Pastor should be praised, not punished!

[Onesimus85]

I don't actually attend Eastside UMC, I was using that as an example. However my pastor is a black belt in Juditsou (sp), so it is a good place to work out. LoL

 

[Ric]

I don't actually attend Eastside UMC, I was using that as an example. However my pastor is a black belt in Juditsou (sp), so it is a good place to work out. LoL

LOL!

 

[Diane_Windsor]

This sentence from the OP caught me eye:

Johnson refused to obey the district superintendent or the bishop, Layman said. "It was this act of insubordination that put him on notice."

I'm a newbie, so I don't know too much about the BoD yet, but doesn't Scripture tell us to obey our superiors? I have skimmed through this thread and nobody has brought this up.

This is an obedience issue-the pastor was out of line and should have obeyed his bishop. If the bishop is wrong in ordering the pastor to accept a new member then the bishop will have to explain his decision to God, not the pastor for obeying his bishop. Now, this pastor will have to answer God on why he chose to disobey someone whom God placed above him.

Diane

 

[Onesimus85]

This sentence from the OP caught me eye:

Johnson refused to obey the district superintendent or the bishop, Layman said. "It was this act of insubordination that put him on notice."

I'm a newbie, so I don't know too much about the BoD yet, but doesn't Scripture tell us to obey our superiors? I have skimmed through this thread and nobody has brought this up.

This is an obedience issue-the pastor was out of line and should have obeyed his bishop. If the bishop is wrong in ordering the pastor to accept a new member then the bishop will have to explain his decision to God, not the pastor for obeying his bishop. Now, this pastor will have to answer God on why he chose to disobey someone whom God placed above him.

Diane

I agree with you. The pastor did indeed go against his bishop and his D.S. However, if the bishop and the D.S. are going against scripture then the pastor is in the right and the other 2 are in the wrong. Did God not also place the pastor in his position? Did Peter and John not stand up against "the council of all the rulers and elders and teachers of religious law" in Acts 4:1-22. I am not saying this to belittle your arguement, however, if we are convicted by what we believe is the Spirit to do something, and it does not controdict the Scripture then should we do what our earthly superiors have asked of us? Or what God has asked of us? I would much rather go a year without pay and defy my elders by upholding scripture than to go against scripture and personal conviction by allowing membership and defy my Lord.

I personally believe that the BoD needs to be revised in this area. Other Wesleyan Denomonations have addressed this issue with the Biblical message, where I think the UMC is trying to address this issue from a politically correct stance. I love the UMC, but if you love something then you will correct them when they are in error.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

however, if we are convicted by what we believe is the Spirit to do something, and it does not controdict the Scripture then should we do what our earthly superiors have asked of us?

I see a major red flag here. This pastor's actions speak loudly of his astounding lack of spiritual maturity. The HS would never direct someone to go against the Bible. As for Peter, John, and the Sanhedrin I think that you are taking it out of context. The analogy does not hold. The Sanhedrin is not the church, and Peter and John were not required to obey the Sanhedrin.

Or what God has asked of us? I would much rather go a year without pay and defy my elders by upholding scripture than to go against scripture and personal conviction by allowing membership and defy my Lord.

I don't think that the HS would direct us to go against His word. God asks from us obedience. This pastor refused to obey his bishop, and now he is rightly getting disciplined for it. As I said before, if the bishop is wrong in his decision then the pastor will not be held responsible by God for obeying him.

Obey your leaders and submit {to them,} for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Hebrews 13:17 (NASB)

Diane

 

[billychum]

Didn't the reformation come from people growing tired of submitting to those in charge?
Billy <><

 

[sinner/SAVED]

We are in charge of the UMC. Every article of the Book of Discipline was voted on and approved by our delegates to General Conference. Every General Conference consists of an equal number of lay and clergy. Every district of every Annual Conference is represented. So I guess when we submit to the Book of Discipline we are actually submitting to ourselves. We send the delegates to represent us. If any of you feel that your delegates are mis-representing you, then you should contact them. I am sure that they would appreciate feedback.

 

[billychum]

SS that makes me wonder. If we have so many people working for us at the GC level. Then why can't we get this issue, that the pastor finds himself in, cleared up using the BD?
Billy <><

 

[Ric]

We are in charge of the UMC. Every article of the Book of Discipline was voted on and approved by our delegates to General Conference. Every General Conference consists of an equal number of lay and clergy. Every district of every Annual Conference is represented. So I guess when we submit to the Book of Discipline we are actually submitting to ourselves. We send the delegates to represent us. If any of you feel that your delegates are mis-representing you, then you should contact them. I am sure that they would appreciate feedback.

I do.

 

[Origen]

If we have so many people working for us at the GC level. Then why can't we get this issue, that the pastor finds himself in, cleared up using the BD?

This has and will play out according to the Disciple. The pastor was removed because of his violation of the Discipline, as discussed above. He was removed by the Clergy Session according to the Discipline. And their action will be upheld by the Judicial Council in a couple of weeks, as per the Discipline.

 

[MoonlightParade]

Well then, what does the BoD have to say on this subject? Homosexuality is different than most other sins, because it is a lifestyle, not just some action arbitrarily done. To say that a PRACTICING homosexual is a Christian (which at Baptism, and the moment of Repentance turns from sin) is absolutely unscriptural. Yes everyone is a sinner, but with a lifestyle of sin, you cant convince me that they are Christians...
Christians should try to be more like Christ, right?

 

[thepinkpencil3]

I'm of two minds here. One the one hand I agree with the pastor that members of the church should be trying to to turn away from sin, not continue in it. But I am not sure that denying membership is called for. As a member might not a person feel more reason to try to reform their life than a person just taking up space in a pew would?

I don't know exactly how the pastor went about denying membership, but I think he should have (if he didn't) talked with this man to see what his heart really was, and try to show him the way God really wants him to live his life. He also should have discussed this and prayed this through with the elders (or deacons or whomever) of his church and found the correct way to handle this. I agree with the pastor's decision, just maybe not his way of coming to his decision.

 

[Onesimus85]

I think that the Bishop and the DS did their jobs according to the BoD. However, I think that the pastor was right, scripturally, in this decision. I still do not see how one gets around 1Cor.

Also, I understand that God will ultimately judge whoever is wrong in this issue. However, I also believe that we are to be good stewards of the Church. It seems like the the pastor did a fine job protecting his flock.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

A good shepherd would do everything in his power to bring in a lost sheep, not leave him for the wolves.

 

[billychum]

There is a big difference in a sheep, and a wolf dressed in a sheeps clothing. I know, a little out of context, but the point is still the same.
Billy <><

 

[Origen]

Well then, what does the BoD have to say on this subject?

In addition to stating that homosexual practice is "incompatible with Christian teaching," the Discipline also states that:

• Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth;
• We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community;
• Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons;
• The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection;

Homosexuality is different than most other sins, because it is a lifestyle, not just some action arbitrarily done.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. In this case the United Methodist Church does not agree with you, and the UMC does not teach that "homosexuality is different than most other sins."

To say that a PRACTICING homosexual is a Christian ... is absolutely unscriptural.

Again, the United Methodist Church would not agree with you. (See the bullet points above, and this thread.)

Christians should try to be more like Christ, right?

On this point, happily, we are in complete agreement. As long as the ties that bind us together are stronger than those that would tear us apart, all will be well. And as love of the risen Christ is that tie, all will be well.

 

[Onesimus85]

In addition to stating that homosexual practice is "incompatible with Christian teaching," the Discipline also states that:

• Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth;
• We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community;
• Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons;
• The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection;

I see no problem with what the BoD states here. However, I think that the last 2 points are opne to interpetation and that is causing the rift here.

Human rights and civil liberities do not apply to the church. The government and public places, yes, but I do not think that it applies to the Church.

The last point states that " upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection". The vows of becoming a member ask if we reject the spiritual forces of evil, and repent of our sins. This is where I think the conflict is taking place. What is evil, and if one views homosexuality as a sin, then by repenting that means that the person will no longer participate in a homosexual lifestyle. However, if one does not view homosexuality as a sin then a person could be admitted as a member.

IMO, the UMC is acting in a politically correct way, or as we call it here in the south.... they're sittin on the fence, so as not to offend anyone. I do not see why the UMC will not take a stance on one side or the other. Perhaps we are trying more to be people pleasers rather than God pleasers. I'd rather have men mock me than have God ashamed of me. And I would rather take the risk of offending someone else, than to offend God by not taking a stand for Him. By not taking a stance I think that the UMC is doing more harm than good in this issue.

We are to do all things in love. And we are called to constantly pray. IMO, I believe that we need to be looking for a way to minister to homosexuals in a loving way and we should be in prayer about it.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Human rights and civil liberities do not apply to the church.

If we remove grace from the church, reckon where it'll go?

 

[Onesimus85]

In this sense I think that the BoD is saying that homosexuals should not be treated as though they are criminals in our society. They should be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals in society. They should be able to vote in political elections, have the oppurtunity to get a drivers license, ect. I think that this statement is to make sure that the person is seen as a person in society.

That does not mean that they are given the same "rights" as a member of the church, just as heterosexuals are not given the same "rights" as clergy.