Problems within the Methodist Church

[LuxPerpetua]

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

 

[Yitzchak]

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

Exactly my point. We are unqualified to judge rightly. Secondly, even if we get the judging part essentially correct in a given instance, our timing or methods may be destructive not just to the one being judged but also to others around that person. How many non-christians have had stumbling blocks put in their way by watching christians judging others harshly?

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

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

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

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

Thank you, seebs, you have stated my position well (so I won't reply directly to posts #72 and 73).

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

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

 

[ChiRho]

LBZ,

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

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

page 36

In Christ,

ChiRho

 

[Momzilla]

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

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

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

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

 

[eldermike]

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

Amen

 

[CryptoKnight]

Personally, I hold the latter view of scripture. It's something I struggle with, because I don't understand why God would create a homosexual person, knowing that he/she could never express the sexual nature given to him/her.

I don't stuggle with this concept, because I see God as having created a *ton* of "problems" that individuals are not able to express, or are looked down upon. Such "God created tendencies may include"

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

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

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

 

[countrymousenc]

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

Amen.

 

[Patristic]

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

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

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

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

Wonderful post Momzilla.

 

[PatrickM]

I don't stuggle with this concept, because I see God as having created a *ton* of "problems" that individuals are not able to express, or are looked down upon. Such "God created tendencies may include"
desire for violence
personally inflicted pain
depression
excessive libido
as well as many handicaps that prevent people from communicating and expressing even simple love in the most basic of terms."

"Then God saw that everything [He created] was 'very good'", regarding His original creation. He didn't "create" any such tendencies, Adam's sin did.

IMHO, homosexuality is a "cross to bear" just as much as another's tendencies for violence, and yet another's pedophilia.

Jesus' words regarding "crosses to bear" do not include the sins we choose to commit. The cross He bore had nothing to do with anything He did. (See "The Passion of the Christ")

It just so happens that, aside from the Body of Christ, homosexuality is a victimless crime, as are some others mentioned above.

But, in the context of the OP, there is no "aside from the Body of Christ". The OP is regarding the actions of the "Body of Christ."

There are no "victimless crimes" in God's eyes, as David said, "Against Thee, and thee only have I sinned and committed what is abhorent in Your sight."

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

Amen to this!

 

[visionary]

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

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

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

If the anti-gay forces would simply say, "we don't approve of homosexuality, but we will not seek to harm homosexuals" truthfully there would be no problem.

 

[countrymousenc]

 

[CryptoKnight]

If the anti-gay forces would simply say, "we don't approve of homosexuality, but we will not seek to harm homosexuals" truthfully there would be no problem. But the organized religious right groups are committed to oppression and serious harm to LGBTs.

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

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

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

 

[wvmtnkid]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Yitzchak]

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

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

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

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

 

[intrepid]

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

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

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

 

[Momzilla]

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

 

[PatrickM]

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

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

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

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

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]