox Church", Fr. Timothy Ware relates the story of a homosexual being drummed out of a church. A monk got up and followed him, saying "I too am a sinner."
Why does this straw man argument keep cropping up? Not all Christians "condemn" homosexuals, only their actions. Not all Christians "hate" homosexuals, only their actions.

And not all Christians want to "drum them out of the church", as Jesus said, "the sick need a physician" as He was "condemned" for hanging around "sinners". The OP was a reference, not to homosexuality in general, but to the allowance of homosexuals in positions of leadership in the church. I'm sure this person referenced in the OP is welcome as a member of the church. However, it is a disappointment that she is allowed in a leadership role.

But in this day of activism, there is a "push-back" reaction to all the "in your face" attitudes of some homosexuals. For them, it isn't enough for others not to approve of their actions. They are insisting we must accept their actions, which causes us, who believe in a definite right and wrong, to be more vocal in response to their "pushing" their lifestyle upon us.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

:wave:

[Momzilla]

Why does this straw man argument keep cropping up? Not all Christians "condemn" homosexuals, only their actions. Not all Christians "hate" homosexuals, only their actions.

And not all Christians want to "drum them out of the church", as Jesus said, "the sick need a physician" as He was "condemned" for hanging around "sinners". The OP was a reference, not to homosexuality in general, but to the allowance of homosexuals in positions of leadership in the church. I'm sure this person referenced in the OP is welcome as a member of the church. However, it is a disappointment that she is allowed in a leadership role.

But in this day of activism, there is a "push-back" reaction to all the "in your face" attitudes of some homosexuals. For them, it isn't enough for others not to approve of their actions. They are insisting we must accept their actions, which causes us, who believe in a definite right and wrong, to be more vocal in response to their "pushing" their lifestyle upon us.

My post was not clear, and I apologize. I had typed additional comments, along the lines of, "I think most Christians who are opposed to the ordination of homosexuals welcome gays into the body of Christ with open arms"--which I truly believe, and which is certainly true of me. I deleted it because I was certain I would be challenged, and probably not in pleasant terms, and I wasn't out to pick a fight.

Let me reiterate: Christians who oppose the ordination of gay people do not necessarily oppose the presence of gays in the body of Christ. To the contrary, I believe most would welcome gays to the church as fellow sinners and lovers of God.

[BarbB]

...
Let me reiterate: Christians who oppose the ordination of gay people do not necessarily oppose the presence of gays in the body of Christ. To the contrary, I believe most would welcome gays to the church as fellow sinners and lovers of God.

Amen, Momzilla. This is ABSOLUTELY correct and the position that I believe all Christian churches should take. That said, if it is in a denomination's legal documents to not have homosexual clergy or leadership, then obviously the pastor should have been found guilty.

LBZ said: The UMC Book of Discipline and social creed is very pro-gay except on the issue of clergy, but it's the exception, and there are forces within the UMC seeking to overturn UMC's inclusive policies,

I don't interpret the UMC Book of Discipline to be "pro-gay" as much as to be tolerant of a sinful congregation and desirous of bringing all to a contrite spirit.

And to all UM's - I'm praying for your denomination as well as the Episcopalian denom! :hug:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

this whole controversy has deeply hurt me.
With all due respect any "hurt" experienced by those who seek to exclude people from the ministry is miniscule compared to the harm inflicted on Rev. Dammann and her family by the vengeful, meanspirited Christians who brought her up on charges and subjected her to a trial while she is caring for a medically needy child.

I don't think you can pick and choose what you want to believe is truth in the bible. Either it all is truth or nothing is.
Every single Christians, you, I, them, all of us, "pick and choose" what we want to believe in the Bible. To deny that is to deny reality.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

As Christians, our duty is to push the boundaries of justice, mercy, and reconciliation. By deciding to institute inclusion of a member of an oppressed group, the United Methodist trial court in Rev. Dammann's case has done exactly that.

Problems that occur in our Christian walk are opportunities to excel. James wrote that we should be "...quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" (1:19).

The message of 1 Corinthians 13 is that it is more important to be loving than to be right. Everyone should be treated as a Child of God. Empathy requires more of us. Judgement must be left to God.

[CryptoKnight]

With all due respect any "hurt" experienced by those who seek to exclude people from the ministry is miniscule compared to the harm inflicted on Rev. Dammann and her family by the vengeful, meanspirited Christians who brought her up on charges and subjected her to a trial while she is caring for a medically needy child.
Eh, read up on it a bit. She *wanted* to force the issue. She deliberately sent the letter to the Bishop, knowing full well that a "practicing homosexual" is defined by the UMC as one who has informed his/her local Bishop. She forced the issue to further her agenda.

Now, while I disagree with her ordination, I commend her for her bravery. I do *not*, however, have sympathy for her trial while she's caring for a "medially needy child" when she *chose* the time and place to force this on the church. Maybe she should have put her child before her homosexual agenda? Maybe not. It's a legitimate question, however.

[Wrigley]

I don't feel one bit betrayed by my church, and I am no apostate. When people say the our church has gone against its discipline, they don't quote everything our discipline says on the subject.
Those of you who are United Methodist and feel so betrayed had your chance to vote, as did we all.
The General Conference is meeting late next month, and this subject is on the agenda. Any United Methodists who fervently disgaree with what they decide have numerous Methodist denominations to choose from; no one is forced to belong to a particular denomination.
And I hope at that General Conference there is a loud and strong reputiation of what happened in WA. If not, the UMC deserves what it will get.

And, the right minded and conservative members should walk away from the apostacy of the UMC, if anything less happens.

[Wrigley]

That's nothing new. The Bible contradicts itself.



Nothing more needs to be said about this.

If the Bible, the Word of God, contradicts Itself, how can we have any standards? How can we have any assurance of what God, thru His Word is teaching us?

That you seem to have such a low view of God's Word doesn't surprise me. From the many posts I've read of yours, that has been a consistant theme.

When the condemnation of homosexuality is clearly taught, what is said? Those who believe it are fundamentalist bigots. What the Bible says can't be true, because God is revealing more about Himself as time goes by.

My God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yours, it seems does.

[wvmtnkid]

As Christians, our duty is to push the boundaries of justice, mercy, and reconciliation. By deciding to institute inclusion of a member of an oppressed group, the United Methodist trial court in Rev. Dammann's case has done exactly that.

Problems that occur in our Christian walk are opportunities to excel. James wrote that we should be "...quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" (1:19).

The message of 1 Corinthians 13 is that it is more important to be loving than to be right. Everyone should be treated as a Child of God. Empathy requires more of us. Judgement must be left to God.

From what I have read of the posts here, nobody was saying that Dammann should be kicked out of the fellowship of her church, rode out of town on a rail or tar and feathered. Nobody said that she should not be treated with love or as a Child of God. The distinction being made is that because she is self admittedly leading a life that is contrary to the law of her church (which apparently she knew or she wouldn't have felt the need to keep her relationship hidden for so long) and contrary to God's word, she should step down as minister of her church. We are to love one another, but as Christians part of that love is holding one another accountable. That doesn't mean that I can judge your salvation (that is between you and God), but if I see you heading in the wrong direction, I am commanded by scripture that I am to help get you back on track.

Every single Christians, you, I, them, all of us, "pick and choose" what we want to believe in the Bible. To deny that is to deny reality.
Again, I may not like something that I read in the Bible or find a teaching hard to understand or accept, but that doesn't meant that there isn't Truth there. To deny that is to deny faith.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Eh, read up on it a bit. She *wanted* to force the issue. She deliberately sent the letter to the Bishop, knowing full well that a "practicing homosexual" is defined by the UMC as one who has informed his/her local Bishop. She forced the issue to further her agenda.
I wouldn't be so sure of anyone's motives or 'agenda'.

Now, while I disagree with her ordination, I commend her for her bravery. I do *not*, however, have sympathy for her trial while she's caring for a "medially needy child" when she *chose* the time and place to force this on the church. Maybe she should have put her child before her homosexual agenda? Maybe not. It's a legitimate question, however.
There's no indication Rev. Dammann had a "homosexual agenda"

Her son knows she is a person of integrity. It is obvious she did the right thing.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

And I hope at that General Conference there is a loud and strong reputiation of what happened in WA. If not, the UMC deserves what it will get.
A church body composed of Christians against exclusion? Excellent.

And, the right minded and conservative members should walk away from the apostacy of the UMC, if anything less happens.
Inclusion of oppressed people is hardly apostacy.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

If the Bible, the Word of God, contradicts Itself, how can we have any standards?
Quite easily.

How can we have any assurance of what God, thru His Word is teaching us?
Faith and reason.

That you seem to have such a low view of God's Word doesn't surprise me. From the many posts I've read of yours, that has been a consistant theme.
You are quite mistaken.

My God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yours, it seems does.
Why was Abraham able to talk him down on Sodom and Gommorah, then?

[La Bonita Zorilla]

From what I have read of the posts here, nobody was saying that Dammann should be kicked out of the fellowship of her church, rode out of town on a rail or tar and feathered. Nobody said that she should not be treated with love or as a Child of God. The distinction being made is that because she is self admittedly leading a life that is contrary to the law of her church (which apparently she knew or she wouldn't have felt the need to keep her relationship hidden for so long) and contrary to God's word, she should step down as minister of her church.
The trial court, after much prayerful deliberation abviously disagreed. Nothing about her in their view justified her removal.

Again, I may not like something that I read in the Bible or find a teaching hard to understand or accept, but that doesn't meant that there isn't Truth there. To deny that is to deny faith.
About issues of right conduct and faith, yes. About issues of human interaction for which its authors had incomplete information, no.

[Wrigley]

A church body composed of Christians against exclusion? Excellent.


Inclusion of oppressed people is hardly apostacy.
Who's oppressed? Gays? Wrong. Look how mainstream the behavior has become. There is no opression there. None at all.

What's lacking is a clear teaching that homosexuality is a sinful condition. Just like alcoholism and drug additiction.

[Wrigley]

Quite easily.
How, by relying on your own understanding?


Faith and reason.Which trumps? Faith or reason?


You are quite mistaken. Hardly. Its self evident from your posts.


Why was Abraham able to talk him down on Sodom and Gommorah, then?:sigh:

[wvmtnkid]

The trial court, after much prayerful deliberation abviously disagreed. Nothing about her in their view justified her removal.Which is exactly what concerns me about this decision. When the Discipline explicitly states that any self-avowed practicing homosexual is not to be accepted as a minister, then I have to wonder what exactly this trial court was basing their decision on. If they are going on the technicality that she was already ordained, then that saddens me. I think the spirit of the church law and biblical law is very plain. She showed intregrity when she stepped forward and said that she could no longer live a lie. And for that I applaud her. But to re-instate her as a minister, in my opinion, goes directly against the convenant these pastors have taken to uphold the Discipline, pure and simple.


About issues of right conduct and faith, yes. About issues of human interaction for which its authors had incomplete information, no.Well, then this is an issue we will have to agree to disagree on, because I feel that the bible is the inspired Word of God, and in which case, God has no incomplete information. I guess what I don't understand is if the Bible is the basis for the Christian faith, why base your faith on a book that you feel is incomplete? Why let it have any authority in your life if it can't be trusted, if only parts of it are true? If that part about homosexual behavior is not quite right, then maybe that part about that resurrection isn't totally accurate either? Just a thought......

[CryptoKnight]

I wouldn't be so sure of anyone's motives or 'agenda'.

There's no indication Rev. Dammann had a "homosexual agenda"
There is every indication she has an agenda. Her agenda is the same as that of blacks, hispanics, and even women: To be treated equally. The difference is that the last time I checked, being black wasn't a sin. As a matter of fact, by no reasonable twisting of scripture is being black a sin. By a reasonable reading of scripture, we *do* have homosexuality as a sin.

Minorities (and women, who are a majority) sought social acceptance first, just like homosexuals. Homosexuals have achieved significant milestones in social acceptance. As a matter of fact, in one recent episode of Will and Grace (yes, one of my favorite shows, since Hidden Hills got cancelled) a character laments "I can't wait until being gay is no longer en vogue".

In a society where theives sue their victims because they get hurt while robbing, social acceptance of homosexuals should pose no problem.

However, in a church that has fairly well-defined rules, we invite the thief, homeowner, and homosexual to come share with us in the Lord.

But we shouldn't take guidence from them (read: ordain) until they show that they are aligned with the "plumb line" of God according to modern Christianity: the Bible.

Absolutely she has an agenda. From her perspective, she *should*. I just disagree with it based on scripture. Frankly, I wish scripture did *not* call homosexuality an "abomination". But it does.

[Yitzchak]

Now I would like to ask something of you. Please, instead of taking this and every opportunity to deride and tear down the United Methodist church, I am asking you to please pray for us. As your brothers and sisters in Christ. You may not like us or what we stand for or how we govern ourselves. But, as Christians, we are your family. This issue is causing division in our church. And we all know who is behind division in churches. So I am asking for your prayers for my church. We are going to need it in the days to come.
I will gladly pray for The United Methodist Church. I have to be honest about my feelings though which are that I will actually pray for the people who are a part of the United Methodist Church. Because I think that it would be God's will for The United Methodist Church to cease to exist as an organization. I pray for the day when we have churches which are known by their geography. So that it will be the church of eastern Chicago or of southern New York for example.

[Yitzchak]

Why was Abraham able to talk him down on Sodom and Gommorah, then?
The bible is not a book of rules. It is a progressive revelation of a God who desires relationship with us. Abraham was able to talk God into changing His mind about Sodom and Gomorrah because it is God's nature and character which does not change and not God's dealings with us. God has always desired a partnership with us in prayer and His works upon this earth.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Who's oppressed? Gays? Wrong. Look how mainstream the behavior has become. There is no opression there. None at all.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

How, by relying on your own understanding?
What do you think?

Which trumps? Faith or reason?
Why is trumping called for at all?

[in response to a protest to a flame]Hardly. Its self evident from your posts.
Absolutely nothing is ever self evident.

[Wrigley]

This is one of those type of hurtful, meanspirited attitudes which would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Really? You'll have to explain that to me. Your definition of a "hurtful, meanspirted attitude" is as liberal as Paul Wellstone.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Which is exactly what concerns me about this decision. When the Discipline explicitly states that any self-avowed practicing homosexual is not to be accepted as a minister, then I have to wonder what exactly this trial court was basing their decision on. If they are going on the technicality that she was already ordained, then that saddens me. I think the spirit of the church law and biblical law is very plain. She showed intregrity when she stepped forward and said that she could no longer live a lie. And for that I applaud her. But to re-instate her as a minister, in my opinion, goes directly against the convenant these pastors have taken to uphold the Discipline, pure and simple.
I would like to have more info about the decision. If it was merely a yes or no vote and nothing else was officially documented the jurors would need to speak, but I haven't seen any official quotes from any of them in any news stories about the trial. I don't know whether it's to be forthcoming or not. I mean, these jurors were all pastors and the trial was a private matter of the UMC, so, there's not likely to be any positive response from jurors who don't want to discuss the deliberations, and, indeed, maybe they're not suppossed to anyway-IOW it won't be like the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson trial where the jurors will be guests on Nightline with Ted Koppell. And actually, except for those of us with strong opinions on either side of the issue, there's not much interest. We belong to a reconciling congregation which actively recruits LGBT members and yesterday at church and church council nobody said word one about the Dammann case.

Well, then this is an issue we will have to agree to disagree on[Biblical inerrancy], because I feel that the bible is the inspired Word of God,
As do I but that does not mean in any sense it is to be taken literally. Otherwise we could codify our marriage practices to prohibit divorce in all instances per deuteronomy 22:19 and Mark 10:9, and of course take back the UMC practice or ordaining female clergy, among other things.


and in which case, God has no incomplete information.
Of course not, but, whether or not it is imparted to us is another question.

I guess what I don't understand is if the Bible is the basis for the Christian faith, why base your faith on a book that you feel is incomplete?
CHRIST is the basis of the Christian faith, not the Bible. To elevate the Bible where it is revered where the risen Christ should be instead is a form of idolatry called Bibliology.

Why let it have any authority in your life if it can't be trusted, if only parts of it are true? If that part about homosexual behavior is not quite right, then maybe that part about that resurrection isn't totally accurate either? Just a thought......
Which is exactly why it is wonderful God gave us working minds to use. Philosophy and Religion is never an all-or-nothing, black-or-white proposition.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

The bible is not a book of rules. It is a progressive revelation of a God who desires relationship with us. Abraham was able to talk God into changing His mind about Sodom and Gomorrah because it is God's nature and character which does not change and not God's dealings with us. God has always desired a partnership with us in prayer and His works upon this earth.
Okay, I'm not sure of your intent here, but what you posted appears to support my position better than the alternative.

[Yitzchak]

Okay, I'm not sure of your intent here, but what you posted appears to support my position better than the alternative.
I think we agree on this issue. A person saying that God does not change and applying that to mean that we are stuck with whatever rules we had 3000 years ago is disturbing to me if I thought I had to follow that logic. We are not bound by 3000 year old rules but rather by our current relationship with a living God. So, yes, I agree with your basic premise rather enthusiastically actually.

I was also subtlely introducing an additional point that there are more than two options. Meaning that thankfully I don't have to choose between stalwartly following rules layed down for others in another time or just doing my own rebellious thing with no regard for God's will. I believe that there are more than two options about such issues.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Really? You'll have to explain that to me. Your definition of a "hurtful, meanspirted attitude" is as liberal as Paul Wellstone.
Flattery will get you everywhere.

He referred to "Who's oppressed? Gays? Wrong. Look how mainstream the behavior has become. There is no opression there. None at all."

There's not much to explain. Either oppression exists or it doesn't.

Those committing it don't often recognize it. Whenever the complete dignity and worth of individuals is not accepted, oppression is occurring.

BTW, Wellstone was a hero, but in the end rather conservative.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I think we agree on this issue. A person saying that God does not change and applying that to mean that we are stuck with whatever rules we had 3000 years ago is disturbing to me if I thought I had to follow that logic. We are not bound by 3000 year old rules but rather by our current relationship with a living God. So, yes, I agree with your basic premise rather enthusiastically actually.

I was also subtlely introducing an additional point that there are more than two options. Meaning that thankfully I don't have to choose between stalwartly following rules layed down for others in another time or just doing my own rebellious thing with no regard for God's will. I believe that there are more than two options about such issues.
Thanks, I agree.

[Yitzchak]

How, by relying on your own understanding?

While I applaud a person seeking the Lord's will and wanting to be consistent with what the Lord has revealed through scripture. I do however have a strong differing opinion on this matter. I believe in freedom of conscience. The scripture itself says "come let us reason together". We as humans have always been called upon to enter into a divine partnership with the living God when it comes to working out our salvation and His purposes upon this earth. I object to a an educated guess about what God's word means being a better basis than our own understanding.

[CryptoKnight]

I believe the UMC should drop the language in the United Methodist Book of Discipline which led to this trial and instead affirm that there will not be any more witch hunts like this about pastors' private lives...Wai, wai...waitaminute! Some information needs to be cleared up here.


witch-hunt: a rigorous campaign to round up or expose dissenters on the pretext of safeguarding the welfare of the public (wordreference.com)

UMC Book of Discipline 304.3: Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

Note 1 from UMC BOD 304.3: "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844.


So, this was not a "witch hunt" because Dammann, exposed herself! She was not "rounded up", rather she deliberately sent a letter to her Bishop proclaiming her lifestyle! When you have someone scream "I'm a witch!" you hardly need a witch-hunt! What you then have is someone literally begging for the issue!

She openly declared herself to be in conflict with the Discipline, which defines the rules for the organization of the United Methodist Church. She wanted the issue resolved one way or another, so she could move on with her life. The UMC did not initiate a "witch-hunt" to get HER, she brought it to the church!

(and BTW, what in 304.3 is vague?)

[wvmtnkid]

Unlike for the Episcopals, the right-wing movement to influence the UMC represents a powerful bloc.
Of which I seem to be a member of, I suppose.


CHRIST is the basis of the Christian faith, not the Bible. To elevate the Bible where it is revered where the risen Christ should be instead is a form of idolatry called Bibliology.
You got me on that on. I should have done a better job with semantics. Christ is the basis for our faith, but, the Bible is what we use to learn about our faith, about Jesus, how he expects us to live, how we are to live our life's as Christians. It gives us our faith history, tells us about the character of God. When new believers become Christians, what is one of the first things we tell them to do? Read their Bible. Not just for the heck of it, but to teach them. No, the bible isn't revered above Christ because it is Christ who saves us, but the bible is the Word of God that "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16


Which is exactly why it is wonderful God gave us working minds to use. Philosophy and Religion is never an all-or-nothing, black-or-white proposition.
Yes, we do have minds, but not every thought that comes out of our minds is right. That is why we are called to test our thoughts against scripture to make sure false doctrine isn't slipping it's way in.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Note 1 from UMC BOD 304.3: "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual.

So, this was not a "witch hunt" because Dammann, exposed herself! She was not "rounded up", rather she deliberately sent a letter to her Bishop proclaiming her lifestyle! When you have someone scream "I'm a witch!" you hardly need a witch-hunt! What you then have is someone literally begging for the issue!

She openly declared herself to be in conflict with the Discipline, which defines the rules for the organization of the United Methodist Church. She wanted the issue resolved one way or another, so she could move on with her life. The UMC did not initiate a "witch-hunt" to get HER, she brought it to the church!

At which point, the Bishop responded as he should have, with appropriate nonchalance, until right-wing elements in the UMC brought forth these formal charges.

Like I said in one post above, we can't know all what occurred in this trial or the jury deliberations nor are we ever really likely to know. But I would not be surprised if something equivalent to what can happen in criminal trials where there is obvious prosecution misconduct occurred, where the judge directs the jury to reach an acquittal.

(and BTW, what in 304.3 is vague?)
It's obvious from the language it's an anachronism.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Other points that we will have to disagree on. If the UMC agrees to the above mentioned practices, they will truly be outside of biblically sound teaching.
The very concept that one can determine what is and isn't such is offensive to the free mind. Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in.

If you want the US to go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, then by all means, let's go ahead with what you have described.
Since the sin of Sodom was inhospitability to guests, the other side is the one that should be quaking in their Tony Lamas.

Yes, we do have minds, but not every thought that comes out of our minds is right. That is why we are called to test our thoughts against scripture to make sure false doctrine isn't slipping it's way in.
Yes, and unless we do vice versa we risk doing what the Catholics did to poor Gallileo and Copernicus.

[Momzilla]

[/color]
It's obvious from the language it's an anachronism.

Anachronistic is not the same thing as vague. It's clear you disagree with the book of discipline, but that is not the question you were asked. The question was, is it vague?

[CryptoKnight]

It's obvious from the language it's an anachronism.
Main Entry: anach·ro·nism : 2 : a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present (from Mirriam Webster...I chose definition 2 because it seems to be the best representation of what you wanted to say, not because of my own agenda).


I absolutely agree the language is an anachronism. Funny, though, that throughout the Bible this seems to be the case with the words of the prophets. ergo, this isn't a *bad* thing. Being incongruous with todays standards is a step in the right direction, from a Biblical Christian perspective.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

MOD HAT ON

I am reopening this thread. Much of it has been edited as there were flagrant rules violations. These have been handled accordingly. A quick note, the following can be considered flames and probably should be avoided:

1. Bigot
2. Homophobe
3. Ignorant

Please also take note of rule #4 as it has changed in the past 60 days:


.:Forum Rule 4:. Rule No. 4 - No "Offensive" or "Illegal" Posts, Links or Images

4) You will not post or PM any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, blasphemous, satanic or otherwise violative of any local or international laws, or anything that encourages drug use or relates to gambling. This includes links in your signature, profile, bookmarks as well as posted images, photos and avatars. This includes the posting of copyright material (for example, pirated software or music). This includes posts in Christian-only forums that promote behavior considered "sin" in the Bible (in the Christian-only forums you will not advocate encourage or sanction any kind of extramarital sexual activity either in the forums or by private message, especially with minors. Marriage is defined as the legal union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. You may not describe sexual organs or activities). Avatars, fake email addresses or usernames that are blatantly offensive will result in an automatic ban. Sexual harrassment, stalking and other related behavior at CF will result in an automatic ban. Staff will ultimately decide if something is appropriate or not.


The lack of Christian grace and love that has been shown in this thread so far is not a good sign. If it heads in that direction again I will have no qualms with sending it right to the trash. Please remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and deserving of each other's love due to the fact we are all human. If you feel a need to comment on this please PM me, any comments in the thread will be deleted.

MOD HAT OFF

[CryptoKnight]

MOD HAT ON...

The lack of Christian grace and love that has been shown in this thread so far is not a good sign.
...MOD HAT OFF
Bummer. I must've missed some posts before you nuked 'em, because the one thing that has kept me coming here is the thoughtful dialogue many people have put into this. I guess I was just fortunate enough to not see the hurtful side (either that, or I'm a part of it and am blind to it. ouch)

Regardless, your modding efforts are appreciated, even if some of us don't notice them ;-) I guess that's when you know you're doing your job!

Whoops, NOW I see the "Any comments in the thread will be deleted." I'm not in top form today! (and I can't see how to delete this comment...oh well)

[wvmtnkid]

Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in.
I fail to see how using the bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian is "phariseeism".


I absolutely agree the language is an anachronism. Funny, though, that throughout the Bible this seems to be the case with the words of the prophets. ergo, this isn't a *bad* thing. Being incongruous with todays standards is a step in the right direction, from a Biblical Christian perspective.

I agree with CryptoKnight's statment here. As Christians we are called to be set apart from the world. Yes we are living in the the world, but it should be evident we are not apart of the world. When those lines get blurred, then there is a problem. Yes, Jesus walked among and ministered to and ate with the "sinners", but he still kept himself apart from talking up their lifestyle.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I fail to see how using the bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian is "phariseeism".
So do I. When I said

"Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in."

It referred to demanding political correctness of fellow Christians and clergy, which is something quite different from "using the Bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian".

[Wrigley]

So do I. When I said

"Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in."

It referred to demanding political correctness of fellow Christians and clergy, which is something quite different from "using the Bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian".
Wow. Its now politically correct to view homosexual bahavior for what it is, which is sin, now?

[Momzilla]

And alas, I still wait for an explanation of the vagueness of the Book of Discipline...

[Yitzchak]

And alas, I still wait for an explanation of the vagueness of the Book of Discipline...
The vagueness is in the interpretation and not in the writing of it. I am a firm believer that a person interprets according to their heart condiiton and not according to their brain alone. Which of course is why Jesus spoke in parables. So that the hard hearted would not understand. Some blessings of God are only intended for those with soft hearts.

[PeterPaul]

[/color]

[[size=3]
It's obvious from the language it's an anachronism.

Not to take you out of context. But surely who is to judge what is anachronistic in the Bible and what is not? Surely then, if you can not propose what is or isn't exclusively anachronistic you are being a relativist.

You regard the UMC doctrine on homosexuality to be an anachronism. Thus I'm sure you dismiss most of Christianity's view on the topic as well.

So, my question to you is this: what other topics in the Bible form part of this anachronism?

[Momzilla]

The vagueness is in the interpretation and not in the writing of it.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Written language, particularly statutes or codes of discipline, is either vague or it is not. In legal terms (I am a lawyer, after all), a criminal statute is void for vagueness when it fails to provide a reasonable person with notice of what conduct is prohibited.

The minister's counsel argued that she should not be convicted because the language of the relevant portion of the Book of Discipline was vague. LBZ has endorsed that claim, and I'm asking for the argumentative support for it. Because, frankly, the language is not vague to my eyes.

[marathoner]

The mainline protestant churches are in rapid decline precisely because they are spreading apostacy. I believe this is the Holy Spirit at work. The Lord does not want heretical churches to grow. Although I am not Methodist I would consider either leaving that church or withholding all money to the denomination concentrating on the local church. In my opinion the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church will likely follow the Episcopalians into heresy on the issue of homosexuality. Let us pray that these denominations reverse this sad and destructive trend.

[Yitzchak]

The mainline protestant churches are in rapid decline precisely because they are spreading apostacy. I believe this is the Holy Spirit at work. The Lord does not want heretical churches to grow. Although I am not Methodist I would consider either leaving that church or withholding all money to the denomination concentrating on the local church. In my opinion the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church will likely follow the Episcopalians into heresy on the issue of homosexuality. Let us pray that these denominations reverse this sad and destructive trend.
I agree that we have bigger concerns than just this particular issue when it comes to the state of the Church. We all need to be praying.

[PeterPaul]

Actually marathoner wasn't saying this issue was "just a particular" one and that we have bigger con