Does The UMC Ordain Homosexual Ministers?

[circuitrider]

I know we are arguing hypotheticals, but I don't think it was inevitable that such language enter the Discipline.

I personally believe that the Judicial Council would have every right to toss out the wording that exists because it places doctrine outside of the Restrictive Section of the Discipline.

We know the doctrines of the Church in the restrictive section need a super majority of all the members of all the Annual Conferences world wide. That was never going to happen. So the doctrinal statement got added to sections of the Discipline that are clearly non-doctrinal in nature but rather sections that are about pastoral actions/authority to perform or not perform in certain ways.

IMHO (not as an expert but soley as someone who has studied the Discipline a lot in the last few years) a strong argument could be made that the current prohibition violates the purpose of the restrictive section by setting doctrine outside of that section and thereby undermining the high bar for doctrine set by the restrictive rules.

 

[skypair]

Well the opinion of members is all over the place. Officially, the UMC does ordain homosexual pastors, and not just those who are hiding that they happened to be LBGT. The principal that the UMC demands of its pastors is celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage. So, gay pastors who were celibate have never been a question for the UMC.

The more difficult question no facing the UMC is the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in many states, but the UMC has officially stated that it find the practice of homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching. So, to date, UM pastors are not allowed to participate in same-sex weddings -- neither to officiate at it nor to themselves get married. But we haven't said that if a lay couple were to get legally married in their state that we would refuse to recognize their marriage.

So, we are caught having the world in which we are called to minister is changing on this issue faster than the UMC is. It will for sure be a major issue at our next General Conference (where these sorts of decisions are made for the entire denomination) in 2016. However, between now and then expect to see some people pushing things and testing the resolve of church leaders to actually hold them accountable to the official policy. In some regions those who break church law are being punished, even defrocked; while in other regions those others who are doing the same thing are not even being given even a sideways glance.

Wow! It's worse than I thought! I really don't belong here.

skypair

 

[GraceSeeker]

Wow! It's worse than I thought! I really don't belong here.

skypair

So Skypair, what do you do when a person of faith decides to attend your church? Do you first quiz them about their sexual orientation before allowing them in the door? Do you object to all sexual behavior outside of marriage or just same-sex behavior? What do you do if another Southern Baptist congregation doesn't answer these questions the same way your congregation does? Would you think that malfeasance of a pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in California would be sufficient reason for me in Illinois to say of the SBC, "Wow! It's worse than I thought! I really don't belong here!"?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

So Skypair, what do you do when a person of faith decides to attend your church? Do you first quiz them about their sexual orientation before allowing them in the door? Do you object to all sexual behavior outside of marriage or just same-sex behavior? What do you do if another Southern Baptist congregation doesn't answer these questions the same way your congregation does? Would you think that malfeasance of a pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in California would be sufficient reason for me in Illinois to say of the SBC, "Wow! It's worse than I thought! I really don't belong here!"?

I hate to throw criticism in the face of criticism, but the only thing that makes a church "Southern Baptist" is that they put "Southern Baptist" on the sign; MAYBE joined an association. Most Baptist churches I know are very pro-military, pro-country. But then there's that one in Kansas, by the name of Westboro, that Protests military funerals with upside down flags that they sometimes set on fire. They were kicked out of their association, but that didn't do thing 1 to stop them.

We have some variances in the UMC; more than some confessional connectional denominations like the RCC (Where even worship is perscribed. We have a Book of Worship that suggests certain formats and elements of worship, but it's not binding. The Roman Catholic Book of Common Prayer IS binding and there's very little wiggle room as far as worship and liturgy goes. Though as a liturgically minded person myself; I'm not entirely against that), but significantly less than most congregationalist churches. Heck, there are Baptist churches that ordain and marry homosexuals (though they don't necessarily belong to a Southern Baptist Association).

And, skypair, to be clear The UMC has always sort of had a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Allowing individuals who identify as homosexuals but are "non-practicing" every right and authority within the church, including ordination. Often being defrocked if they break that bond of celibacy. Let's assume you take the point of view that homosexuality is a sin; which it appears that you do. Saying a celibate Pastor who chooses not to engage in a relationship with a person of the same sex ought not be ordained or otherwise granted some privilege because of their sexual orientation, is akin to saying a recovering alcoholic who hasn't had a drink in 10 years can't be Ordained because they have a pre-disposition to abuse alcohol. While there is some variation; I know a number of evangelical UM Clergy, who oppose same-sex marriage; who also don't feel it's a choice. They recognize that sexuality is something that's innate and isn't something you chose to have. But they also take the position that God forbids is, and will often use the argument that most straight people are pre-disposed to be attracted to a number of people who are not their spouses. But we don't give them a free pass to engage in sexual sin either.

I know for some; anything short of rejecting anyone who is gay and demanding they become straight is unacceptable. That just doesn't happen to be our point of view on that issue.

 

[skypair]

So Skypair, what do you do when a person of faith decides to attend your church?

There's a procedure for that, GS. Read 1Cor 5. We are not to accept them into our church and if they are in and found in willful sin, we are to discontinue fellowship with them until they repent and can be restored.

And they tend to know this beforehand. If they want to attend and keep their sin to themselves, nothing wrong with that. The problem is in revealing that they are not a good image of Jesus Christ and are not conforming themselves to His image (Ro 8:29) by their public lifestyle.

Do you object to all sexual behavior outside of marriage or just same-sex behavior?

Sure. I've even been guilty. But I stayed away from church until I had worked the issue out and then I went somewhere else restored in my relationship to God.

What do you do if another Southern Baptist congregation doesn't answer these questions the same way your congregation does?

I let the pastor know if something like that becomes an issue. I realize that Methodists, for example, still have not disciplined a member of our men's fellowship who is a "baby daddy" out of wedlock. Since I am not a member and they accept him, he is like those in 1Cor 5:9-10 to me — an outsider to the faith. And I don't call him 'brother,' either because I doubt he is. But obviously the church is suffering a "black eye" in accepting someone so openly contradictory to scripture and the faith of the UMC.

So you see how this works? We are in continual touch with him hopefully convicting him to a) do the right thing and b) become saved.

skypair

 

[circuitrider]

Skypair, I thought you believe in once saved always saved? How is the guy who had a child out of wedlock not a "brother" (usually not used in the church in the north but for fraternity brothers). Are you suggesting he lost his salvation? Are you suggesting he was never a Christian? Or do you follow "hate the sin and the sinner?"

 

[skypair]

Skypair, I thought you believe in once saved always saved? How is the guy who had a child out of wedlock not a "brother" (usually not used in the church in the north but for fraternity brothers). Are you suggesting he lost his salvation? Are you suggesting he was never a Christian? Or do you follow "hate the sin and the sinner?"

I don't think he was ever saved. It does not phase him that he is an adulterer and he acts as if Methodist fellowship will suffice for his salvation. I've asked other members and they kind of don't know about biblical church discipline, 1Cor 5:5. When we studied that chapter recently — and later the one about women speaking in church — they kind of treat the Bible like, "Well, that's one opinion." Well, I guess according the Methodism, it is just one of four, isn't it?

And why would you even make that last remark?

skypair

 

[RomansFiveEight]

The Pharisees loved the way their church worked. It was only for the good people, the women had to go and sit behind a curtain, and anyone who sinned or might've sinned was unwelcome. Made for a cozy country club where one could sit and point fingers at all of the people one was supposed to hate. A veritable museum of saints.

That model works well for some Christians. It's not Christ's model for the church; but, it works. It makes them happy. Sometimes, people need to feel like someone else is 'worse' before they'll ever feel better. Which is a shame, but it's a reality.

As for me and the church I've been charged with? We'll not be a museum for saints. Instead, a triage center, a field hospital like the one in the TV series M*A*S*H, full of broken people with a common goal (to heal the spiritually sick); stationed somewhere just outside the gates of hell, healing all who would enter, and bringing in all who would come with us.

Frankly, I'm not sure I'd still have a relationship with God if, growing up, I believed that if I was struggling with sin, I was supposed to leave the church and work it out. How awful. The church is where I took my struggles and laid them on the altar and left them behind. My heart breaks just hearing that that's how some people believe my God works. That my God doesn't want you in the church he established if there's sin in your life. Lord, hear our prayer...

 

[circuitrider]

And why would you even make that last remark?

skypair

Because you are coming off as hugely judgmental. Only God gets to decide who is and who isn't among the redeemed. If you are going to pick out specific sins and conclude you know he is or isn't saved then you are playing God, that is called blasphemy.

Also, since you believe in once saved always saved, if he was ever saved it doesn't matter if he shot you in the head for saying hello, in your theology he'd still be saved.

 

[MystyRock]

Ok. I'm getting confused now. If we are in relationship with God, our actions will reflect that? But we don't judge others by their actions; we can't see their heart. We only know our relationship with God, if we are honest with ourselves.

 

[circuitrider]

Ok. I'm getting confused now. If we are in relationship with God, our actions will reflect that? But we don't judge others by their actions; we can't see their heart. We only know our relationship with God, if we are honest with ourselves.

Mysty, we don't judge others. God does the judging. We have no complete ability to tell if another person is in relationship with God or not. Only God and the individual know that.

Remember the scripture, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm going to isolate (and highlight) just a couple of things and then ask you to reconsider your response:

So Skypair, what do you do when a person of faith decides to attend your church?

There's a procedure for that, GS. Read 1Cor 5. We are not to accept them into our church and if they are in and found in willful sin, we are to discontinue fellowship with them until they repent and can be restored.

You are saying that you are not to accept a person of faith into your church? That's it. Your answer, as YOU constructed it, has you knowing nothing about the person other than that they are a person of faith.

You DO NOT know that they have committed any particular sin. You may assume that like all people they are sinners, but you don't know what that sin is. You don't know how long ago, whether they are still struggling with it or have won victory over it. You only know that they are a person OF FAITH. And your response is "not to accept them into our church"?


Then, pray tell, who is in your church? Those without faith?

 

[skypair]

You are saying that you are not to accept a person of faith into your church? That's it. Your answer, as YOU constructed it, has you knowing nothing about the person other than that they are a person of faith.

Well, I don't know that they are a person of faith if they have willful, publicly known sin in their lives, right? Do you accept folks for membership who have willful, publicly known sin in their lives? Is that the image of Christ that you want to project to the public?

Even if they are, do I want people to think that God accepts their continuing in sin?

You DO NOT know that they have committed any particular sin. You may assume that like all people they are sinners, but you don't know what that sin is. You don't know how long ago, whether they are still struggling with it or have won victory over it. You only know that they are a person OF FAITH. And your response is "not to accept them into our church"?

No, that was never my point. You are going far beyond what I said. To clarify .. if I know that they are a person of faith, saved, then I would still keep them from being members. Visit? OK. Help them. Of course. That is what Lk 15 is all about.

Then, pray tell, who is in your church? Those without faith?

What normally happens is a) we know of no willful sin in the life of the person who is a candidate for membership. b) They make a "good profession" (like Timothy did to Paul) of salvation and faith. c) If it is discovered that they are in sin, Paul's procedure is to (1) approach the one-on-one with the issue .. (2) if they admit but fail to repent, then 2 or more go to them. (3) If that does not result in repentance and restoration, then it comes before the church who are supposed to excommunicate them pending repentance and restoration.

Is this something foreign to you?

skypair

 

[skypair]

If we are in relationship with God, our actions will reflect that? But we don't judge others by their actions; we can't see their heart.

Right. We can't see their heart but we can see their actions. Therefore, regardless of their heart (which we can't know), they DO need to repent of the actions that we DO know, right?

skypair

 

[circuitrider]

Skypair,

The problem with the model your church uses, or that you want it to use, is that no one should be allowed in your church since all of you are sinners. Have the last sinner out of the sanctuary turn off the lights so you at least don't waste electricity.

 

[circuitrider]

What you are doing is like a mother. Is God your Father or your Mother?

skypair

Wow, that's sexist.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Wow, that's sexist.

My God is big enough to be both. But some people need to make God small so that their own idealism can be big enough.

The ruthless dictator God and inerrant, literalist scripture is not a grand view of God, it's a small view of God that only works one way. My God created the universe. This insanely vast thing that every time we look we find something new; billions of years of expansion and we can only see a fraction of it. It might even literally go on forever. There might actually be an infinite number of celestial bodies out there. That is INSANE. My God who can do THAT; can certainly be more than just one thing (after all God is three-in-one!), and the scriptures that the Holy Spirit led the prophets, eyewitnesses of Jesus, and so forth to write down their message; is equally as vast and broad and ripe with context that must be understood.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Well, I don't know that they are a person of faith if they have willful, publicly known sin in their lives, right?

Sorry, but I think you're wanting to quarrel. I say this because you're not addressing the questions I have asked. You keep changing it to something else that I guess YOU want to talk about/complain about/pontificate about. Sorry, I'm done until change your behavior, which by the way I believe is evidence of one not willing to live in harmony with others and is identified in scripture as every bit as sinful as those that you have criticized other places.

Look above. Find the questions I've actually asked. Stay on subject. And play nice and I will return. Continue on as you have the last couple of posts and we are done.