Why is homosexuality the one subject that may be too hot to handle?

[Nemo Neem]

I don't know Nemo. The UMC has already passed resolutions on the issues of both abortion and gun safety. We had discussions about those and the General Conference was able to pass resolutions without big fights. So while abortion and guns are big deal issues right now for some, I don't see that as divisive in the UMC has issues of same sex marriage.

Thanks. But what I meant was, you don't hear serious conversations about abortions and gun rights because those are issues too "sensitive" to talk about. In my home church in New Jersey, we have a member who is pro NRA and our pastor is very anti-gun and they've had intense disputes. So those are still hot-button issues.

 

[circuitrider]

Thanks. But what I meant was, you don't hear serious conversations about abortions and gun rights because those are issues too "sensitive" to talk about. In my home church in New Jersey, we have a member who is pro NRA and our pastor is very anti-gun and they've had intense disputes. So those are still hot-button issues.

I see. I was thinking the national level and you were talking about at the local church level. I certainly see the gun issue as more controversial at the local church level, particularly in those areas that are very pro-gun rights.

I can't say as I've seen abortion be an issue in my part of the country.

I am personally known for having strong opinions on the need for better gun safety. I've not gotten heat from church members about it.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I think so much of that is regional. Missouri, as a state, is extremely "pro-gun". Though it isn't in the media as much, we're easily as gun-loving as Texas; with similar laws. You can't carry a concealed firearm in New York City or Chicago; but you can in St. Louis!

Democrats in MO have admitted an unwillingness to oppose these gun laws for fear of their job. Democrats in MO know that they can survive in a red state just fine, and push for issues that are important. This would include, for example, same-sex marriage. And they'll still get elected thanks to voters from the 3 Missouri counties that vote for Democrats (which are the most populated counties. Those three counties make up half the population. They represent Kansas City, St. Louis, and Jefferson City. The rural areas everywhere else, and Springfield, a town of about 120,000, all tend to vote for Republicans) Our governor is a Democrat. And even our Governor has stated he is 100% unwilling to go up against gun laws. He has vetoed a number of republican-passed bills, stated support for SMM, stated support for Obamas policies, but will not go up against any of Missouri's gun laws. I've heard him say that it would be "political suicide". That's one thing you cannot touch in the state of Missouri. So in general politics; I would agree that guns might trump SSM in my state. Of course, in my state, despite being very conservative and very pro-Gun and NRA indoctrinated; the majority support SSM by a fair margin (it's in the 60%'s).

But the CHURCH looks a little different, and SSM is far more divisive. At least in my context. Especially in the UMC. We have Pastors who carry guns and those who refuse to own them; yet none (that I've heard) wish to split the church over the denominations stance that guns shouldn't be in church and should be regulated. If I recall right the BOR even calls for the outlawing of personal handguns. Yet in all the forums, clergy facebook groups, message boards, annual conference meetings; I've never once heard a handgun-owning Pastor jump up and demand a faction of the church split or leave over the BOR's stance on handguns. Yet I hear it from both sides of the SSM debate.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I think a big part of it is that people are afraid that schools are going to start teaching about it, telling kids that it is perfectly normal and fine. We could start seeing cartoons with homosexuals in it. Why not? Cartoons show married heterosexual people, so if there's nothing wrong with practicing homosexuality then why not have gay couples in cartoons?

To me that's scary. But it's not near as scary as what was done to Christians in the Bible, so I guess we still have it pretty good here.

Probably. And so what? What do you think that will do? Human sexuality cannot be authored by cartoons or 'acceptance'. There was no day where you woke up and said "Gee, I've only been exposed to heterosexual media, guess I'll be straight!" I don't know if you have any people close to you who are gay; but if you do, talk to them sometime, honestly and openly, about what it was like for them to come out. Chances are, if they are anything like my friends, they wanted nothing more than to be straight. Begging and pleading to be straight, trying to be straight, getting into relationships with the opposite sex hoping it will "make" them straight. But it just doesn't work like that. The next step is acceptance of their own sexuality followed, often, by a rejection of that which opposes it. A defense mechanism of sorts; which is why so many leave the church and reject societal norms about relationships; because they aren't accepted as 'normal' in society.

I'm not sure why that's scary or why you think children would be harmed by it.

And yes, it is going to become less and less socially acceptable to oppose homosexuality. Just like it's not socially acceptable to oppose interracial marriage, equality for women, equality for persons of color, and other issues Christians have opposed through the years. I'm amazed by the ridiculously similar pattern race equality followed in the 60's, including in the church. The Methodist church HAS split over it's stance on slavery, and when a group of Methodist Pastors in the south came out in opposition of Jim Crow laws, they were ostracized and chastised.

If you believe it's right, then you believe it's right. Society shouldn't decide that for you. The world deciding that it's acceptable and deciding that it's not socially acceptable to oppose it is par for the course for Christians. Sometimes society helps us take off prejudices to help us understand the Bible better. Remember, Christians of previous decades believed very clearly that the Bible set white men above all other classes and that white women, followed by minorities, were set at a lower pedestal. And I'm not talking fringe groups; I'm talking the prevailing, majority Christian opinion. When interracial marriage was legalized churches were in an outrage that the nation was not being "biblically obedient" and were concerned that the "children" would be harmed. "I Love Lucy" was heavily criticized by many Christian groups as "promoting interracial marriage" (Lucy was white and her Husband was Puerto Rican), despite not really showing affection on screen and even sleeping in separate beds! (There's an entire season of I Love Lucy where Lucille Ball's stomach is hidden in every episode. She was pregnant. Though they were on the bleeding edge of society for showing an interracial couple; even they thought showing a pregnant woman on television was vulgar and inappropriate. And would only incite more vitrol as the 'character' would've had to be pregnant for it to make 'sense' and that meant an interracial Baby! Times DO change).

At the end of the day, though there are still Christians who believe the Bible still opposes interracial marriage and equality; no, society doesn't condone their behavior like it has tolerated it in the past. Nor will society, in the future, tolerate opposition to SSM. Society is moving with or without the church though. Society will continue to oppose and support things Christians, of various understandings, support and oppose.

 

[circuitrider]

RomansFiveEight

I agree with you that a lot of these issues are reigional issues. One of the hard things about the over all size and scope of the UMC is that even within the United States alone we encompass a large geography with several differing cultures.

Southern Bible Belt Methodist churches often have very different traditions and cultures than northern rust belt Methodist churches. The upper midwest is very different from the central midwest. The east and west coasts are different from each other and the rest of us.

My conference is just north of yours yet Iowa has a very different culture from Missiouri.

I'm in an area that was settled by Dutch, Norwegian, German and Swedish immigrants with a mix of Polish and Irish in there as well. Now current immigration also include a large percentage of Latinos in the ethnic mix. None of the cultures listed are sympathetic to the prohibition against drinking alcohol that was prevelent in Methodist during the temprence movement. It isn't part of their culture. I gather even some of the more conservative Lutheran groups in the area will have wine and cheese gatherings at their denominational meetings.

It was brought up above that no one has suggested splitting the denomination over guns or abortion yet we are willing to split over same sex marriage. (Or at least some of us are.)

I become concerned when people start talking about leaving the church because they don't like who the pastor is performing is performing a wedding for. Basically they are leaving the church over something that has no effect on them at all. They aren't a party to the wedding, they probably won't attend the wedding, they likely aren't friends of the couple getting married.

When you have a person who will attend a church only if that church matches their every personal viewpoint then likely they'll never end up finding a church that satisfies them.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Just to throw a wrench into things, what a church believes can be important. A church whose apportionment dollars funded things you were morally opposed to, for example, might make you think twice. To give an example I know you'd oppose imagine if your church was helping fund the "Christian gun and outdoors show" that goes on in my community every year that includes assault rifle raffles and discounted concealed carry classes? I imagine you'd struggle if you were a lay person attending and supporting a church that in turn, supported that organization.

That said; we HAVE become one-issue people. It's amazing, really. I know extremely conservative people who vote for Democrats because they are union. That's prevailing out here and has bred an entire species of "conservative Democrats" in Missouri; who are pro-union but mostly conservative on other issues (pro-gun, pro-life, etc.). As so many in this particular community work union jobs, their traditional Conservative ethos hits a wall when they are told by Republicans that they are overpaid and underworked 'thugs' who harm Americas middle class. While they recognize they ARE Americas middle class, instead of Americas impoverished, because of the unions. So on that ONE issue, they vote for Democrats. Likewise, I know very liberal people who are socially liberal; but have one conservative issue; in two examples I'm personally aware of, one girl is pro-life (and a pro-life activist) and pro-gay, anti-gun, pro-raising the minimum wage, pro separation of church and state, pro social programs; but her 'pro-life' stance trumps all and she only votes for Republicans. In another example, another young woman I know consistently posts very liberal understandings on Facebook regarding gay marriage, unions, etc., but so starkly opposes what she (mis)understand "welfare" to be, that she votes Republican so that the Democrats will stop "Giving her tax dollars away" to lazy people (as she sees it). By the way, she's a minimum-wage worker going to school full time (Good for her!), who not only likely pays NO income tax at her income level (she likely gets all that she pays back in refunds, I did when I made minimum wage AND I wasn't my own 'dependent', I was living at home as a high school student), but she almost certainly receives some form of Federal assistance for schooling, Pell grant, student loans, etc. But I digress!

On the issue of human sexuality, it's again one-sided. Arguments about the trinity, even salvation, aren't as divisive. It seems one is a Christian or non-Christian, and a church is genuine or non-genuine, based on their stance on sexuality.

 

[circuitrider]

Just to throw a wrench into things, what a church believes can be important. A church whose apportionment dollars funded things you were morally opposed to, for example, might make you think twice. To give an example I know you'd oppose imagine if your church was helping fund the "Christian gun and outdoors show" that goes on in my community every year that includes assault rifle raffles and discounted concealed carry classes? I imagine you'd struggle if you were a lay person attending and supporting a church that in turn, supported that organization.

Actually I'd not struggle. I'd not be a member of a church that supported a "Christian" Gun Show. There is nothing "Christian" (or non-Christian) about selling guns. So if someone attached religious significance to the sale of weapons then I'd be running the other direction from such a church.

In generally I agree with your concern about being a "one issue" voter. The problem is that there are some single issues that can be morally "beyond the pale" for some of people.

Donald Trump's racist statements about Latinos automatically excluded me from ever voting for him. Ben Carson's blaming the victims in Oregon for being shot excluded my ever voting for him. Bigotry or rank idiocy are single issue positions that would keep me from ever voting for a candidate.

My views on the over 30,000 per year gun deaths (hugely higher than other civilized nations) in the US preclude me from voting for a candidate who is in the back pocket of the NRA. That will certainly guide my vote on congressional candidates for some time to come until different laws are passed and to make sure such lose stay passed once voted in.

Individual issues are part of how we narrow down whom we can vote for out of the many people who want to be President.

 

[Dave-W]

On the issue of human sexuality, it's again one-sided. Arguments about the trinity, even salvation, aren't as divisive. It seems one is a Christian or non-Christian, and a church is genuine or non-genuine, based on their stance on sexuality.

Wow. How true.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Actually I'd not struggle. I'd not be a member of a church that supported a "Christian" Gun Show. There is nothing "Christian" (or non-Christian) about selling guns. So if someone attached religious significance to the sale of weapons then I'd be running the other direction from such a church.

In generally I agree with your concern about being a "one issue" voter. The problem is that there are some single issues that can be morally "beyond the pale" for some of people.

Donald Trump's racist statements about Latinos automatically excluded me from ever voting for him. Ben Carson's blaming the victims in Oregon for being shot excluded my ever voting for him. Bigotry or rank idiocy are single issue positions that would keep me from ever voting for a candidate.

My views on the over 30,000 per year gun deaths (hugely higher than other civilized nations) in the US preclude me from voting for a candidate who is in the back pocket of the NRA. That will certainly guide my vote on congressional candidates for some time to come until different laws are passed and to make sure such lose stay passed once voted in.

Individual issues are part of how we narrow down whom we can vote for out of the many people who want to be President.

As is frequently the case I made a poor choice of words; yes, that's what I mean. That one issue would be indicative of so much more about the character of those and would be enough for you to leave. Likewise, that one issue of human sexuality becomes at the core of who so many people are.

It manifests itself when folks like you and I, who dissent with the UMC on the issue of human sexuality, are asked why we aren't just UCC or Episcopalian. It totally ignores ALL of our makeup as Christians and hyper-focuses on ONE aspect of polity that, for some, defines who they are as Christians.

There are times this 'one issue' can be important. I could not be a faithful member of a church who said the Bible was irrelevant OR who said the Bible was inerrant and meant to be taken literally in it's english translation. Despite that being one issue, either issue cuts at the core of what it means to develop theology. Ignoring the Bible makes theology "Whatever I want it to be" and simplifying the Bible does the exact same thing but in an inverse; it gives the APPEARANCE of scriptural obedience while actually absolving one from having to read, interpret, and understand God's will.

There are other times when the "one issue" needs to be understood to be less than crucial; that it doesn't mean someone IS or IS NOT a Christian. They ARE important, but they are NOT essential. And this includes marriage, local church polity, and so on.

 

[Nemo Neem]

It boils down to, also, whether or not owning a gun is a sin.

God tells us in the Bible, "Do not murder." Does that mean we shouldn't own a gun? Is it a sign of violence?

See, all these questions are very difficult to answer. It makes me sometimes question why I am even a Christian (but in a good, healthy way). Jesus commands us to be peaceful people, yet could owning a gun remotely make us peaceful? Is war ever just?

I just think people are getting caught up in issues that have no bearing on saving a person's soul.

That being said, the LGBT issue won't ever be solved. There will never be a "middle-ground" or a compromise. We must accept that what's going on is a part of God's design and that we have to trust Him if anything is going to be peaceful.

 

[circuitrider]

I think if you take the longer historical view that the LGBTQ issue will be solved. In fact most everyone will accept it as the norm so that 50 years down the road no one will be willing to own up to the fact that their group used to oppose it.

As to guns. It doesn't have to be a sin to own a gun to think guns need regulation. I own a car and I think cars need laws and regulations.

 

[GraceDriven]

I believe in separation of church and state. But, I wish the churches would keep with their definition of what a marriage institution is. Just because it is not perfect; maybe far from it, does not mean it should be discarded or redefined.

That is just my opinion and I am just a minnow.

 

[circuitrider]

I believe in separation of church and state. But, I wish the churches would keep with their definition of what a marriage institution is. Just because it is not perfect; maybe far from it, does not mean it should be discarded or redefined.

That is just my opinion and I am just a minnow.

The problem is that the definition has already changed more than once since the LGBT and same sex marriage issues came along.

What marriage is in the church has changed from the New Testament period when marriages were arranged and women were nearly property. Our society original did not give women the right to vote, the right to own property the right to work, etc.

Now much of the Church teaches that women and men are equal and that marriage between men and women is an equal partnership. Now couples can choose to have children or not and pretty much how many.

Marriage has changed a lot in the last 2,000 years. So our current definitions of marriage aren't the first nor are they likely to be the last.

 

[GraceDriven]

Marriage has changed a lot in the last 2,000 years. So our current definitions of marriage aren't the first nor are they likely to be the last.

The core of it is the same. I understand what you are saying but I don't agree.

 

[circuitrider]

The core of it is the same. I understand what you are saying but I don't agree.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but what is that core? If the core is one man and one woman that wasn't the original core in the Bible. The core was a man having dominion over at least one woman and some times several or many with the woman having no choice in the matter.

In the New Testament it was one woman married off to a man often against her will with him having total say in the marriage in all things.

Neither of those seem to fit the core values of marriage we uphold today which is equal partnership relationships between consenting adults. If you are a conservative that is consenting between a man and a woman. But it sure isn't what marriage was in the Bible at its core.

 

[GraceDriven]

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but what is that core? If the core is one man and one woman that wasn't the original core in the Bible. The core was a man having dominion over at least one woman and some times several or many with the woman having no choice in the matter.

In the New Testament it was one woman married off to a man often against her will with him having total say in the marriage in all things.

Neither of those seem to fit the core values of marriage we uphold today which is equal partnership relationships between consenting adults. If you are a conservative that is consenting between a man and a woman. But it sure isn't what marriage was in the Bible at its core.

I think we may be reading from different books. You are more verse than I am - assuming by your posts.

 

[GraceDriven]

People can pick scriptures, bits and pieces and interpret it in anyway. I know I have seen it recently done by a non-Christian and a liberal. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

And if one thinks religion can be interpret badly....take a good look at our new religion. It is called psychology. I tell you it scares me more than any sector of religion. It is very scary.... It's not something I am joking about. Change anything you want at any point in time. We have a new King.

I think I will cry now for everything that is lost.

 

[GraceDriven]

No disrespect to you Circuit Rider. I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. Maybe, I should just post when I am not feeling so gloomy about the world. I would spare everyone forever.

 

[circuitrider]

No disrespect to you Circuit Rider. I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. Maybe, I should just post when I am not feeling so gloomy about the world. I would spare everyone forever.

I'm sorry you are feeling gloomy GraceDriven. I don't want to disparage your feelings. It feels like a loss when things change that we don't agree with. And societal change can be very disturbing and upsetting whatever reason the changes are happening.

But I'd also suggest there is a lot of pain for those in the LGBT community who up until recently couldn't marry the person they love the way most of the rest of us have been able to. And they still experience a lot of pain if they are Christians and their church doesn't accept and support them or allow them to marry in their own church.

Ultimately the persons who are really effected by same sex marriage are those persons getting married. Those of us who are cisgender (straight) have been able to marry who we want for a long long time and we can still do that. We really haven't lost anything.

We do obviously believe differently. We are reading the same Bible. We are just reading it through different interpretive lenses. I try to follow the Wesleyan idea of using Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience as guides to finding the truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by psychology as a religion. Psychology is a science that Christians can learn from just like other medical and scientific disciplines. We can find truth in psychology, biology and other sciences that inform the knowledge we get from the Bible. If we didn't do that we'd still think the world was flat and that the sun went around the earth.

Reason and experience tell us that we are all still learning new things. And some of those new things are things that people hadn't thought about in the New Testament period including ideas like the races being equal, slavery being wrong, women being equal to men, and marriage being an equal partnership. (Paul hints at that when he says, "submit yourself one to another out of reverence for Christ" but a lot of people missed what he was saying).

There is a lot of older cultural justification for not allowing same sex marriage. There really isn't much Biblical justification however.

 

[GraceDriven]

I'm sorry you are feeling gloomy GraceDriven. I don't want to disparage your feelings. It feels like a loss when things change that we don't agree with. And societal change can be very disturbing and upsetting whatever reason the changes are happening.

But I'd also suggest there is a lot of pain for those in the LGBT community who up until recently couldn't marry the person they love the way most of the rest of us have been able to. And they still experience a lot of pain if they are Christians and their church doesn't accept and support them or allow them to marry in their own church.

Ultimately the persons who are really effected by same sex marriage are those persons getting married. Those of us who are cisgender (straight) have been able to marry who we want for a long long time and we can still do that. We really haven't lost anything.

We do obviously believe differently. We are reading the same Bible. We are just reading it through different interpretive lenses. I try to follow the Wesleyan idea of using Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience as guides to finding the truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by psychology as a religion. Psychology is a science that Christians can learn from just like other medical and scientific disciplines. We can find truth in psychology, biology and other sciences that inform the knowledge we get from the Bible. If we didn't do that we'd still think the world was flat and that the sun went around the earth.

Reason and experience tell us that we are all still learning new things. And some of those new things are things that people hadn't thought about in the New Testament period including ideas like the races being equal, slavery being wrong, women being equal to men, and marriage being an equal partnership. (Paul hints at that when he says, "submit yourself one to another out of reverence for Christ" but a lot of people missed what he was saying).

There is a lot of older cultural justification for not allowing same sex marriage. There really isn't much Biblical justification however.

I don't think churches should be force to change how they see scripture and that is what it is coming to that is very wrong.

Ask for psychology, I have seen it used a lot in an evil way of late. Hitler used it in an evil way. There is awful lot of criticism towards religion. I see none for psychology. It's giving someone else a great deal of power and that is a very scary thing. Especially, considering that with the drop of an hat, they can change what they want in their every growing book.