From UMC website

[No Swansong]

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.1


This is from the UMC website. I found it to be an excellent statement with which I completely agree.
I wanted to ask you how does your particular congregation reach out to the homosexual community in particular?

[joyfulthanks]

I don't know that we have any kind of outreach, per se, but I do know that at least one openly homosexual couple has recently begun attending our local church.

I'm glad they are coming and I welcome them. But I also agree with the Methodist Book of Discipline (from which you quoted) that the practice of homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching." I see that as no different saying that the practice of adultury, fornication, etc. is incompatible with Christian teaching.

But I digress. As far as outreach goes, I'm guessing ours is simply that we're a pretty loving group, as a whole. You can tell that immediately when you walk in the door. And we are committed, like the Discipline says, to affiming "that God's grace is available to all."

-Grace

[svdbygrace]

I actually have never seen it as a issue so far in our parish. It's never discussed. However I do know that our church is very welcoming to everyone who comes through the doors no matter what their situation so I guess the statement would be very accurate and I agree with it completely. :)

[silentpoet]

The statement seems good. What bothers me is when I see supposedly Christian churches condoning such sins. I was watching the tv news the other day when it was talking how a certain denomination in my state would allow individual churches to endorse "commitment" ceremonies. And I had to wonder what bible they were reading.

We are all tempted to a greater or lesser degree to sin in one area or another. So we should not condmen others. Yet are we not condemning others when we do not gently lead them to repentance by telling them they are sinning.

[Adammi]

I applaud the United Methodist Church for its actions in embracing homosexuals without condoning the sexual acts of homosexuality.
I know of too many churches who do more condemning than the Pharisees did when it comes to this topic.

[Texas Lynn]

We're a reconciling church and are seeking repeal of the third sentence in the quote.

[No Swansong]

We're a reconciling church and are seeking repeal of the second sentence in the quote.


All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self.


To what do you disagree TexasLynn?

I am rightfully not permitted to debate here so please be assured I will not respond positively or negatively to your response.

[joyfulthanks]

We're a reconciling church and are seeking repeal of the second sentence in the quote.


Hi Texas Lynn,

The use of the word "we're" here implies that the entire church is seeking repeal of the (I'm assuming you meant "third") sentence in the quote. I'm a Methodist, and I'm not seeking the repeal of that sentence, nor are most Methodists at the present time. This is demonstrated by the fact that the sentence is still there.

It would have been more accurate to say "We're a reconciling church, and some of us are seeking repeal of the second sentence in the quote."

Have a great day! :)

-Grace

[markbelieves]

We should reach out to all sinners, since we are all sinners. But it would not be wise to accept their sins and tell them it is ok to continue sinning just so they feel comfortable.
Also, I am a Methodist and I do not support the repeal of any sentence in the quote.

Mark

[No Swansong]

Hi Texas Lynn,

The use of the word "we're" here implies that the entire church is seeking repeal of the (I'm assuming you meant "third") sentence in the quote. I'm a Methodist, and I'm not seeking the repeal of that sentence, nor are most Methodists at the present time, as is obvious by the fact that the sentence is still there.

It would have been more accurate to say "We're a reconciling church, and some of us are seeking repeal of the second sentence in the quote."

Have a great day! :)

-Grace


Grace I do not know what sentence she is referring to. (looking back you may be right about the 3rd) but I think when she said 'we' she may have meant the congregation to which she belongs not necessarily the entire UMC.

[joyfulthanks]

Grace I do not know what sentence she is referring to. (looking back you may be right about the 3rd) but I think when she said 'we' she may have meant the congregation to which she belongs not necessarily the entire UMC.

You may be right. The meaning was unclear to me from the context.

Texas Lynn, if I misunderstood you, please forgive me.

-Grace

[Texas Lynn]

To what do you disagree TexasLynn?

This:

"The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching."

[Texas Lynn]

I'm assuming you meant "third"


Yes, thanks for the correction.

[Celticflower]

I, for one do not wish to see the sentence removed. I cringe whenever I hear of a church or denomination coming out with marriage vows or commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples. I applaud the UMC for standing firm on the view that such relationships are not to be condoned, but the people involved need to be treated with love and led to reconciliation with God.

[Morgaine1205]

I, for one do not wish to see the sentence removed. I cringe whenever I hear of a church or denomination coming out with marriage vows or commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples. I applaud the UMC for standing firm on the view that such relationships are not to be condoned, but the people involved need to be treated with love and led to reconciliation with God.

Well said, I agree.

[Texas Lynn]

I cringe whenever I hear of a church or denomination coming out with marriage vows or commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples. I applaud the UMC for standing firm on the view that such relationships are not to be condoned, but the people involved need to be treated with love and led to reconciliation with God.

Can you not see the contradiction between those two sentences?

There is no love present when someone "cringes" at the celebration of another's love.

[evviva]

Texas Lynn, you are very wise.

[Celticflower]

Can you not see the contradiction between those two sentences?

There is no love present when someone "cringes" at the celebration of another's love.


I see no contradiction. I cringe because something deep within me says that for the church to openly support something that for so long has been viewed as immoral is terribly wrong.

If you wish to "celebrate" your love of a person of the same sex, do it in the secular world. But don't look to the church to bless it if it is generally held to be incompatable with a Christian lifestyle on Biblical grounds.


Note: Please take a look at the John Wesley quote in my sig line. It may help you understand why I feel as I do.

[markbelieves]

Can you not see the contradiction between those two sentences?

There is no love present when someone "cringes" at the celebration of another's love.

I see a contradiction when someone proposes that a bible believing church should endorse/embrace same sex unions. This does contradict what the bible teaches. I would not consider that sin to be acceptable anymore than I would expect any of the sins I commit to be considered acceptable.

Mark

[No Swansong]

I truly did not mean to incite this direction on this thread. I really was just interested in how your particular congregation reaches out to the homosexual community. I ask your forgiveness if my query caused any of you discomfort.

[joyfulthanks]

Your question was just fine, jtbdad. :) These are just issues that we have to grapple with in this day and age.

-Grace

[silentpoet]

There is no love present when someone "cringes" at the celebration of another's love.

There is no love when you endorse another's sin. Should we condemn others to hell by not gently redirecting them to repentance? Homosexual behavior is a sin. That is very clear from reading the Bible. This is not to say it is any worse of a sin than say drunkeness or say adultery because all sins are bad and divide us from God. But it is still a sin. This does not make practicing homosexuals evil or less able/worthy to seek forgiveness. Yet we have to be honest with people in a loving manner when we point out sin. I am well aware I am not perfect. I would not have others make the mistakes I have made and the vile sins I have comitted at one time or another. So love demands I speak out. Not in condemnation, but with an eye towards repentance and redemption.

[svdbygrace]

I, for one do not wish to see the sentence removed.

I would agree with that part of your statement. :)

[herev]

wow, gone for three days and look at this mess;)

this is a tough one, I admit. Well, the problem is that we disagree on Biblical interpretation--that's what it boils down to. We must remember that those who think that same-sex marriages should be affirmed are not suggesting that the church condone sin--they simply interpret scriptures differently.
As a pastor, admittedly, this is easy for me--I am not ALLOWED to officiate at same-sex unions or marriages--so I don't have to deal with it. As a UMC member, I do struggle. At present, i don't want to see the umc's doctrine change here, but I am always open to learning.
mod hat on!
http://www.villagehatshop.com/media/limoges-cowboy-hat.jpg
by the way--this is A HOTBUTTON TOPIC, let's keep it civil and remmber other's feelings or this thread will be shut down.
okeedokee---mod hat back off (that thing's too hot)

[Celticflower]

http://www.villagehatshop.com/media/limoges-cowboy-hat.jpg

okeedokee---mod hat back off (that thing's too hot)


I think you should have a white hat. You are one of the good guys after all.:D

[silentpoet]

We must remember that those who think that same-sex marriages should be affirmed are not suggesting that the church condone sin--they simply interpret scriptures differently.

Well it is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin from reading the bible. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and we know that under the law homosexuality was worthy of the death penalty. And further homosexuality is condemned in the letters of Paul. According to Paul even the appearance of it was shameful(the whole long haired men thing). So I'd like to know how a person can read the bible and think it is ok. The bible is plainly written so even I can understand. How can it be read to say homosexual behavior is ok? Affirming same sex marriages is endorsing sin, plain and simple.

added below with edit.


i realize that may sound harsh, my intent is only to speak the truth, not speak hurtful words. I realize it comes across a little more harsh than I meant it to sound.

[No Swansong]

Well it is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin from reading the bible. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and we know that under the law homosexuality was worthy of the death penalty. And further homosexuality is condemned in the letters of Paul. According to Paul even the appearance of it was shameful(the whole long haired men thing). So I'd like to know how a person can read the bible and think it is ok. The bible is plainly written so even I can understand. How can it be read to say homosexual behavior is ok? Affirming same sex marriages is endorsing sin, plain and simple.


While I agree with you silenpoet I have known more than a few homosexuals who truly believe that homosexual sex is not a sin. For these folk it is not just a matter of trying to justify themselves but a matter of deep study and prayer. Without presenting an argument I will simply say that although I believe them to be wrong they are committed, loving Christians. I will leave those who are permitted to argue here to that, but once again I am disappointed that my question caused disagreement upon the board.

[silentpoet]

I am not saying what I say to damn them to hell with my judgement, jtbdad. And while it may be disagreement, I don't think it has been particularly disagreeable. If we all think alike we are probably not all thinking. But we must all recognize the authority of the bible as God's written instructions. And I don't see how one can read the bible and say homosexual sex or say adultery or murder or lies or any of a thousand other sins is ok. yes we can be forgiven, but it is better to not sin in the first place.

But I think if they(your friends) were truly honest with themselves, they would have to admit what the bible says.

I do not try to justify my sin or say it is ok. I am well aware of what it is. And it is pretty bad. That does not stop me from doing it. At least it does not stop me enough anyway. And in love I cannot have others suffer with sin as I have. If I cannot help myself, well maybe I can help others. I could deeply study and pray and still lead myself into sin. I could find many ways to say what I do is ok. But we both know I am failing to measure up to the standard God calls us to.

We are all tempted in different ways and have different inclinations and resistances. I am tempted in ways that you or the person next to you might not be. I realize that homosexuality is a very hard sin to escape from. And our culture today makes it even harder when it endorses that choice.

[No Swansong]

I am not saying what I say to damn them to hell with my judgement, jtbdad. And while it may be disagreement, I don't think it has been particularly disagreeable. If we all think alike we are probably not all thinking. But we must all recognize the authority of the bible as God's written instructions. And I don't see how one can read the bible and say homosexual sex or say adultery or murder or lies or any of a thousand other sins is ok. yes we can be forgiven, but it is better to not sin in the first place.

But I think if they(your friends) were truly honest with themselves, they would have to admit what the bible says.

I do not try to justify my sin or say it is ok. I am well aware of what it is. And it is pretty bad. That does not stop me from doing it. At least it does not stop me enough anyway. And in love I cannot have others suffer with sin as I have. If I cannot help myself, well maybe I can help others. I could deeply study and pray and still lead myself into sin. I could find many ways to say what I do is ok. But we both know I am failing to measure up to the standard God calls us to.

We are all tempted in different ways and have different inclinations and resistances. I am tempted in ways that you or the person next to you might not be. I realize that homosexuality is a very hard sin to escape from. And our culture today makes it even harder when it endorses that choice.


Again Silentpoet I do agree with you. I was simply pointing out that those who hold this point of view are sincere, honest people. I have read many things in Scripture that others believe to be crystal clear and I did not agree with them. To my Baptist friends OSAS is crystal clear. They simply cannot believe that I do not accept it. To my Roman Catholic friends Mary is the queen of heaven and to them it is very clear from passages in Revelations. My point (and I am probably stepping over the debate line here so this will be my last post on this issue) is that they are wrong in my opinion, but I do not believe that they are being dishonest or disingenuous in any way.

[MarkEvan]

Hi jtbdad, firstly let me say that you do not need to be disapointed that your question has caused disagreement, or a better word, discusion, i know you will agree with me when i say that discusion is a good thing. It is only when that discusion becomes ungodly and bitter that the attitude of peoples hearts are wrong. But even where there is disagreement and discusion there is learning, as the bible says "iron sharpens iron," it is a good thing that we can look at such topics with a open heart and mind, its the way we learn.

Having said all that I have to agree with silent poet, that the bible is clear on this subject both in the new and old testaments, "the Spirit convicts the world of sin" we are told by Jesus so we have to believe that those christians who practice homosexuality have been convicted of their sin, if they then continue in that sin they have ignored the Spirit essentially hardening the heart. But this process is the same for any sin not just homosexuality, it could be anger, lust or covertness, each christian should look to exhort their fellow believers to walk according to the Spirit and not the flesh, because, "to walk according to the flesh is death, but to walk according to the Spirit is life and peace."

By the way silentpoet thanks for the PM if you dont remember you sent it about 3 weeks ago and i haven`t said thanx yet which i realised was a bit rude, so thanks.

[No Swansong]

Hi jtbdad, firstly let me say that you do not need to be disapointed that your question has caused disagreement, or a better word, discusion, i know you will agree with me when i say that discusion is a good thing. It is only when that discusion becomes ungodly and bitter that the attitude of peoples hearts are wrong. But even where there is disagreement and discusion there is learning, as the bible says "iron sharpens iron," it is a good thing that we can look at such topics with a open heart and mind, its the way we learn.

Having said all that I have to agree with silent poet, that the bible is clear on this subject both in the new and old testaments, "the Spirit convicts the world of sin" we are told by Jesus so we have to believe that those christians who practice homosexuality have been convicted of their sin, if they then continue in that sin they have ignored the Spirit essentially hardening the heart. But this process is the same for any sin not just homosexuality, it could be anger, lust or covertness, each christian should look to exhort their fellow believers to walk according to the Spirit and not the flesh, because, "to walk according to the flesh is death, but to walk according to the Spirit is life and peace."

By the way silentpoet thanks for the PM if you dont remember you sent it about 3 weeks ago and i haven`t said thanx yet which i realised was a bit rude, so thanks.


Hi Mark again I am not disagreeing with whether homosexual sex is sinfull or not I am only pointing out that I believe many of those who hold the opposing view are not being dishonest of disingenuous. As for being convicted. It took several, several years for me to be convicted of certain sins that I participated in. The Spirit moves when He will, not always immediately, and not the same with everyone. But as it it clear that I have stepped over that no debating line I will politely bow out here.

Thanks for the discussion

[silentpoet]

Don't leave this discussion yet. I am not offended. I do disagree with your friends though I do agree with what you have said your personal views are. But I just can't see how people can honestly look at the bible and say homosexual activity is ok. Inclination or temptation are I believe not a sin, because like I have said, we are all weak in different ways. I would like to understand better how people can read the bible and come out with the views your friends have.

[No Swansong]

Don't leave this discussion yet. I am not offended. I do disagree with your friends though I do agree with what you have said your personal views are. But I just can't see how people can honestly look at the bible and say homosexual activity is ok. Inclination or temptation are I believe not a sin, because like I have said, we are all weak in different ways. I would like to understand better how people can read the bible and come out with the views your friends have.


Well as I said I really can't debate here and as a trainee moderator it is important that I follow the rules of the board. I do think it is possible for individuals to read scipture addressing such issues and having different interpretations. As I pointed out earlier my Baptist friends simply cannot believe that I do not read OSAS in the Scriptures that they use to "prove" it.

Or perhaps if you want to continue this it could be moved to the debate forum. Perhaps a mod could take care of that. I am more than willing to continue the conversation but I would ask that it continue in the respectful manner in which it has proceeded so far. Actually that might be helpful.

[Texas Lynn]

Texas Lynn, you are very wise.

That's very nice of you to say but I'm not any better than anyone else.

[Texas Lynn]

I see no contradiction.

Your heart appears to have the consistency of diamond, then.

I cringe because something deep within me says that for the church to openly support something that for so long has been viewed as immoral is terribly wrong.

But that is not in any sense what is occurring. Our understanding of the nature of human sexuality is forever changing. The concept LGBT relationships have "for so long" been condemned is largely propagnda by the hatemongers.

If you wish to "celebrate" your love of a person of the same sex, do it in the secular world. But don't look to the church to bless it if it is generally held to be incompatable with a Christian lifestyle on Biblical grounds.

Easily corrected. The love of same gender couples is not any sense incompatible with a "Christian lifestyle on Biblical grounds".

Note: Please take a look at the John Wesley quote in my sig line. It may help you understand why I feel as I do.

That sig line is a good general rule but in no sense applicable here.

[Texas Lynn]

I see a contradiction when someone proposes that a bible believing church should endorse/embrace same sex unions.

From its' founding the UMC has never fit the parameters of a so-called "Bible-believing church".

This does contradict what the bible teaches.

Sorry, that is your interpretation but it is not a fact by any measure. Many disagree with it. I see no basis for it at all myself.

[Texas Lynn]

I truly did not mean to incite this direction on this thread. I really was just interested in how your particular congregation reaches out to the homosexual community. I ask your forgiveness if my query caused any of you discomfort.

JTBDad, if this is addressed to me I am certainly not offended in any part and I certainly thank you for the thread.

Various congregations within the Mainline Protestant church bodies declare themselves to be "reconciling" churches by our acceptance and celebration of LGBTs and their relationships. It is often done to begin with at the initiative of certain members of the church, whether they be of minority or majority sexual orientation. To do so includes celebration of those couples and their children although within the UMC we are bound by the denominational body's rules and therefore do not perform same gender holy union ceremonies though we do celebrate them. It may include such things as in some aspects providing services to LGBTs in the church and in the community as we do by providing meeting space for a Lambda AA group. It does imply a willingness to work for full reconciliation of LGBTs and the church body which has actively harmed them by the advocacy of such things as the removal of that terrible clause in the Discipline.

[Texas Lynn]

Should we condemn others to hell by not gently redirecting them to repentance?

If that was what was involved here it would provide conclusive evidence the good go to "hell" and the evil go to "heaven".

Homosexual behavior is a sin. That is very clear from reading the Bible.

Sorry, this is not correct. It is merely your interpretation.

[Texas Lynn]

Well, the problem is that we disagree on Biblical interpretation--that's what it boils down to. We must remember that those who think that same-sex marriages should be affirmed are not suggesting that the church condone sin--they simply interpret scriptures differently.

You are correct in this.

As a UMC member, I do struggle. At present, i don't want to see the umc's doctrine change here, but I am always open to learning.

What a wonderful opportunity you will have to extend Christ's love to the oppressed should you grow spiritually regarding such!

[Texas Lynn]

silentpoet: I see by your icon you're UCC! They're more liberal than the UMC on this! They perform same gender marriages! See www.stillspeaking.com (http://www.stillspeaking.com)

[silentpoet]

I talked to a mod about the UCC Icon. I picked it by accident when I still belong to the Church of Christ(no relation really to the UCC).

I still do not see how you can read the bible and say homosexual behavior is OK.

[No Swansong]

JTBDad, if this is addressed to me I am certainly not offended in any part and I certainly thank you for the thread.

Various congregations within the Mainline Protestant church bodies declare themselves to be "reconciling" churches by our acceptance and celebration of LGBTs and their relationships. It is often done to begin with at the initiative of certain members of the church, whether they be of minority or majority sexual orientation. To do so includes celebration of those couples and their children although within the UMC we are bound by the denominational body's rules and therefore do not perform same gender holy union ceremonies though we do celebrate them. It may include such things as in some aspects providing services to LGBTs in the church and in the community as we do by providing meeting space for a Lambda AA group. It does imply a willingness to work for full reconciliation of LGBTs and the church body which has actively harmed them by the advocacy of such things as the removal of that terrible clause in the Discipline.


Texas Lynn I appreciate your kind words. I do often wonder something though. Please do not take this as confrontational it is not inteded as such. I have wondered if I were Gay, would I continue in a Church that teaches as does the UMC, or go somewhere like the MCC, or the UCC? I have to admit if I were convinced that homosexual sex was not a sin I probably would go to a church more in line with my personal Theology. So I ask why stay if you are offended by thier doctrine? ( I am not advocating that you should I am simply asking why .)

[markbelieves]

From its' founding the UMC has never fit the parameters of a so-called "Bible-believing church".

And these parameters are...?

Are you suggesting that the UMC does not believe in some parts of the bible?

When I say bible believing, I mean "believes in the inerrant Word of God."

Peace and God bless,
Mark

[HeatherJay]

And these parameters are...?

Are you suggesting that the UMC does not believe in some parts of the bible?

When I say bible believing, I mean "believes in the inerrant Word of God."

Peace and God bless,
Mark
Unless I'm much mistaken, the UMC (as a denominational whole) does not include inerrancy as part of its doctrine. Neither does the Church of the Nazarene for that matter. :wave:

[silentpoet]

Neither does the Church of the Nazarene for that matter. :wave:
I can't recall what exactly it says in the articles of faith, but it is something like divinely inspired. I can almost picture it, but I can't quite bring it up in my head. I am sure it is online.

And here it is.

4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.



I knew I had read it somewhere. When I joined my local church I had to take a class as a condition of membership.

I am not great at quoting scripture. I read not memorize. But I do know most of the New Testament and a smattering of the old.

[HeatherJay]

I can't recall what exactly it says in the articles of faith, but it is something like divinely inspired. I can almost picture it, but I can't quite bring it up in my head. I am sure it is online.

And here it is.



I knew I had read it somewhere. When I joined my local church I had to take a class as a condition of membership.

I am not great at quoting scripture. I read not memorize. But I do know most of the New Testament and a smattering of the old.
Yep...but the key words there are "in all things necessary to our salvation." That means that we do not claim inerrancy on the other parts of scripture. It's basically a sneaky way of saying we believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, we believe it's absolute in all things necessary to salvation, but we're not claiming it's meant to be an exact history or science book (among other things, lol). ;)

And I think we've all had that membership class, lol...some pastors just go a little further in depth about what that article is actually claiming...and it's not total inerrancy. :)

That doesn't mean that many Nazarenes don't still believe in total inerrancy...but, we do not attach it to part of our doctrine.

LOL, where's Wesley John to back me up on this point when I need him? ;)

[ImaginaryVoyager]

Our church is also a reconciling congregation and would reject the statement in the Book of Discipline condemning homosexuality.

[vicarius]

HeatherJay is correct regarding the Nazarene understanding of scriptural inerrancy. We understand that it contains all truth necessary for salvation. We are less concerned regarding specific historical or scientific accuracy of scripture.

My Nazarene PK father (now UMC) explained this understanding to me many times as I was growing up. I have also had this discussion with my in-laws, both Nazarene pastors. I've also heard it in several membership classes that I've attended.

Speaking of Nazarene membership classes, I've been a member of the Church of the Nazarene for 30 years, and have transferred my membership several times after moving to cities. Why do I have to take the same membership class every time I go to a new church??? :scratch:



Yep...but the key words there are "in all things necessary to our salvation." That means that we do not claim inerrancy on the other parts of scripture. It's basically a sneaky way of saying we believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, we believe it's absolute in all things necessary to salvation, but we're not claiming it's meant to be an exact history or science (among other things, lol). ;)

And I think we've all had that membership class, lol...some pastors just go a little further in depth about what that article is actually claiming...and it's not total inerrancy. :)

That doesn't mean that many Nazarenes don't still believe in total inerrancy...but, we do not attach it to part of our doctrine.

LOL, where's Wesley John to back me up on this point when I need him? ;)

[silentpoet]

That doesn't mean that many Nazarenes don't still believe in total inerrancy...but, we do not attach it to part of our doctrine.



I tend to believe in total inerrancy. But I also believe I do not always understand what God is saying. I mean I understand on a larger level, but some of the details I don't always understand. Especially if you are talking about Revelations. Now that is some confusing stuff. And to top it off, John even says he didn't reveal everything he saw.

vicarius funny you should mention having to take that class. There was a young lady in my class who had graduated from a nazarene university out west. If anybody should know, she should. She still had to take the class.

I may start a thread on that class so as to not hijack this thread further.

[HeatherJay]

I tend to believe in total inerrancy. But I also believe I do not always understand what God is saying. I mean I understand on a larger level, but some of the details I don't always understand. Especially if you are talking about Revelations. Now that is some confusing stuff. And to top it off, John even says he didn't reveal everything he saw.

vicarius funny you should mention having to take that class. There was a young lady in my class who had graduated from a nazarene university out west. If anybody should know, she should. She still had to take the class.

I may start a thread on that class so as to not hijack this thread further.
Another completely off topic post, lol...

My hubby just recently picked up a really interesting book on Revelation written from a Nazarene perspective. It's called Answers For Chicken Little : A No Nonsense Look at the Book of Revelation. It's written by Dr. Dan Boone who is the current president of Trevecca (Nazarene University). It comes highly recommended (at least from my hubby, lol). ;)

[Texas Lynn]

I talked to a mod about the UCC Icon. I picked it by accident when I still belong to the Church of Christ(no relation really to the UCC).

Big difference.

I still do not see how you can read the bible and say homosexual behavior is OK.

God made homosexuals. God also made ancient people with primitive understandings of the aspects of human relationships. Some of these wrote in the Bible. God also gave all of us minds that work. We know, for instance, that the sun does not revolve around the earth as those ancients believed. We also know some have a differing capacity for love that does not fit with ancient patriarchical notions.

FYI, homosexuality is not a "behavior".

[silentpoet]

Yes it is behavior. Or at least there is a behavioral aspect. There are attitudinal aspects as well. I am fairly well versed in the behavioral sciences. My BS is in psychology. Did you know that in a study of identical twins where at least one twin is homosexual less than 50% of the other twins are. Human sexuality is indeed very complex and there are factors other than genetic predisposition at work in spite of what some might think or choose to believe.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Because I don't think we are going to come to much of an understanding. I don't think you are evil or unGodly. I just think you are misguided and wrong. I have been those things before. So it is no insult intended.

[Texas Lynn]

Texas Lynn I appreciate your kind words. I do often wonder something though. Please do not take this as confrontational it is not inteded as such. I have wondered if I were Gay, would I continue in a Church that teaches as does the UMC, or go somewhere like the MCC, or the UCC? I have to admit if I were convinced that homosexual sex was not a sin I probably would go to a church more in line with my personal Theology. So I ask why stay if you are offended by thier doctrine? ( I am not advocating that you should I am simply asking why .)

It's the tradition in which we (myself and siblings) were raised. We agree with just about everything else in the Discipline and the Social Creed except this. It is personal but, all faith traditions which oppress LGBTs have LGBT cauci. Catholics have Dignity and Mormons have Affirmation-these are the names of those traditions' cauci. If you're really interested I'd recommend you read Stranger at the Gate by Rev. Mel White of Soulforce, a generic evangelical LGBT caucus.

Would you consider yourself moving to Iran and swearing alliegence to the Ayatollahs because you are not enamored of Bush, Donald Trump, and Taylor Hicks?
I would not. In the 1990s a pro wrestler who went by the nom de guerre of Sergeant Slaughter had fought in the ring as a clean Marine and exemplar of American values, yet he swore alliegence to Saddam Hussein and saluted an Iraqui flag because his handlers convinced him to turn 'bad guy". Slaughter did this as a career enhancer yet in the end he was reduced to playing such venues as Missoula, Montana, and Opelousssas, Louisiana with county fair sideshows. Sic transit gloria mundi, but I'm no Slaughter in that regard. When you love something like a church or a nation you stick with it despite its shortcomings IMO.

[Texas Lynn]

Are you suggesting that the UMC does not believe in some parts of the bible?

From its inception the UMC has never been one to take the Bible literally, or claim to, as those using it as a tool of oppression use it against LGBTs.

We believe in freedom of conscience. It is the individual who determines what they believe, not some self-appointed religious poohbahs.

[Texas Lynn]

Yes it is behavior. Or at least there is a behavioral aspect. There are attitudinal aspects as well. I am fairly well versed in the behavioral sciences. My BS is in psychology. Did you know that in a study of identical twins where at least one twin is homosexual less than 50% of the other twins are. Human sexuality is indeed very complex and there are factors other than genetic predisposition at work in spite of what some might think or choose to believe.

Whatever. People are what they are. The cause of homosexuality is an irrelevancy entirely.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Because I don't think we are going to come to much of an understanding. I don't think you are evil or unGodly. I just think you are misguided and wrong. I have been those things before. So it is no insult intended.

I believe it is you who is misguided and wrong in your advocacy in this regard, and you are actively committing harm to others by adopting this position.

[Celticflower]

Your heart appears to have the consistency of diamond, then.

I will assume you are saying this with your loving heart -- and just let it go :sigh:

But that is not in any sense what is occurring. Our understanding of the nature of human sexuality is forever changing. The concept LGBT relationships have "for so long" been condemned is largely propagnda by the hatemongers.


Right--this is why they were singled out by Hitler --oops, must be more propaganda. Face it, it has only been during my adulthood that there has been a major push to accept and legitamize lesbian/gay relationships. If such relationships were not condemned why do people feel the need to "hide in the closet" for so long?




That sig line is a good general rule but in no sense applicable here.

How does it not apply? Same sex sexual relationships are condemned in the Bible, same sex relationships have been considered unacceptable by most segments of the population for a looooong time. Having sex with one of the same gender has long been considered a vice. It is only in the past few decades that it has become a bit fashionable to flaunt one's gay sexuality. But many of us still consider homosexual sex acts to be wrong, a vice, even though the secular world at large is being pushed into accepting a fashionable anything goes attitude.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being "hard-hearted" or "unloving", but I assure you a dear friend of mine, who is gay, knows me much better than you and does not doubt the love I have for him as a person. He knows I don't accept or condone his life behind the bedroom door, but our friendship is bigger than that one issue. He does not try to change my mind, and while I have stated my views to him, I do not harp on the matter. I do however, pray for him. As to who or what God accepts or rejects-- that is up to God. I can only go by the guide I have in this life and what it appears to say to me. If you read your Bible differently, that is your right, but I do not think you should try to get a whole group to change their beliefs for you.

The Discipline should stand as it is on this matter.

[vicarius]

If I may, I'd like to redirect the discussion a bit.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral describes four sources for understanding theological issues:
· Scripture - the Holy Bible
· Tradition - the two millennia history of the Church
· Reason - rational thinking
· Experience - our personal and communal journey in Christ

1. Explain your understanding of how these sources are applied to theological questions, pay particular attention to your understanding of “Primacy of Scripture.”

2. Do you agree or disagree with your denominations position on homosexuality? Explain your answer using the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. (some denominational statements are provided below)

3. Would you change your denomination’s official statement regarding homosexuality? If so, how would you like it to read?



United Methodist Church
“Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”

Church of the Nazarene
“Homosexuality is one means by which human sexuality is perverted. We recognize the depth of the perversion that leads to homosexual acts but affirm the biblical position that such acts are sinful and subject to the wrath of God. We believe the grace of God sufficient to overcome the practice of homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). We deplore any action or statement that would seem to imply compatibility between Christian morality and the practice of homosexuality. We urge clear preaching and teaching concerning Bible standards of sexual morality.”

(Genesis 1:27; 19:1-25; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-10)

Wesleyan Church
“While we believe God loves — and we should also love — all sinners, including adulterers, fornicators, as well as those who practice homosexuality — we specifically reaffirm our strong position that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, and that even the propensity toward homosexuality is out of step with both the order of creation and the will of God. On this matter we cannot and will not compromise — the only marriage blessed by God is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. Those practicing homosexuality should be treated like any other sinner — with love and concern, yet with a call to repentance and conversion through God’s grace which results in the cessation of sinful behavior.”

Free Methodist Church
“Homosexual behavior, as all sexual deviation, is a perversion of God’s created order. The sanctity of marriage and the family is to be preserved against all manner of immoral conduct. The Free Methodist Church does not recognize the legitimacy or participation in the practice of same-sex marriage. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God as clearly stated in Scripture. Persons with homosexual inclinations are accountable to God for their behavior. The forgiving and delivering grace of God in Christ is all sufficient for the homosexual. The church has a personal and corporate responsibility to be God’s instrument of healing, restoring love to homosexuals seeking recovery of Christian conduct and lifestyle. The church opposes legislation which makes homosexual conduct or lifestyle legitimate.”

[silentpoet]

I believe it is you who is misguided and wrong in your advocacy in this regard, and you are actively committing harm to others by adopting this position.

I only commit harm when I fail to do or say what is right. I am committing harm if I do not speak and through this inaction condemn others to hell. I am well aware of the weight of sin, of the weight of habitual sin. I would not have others suffer in this world if I could help it. But better some small suffering for a few span of years than to suffer agony in hell for all eternity.

[vicarius]

It looks like my attempt to redirect this discussion failed. :sigh: :( :cry:

[HeatherJay]

It looks like my attempt to redirect this discussion failed. :sigh: :( :cry:
It was a wonderful try, though. :hug:

[Morgaine1205]

It was a wonderful try, though. :hug:

I agree - I was looking forward to reading the answers to your redirect!

[Texas Lynn]

[quote=Texas Lynn] I will assume you are saying this with your loving heart

I try to not do otherwise.

-- and just let it go :sigh:

I think the rest of that post shows you did anything but that, but, so it goes.

[in response to my comment disputing the concept LGBT relationships have throughout history always been condemned]Right--this is why they were singled out by Hitler --oops, must be more propaganda.

Actually, persecution of lesbian and gay Europeans by the Nazis is quite well documented, but the time frame for that is 70-80 years ago. The dynamics of that are quite frightening. But that is relatively recent history. Antisemitism didn't originate with the Nazis either but they made a systematic effort at it. To claim that as evidence LGBs (Ts emergence as a separate group dates only from the post-World War II era) were always universally condemned is to not see the forest for the tree. The history of sexualities in culture is long and varied. Homophobes like to claim queer relationships were "always" condemned but there is no basis for that. In non-Western cultures like East Asia and North America prior to European conquest there were many instances of acceptance and celebration; Western Culture is likewise not devoid of these. Much of these concepts are inexorably linked to marriage customs and gender roles. To give just one example lesbian relationships in polygamous households among sister-wives has always been encouraged.

Face it, it has only been during my adulthood that there has been a major push to accept and legitamize lesbian/gay relationships.

Since you don't give your age in your identifying information I can't with accuracy comment on that. But considering how to be alive now you are probably of the Depression-World War II generation or younger, this may have merit to some degree. Mass gay culture as a large phenomenon did emerge from the WW II wartime mobilization when we discovered each other. The early gay rights groups founded in the 1950s, the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis, were founded by veterans creating this culture. The modern gay rights movement is said to have begun with the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969, though Philadelphia recently memorialized an earlier movement which occurred there. But no matter. Everything started sometime. Much social change occurred in the Twentieth Century. But it's hardly seamless, or our understanding of the Mattachines, Bilitis, and Stonewall did not occur in a vacuum either. The Wright Brothers first flight occurred in 1903. Some claimed then, and still do, humans were not meant to fly.

If such relationships were not condemned why do people feel the need to "hide in the closet" for so long?

Obviously ongoing oppression is the major factor, but it was hardly universal. Documentation exists of homosexual relationships among pioneers and the like during the American Westward Expansion, as well as of the bedraches-Native American homosexuals and crossdressers honored by their tribes as "people of two spirits".

How does it not apply?[Celticflower's sig quote] Same sex sexual relationships are condemned in the Bible, same sex relationships have been considered unacceptable by most segments of the population for a looooong time. Having sex with one of the same gender has long been considered a vice.

That is what is being challenged.

It is only in the past few decades that it has become a bit fashionable to flaunt one's gay sexuality.

Social change occurs. The recentness of changes is no argument of value against them. I think though the concept of the "fashoinableness" and "flaunting" of queer sexualities is overly simplistic. Times change.

But many of us still consider homosexual sex acts to be wrong, a vice, even though the secular world at large is being pushed into accepting a fashionable anything goes attitude.

I think there's a musical about that by Cole Poter or Noel Coward or somebody. It's an ironic comment.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being "hard-hearted" or "unloving", but I assure you a dear friend of mine, who is gay, knows me much better than you and does not doubt the love I have for him as a person. He knows I don't accept or condone his life behind the bedroom door, but our friendship is bigger than that one issue. He does not try to change my mind, and while I have stated my views to him, I do not harp on the matter. I do however, pray for him. As to who or what God accepts or rejects-- that is up to God. I can only go by the guide I have in this life and what it appears to say to me. If you read your Bible differently, that is your right...

These sort of personal testimonies have become sort of de riegieur. It's the exact equivalent of the oft-heard "some of my best friends are black, but..." comments often heard in the civil rights era.

...but I do not think you should try to get a whole group to change their beliefs for you.

When one is part of said groups, to do so is an act of utmost integrity.

[Texas Lynn]

I only commit harm when I fail to do or say what is right.

My position is that is exactly what you are doing.

[Celticflower]

Texas Lynn,

Since it is obvious to me that you are doing some of the same things that that you accuse those of us who wish to maintain the integrity of our denominational stance on homosexuality of doing, it has become useless to even converse with you on this subject. I will leave it to God to deal with each of us as He sees fit.

[Shane Roach]

It is clear that the continued debate over homosexuality is hamstringing most churches' ability to do outreach to homosexuals, to drag the thread back to the OP slightly.

There will eventually be a split amonst some denominations over this, and I will be moving my membership to whichever branch of the Methodists church keeps the third sentence of the statement quoted intact. At that point, true outreach will be possible rather than ongoing debate and strife over words, which by the way the Bible warns us against, and also warns us to separate ourselves from those who constantly incite the same.

[silentpoet]

My position is that is exactly what you are doing.

I have had homosexual friends and I have told them before that I believe they are committing sin. They were never too upset with me. I told them that though it was a sin, Jesus did die for sinners. And I told them that I have also committed many sins myself so I am not standing up condemning them. I had one friend who thought I had abandoned him because I did not respond to his coming out email when I had not checked my email for a few hours. I told him basically what i said above and he was pretty satisfied with my response. I fail when I do not speak out for what is right.

[Texas Lynn]

Texas Lynn,

Since it is obvious to me that you are doing some of the same things that that you accuse those of us who wish to maintain the integrity of our denominational stance on homosexuality of doing, it has become useless to even converse with you on this subject. I will leave it to God to deal with each of us as He sees fit.

I am sorry you feel that way. I can't imagine how making bigotry as doctrine can be considered at all to be "integrity", but, as we know, the segregationists fought for the "integrity" of the white race in their view.

[Texas Lynn]

It is clear that the continued debate over homosexuality is hamstringing most churches' ability to do outreach to homosexuals

I would have to disagree with that. "Outreach" to those one things of as less than themselves is worthless. The debate is necessary and healthy; it is the bigotry against LGBTs which does the harm.

There will eventually be a split amonst some denominations over this, and I will be moving my membership to whichever branch of the Methodists church keeps the third sentence of the statement quoted intact. At that point, true outreach will be possible rather than ongoing debate and strife over words, which by the way the Bible warns us against, and also warns us to separate ourselves from those who constantly incite the same.

I'm not so sure the "split" is necessarily inevitable, although schism seems somewhat to be a natural occurrance at times. But consider the imbroglio over the Episcopal Church USA and their Canadian counterpart concerning this very issue. I would agree these bodies were heading for a split if by now something like even 20% of their congregations had made moves to schism-but it's been much smaller than that. One would surely think if schism was due to occur over this progress toward it would have occurred much more rapidly. Instead, merely a handful of churches have made such moves, and the rest appear to be content with the situation as is. Considering how as time passes bigotry against LGBTs is rapidly decreasing, it hardly seems inevitable, although it certainly could occur. Things such as the proposal in the Episcopal Communion to relegate the American and Canadian church bodies to a second tier status appear to be at best a rear guard action.

[Texas Lynn]

I have had homosexual friends and I have told them before that I believe they are committing sin. They were never too upset with me. I told them that though it was a sin, Jesus did die for sinners. And I told them that I have also committed many sins myself so I am not standing up condemning them. I had one friend who thought I had abandoned him because I did not respond to his coming out email when I had not checked my email for a few hours. I told him basically what i said above and he was pretty satisfied with my response. I fail when I do not speak out for what is right.

Interestingly, we often hear this "some of my best friends are gay" kind of stuff from members of the antigay faction, but we seldom hear "some of my best friends are antigay people actively fighting against our rights" from the gay folks. You have to wonder about that.

[rj141]

Everytime I see the word bigotry I cringe. The issue that we now contend with while engaging in this discussion is one of blurred lines. Some no longer see homosexuality as sin. In this instance, those who do are called bigots. Homosexuality is compared to being black during the pre-civil rights era. "How can you say you love the Lord and be so prejudiced against people who live differently than you?"

When one defines homosexuality as sin, as I do, the argument (and the word bigot) becomes very problematic. Homosexuality has nothing to do with civil rights just as drunkenness and slander and gossip have nothing to do with civil rights when it comes to the church (in a way they do but I don't have room to go into that, haha) If you consider a person who detests sin and prays and ministers in the name of Jesus Christ, who cleanses sin, a bigot - then please declare me a bigot for eternity. As Christians, do we not daily "renounce sin?" Do we not pray solemnly, "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil?"

So many people say that homosexuals are born homosexuals. That may very well be the case. But what does that change? We are all born sinners. We are all born with a will contrary to God's. It is our journey as people that has led us to Christ, taking away our sins and allowing us to be born again - as children of God and not children of sin; becoming a new creation, having the same mind that is in Christ Jesus, loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, and comforming to the will of the Almighty.

Are there people who hide their bigotry within Christian principle; using it as an excuse to hate homosexuals? Absolutely! No where in scripture will you find a verse that requires us to hate anyone. But we have to be against sin - we have to preach salvation and believe sinners, no matter the sin, will be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus Christ.

So what remains?

There are things that I've said that might have made those angry that support homosexuality (just as I experienced when I read the word -bigot-). The tension in the church has nothing to do with homosexuality. The tension comes from the question: what does the church do when two sides both think their position is not only right, but biblical? So where do we go?

[sorry for my longwindedness] :P

[Morgaine1205]

I too cringe when I hear the word 'bigot' - it's not a good word. Just to confirm that I had the right meaning of the word bigot, I looked it up in the dictionary.

"n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

I would hope that no Christian is intolerant, we're all sinners, but we are urged to confess our sins and help our brothers and sisters to sin no more.

[MarkEvan]

Hi Texas Lynn, although I am not sure I think that no one has asked what your interpretation is on the verses in both the old and new testaments that refer to this subject, so taking two scriptures, what are your views and how did you come to them, about Romans 1 vs 24 onwards and in Leviticus (i think although I must confess i am not sure where in the OT it is) where it says that it is an abomination for a man to have a sexual relationship with another man.
I look forward to your reply,
God Bless
Mark

Wait it`s leviticus 18 vs 22.

Cheers

[Sophia7]

After staff review, this thread has been permanently closed.