Problems within the Methodist Church

[Momzilla]

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.

My post was not clear, and I apologize. I had typed additional comments, along the lines of, "I think most Christians who are opposed to the ordination of homosexuals welcome gays into the body of Christ with open arms"--which I truly believe, and which is certainly true of me. I deleted it because I was certain I would be challenged, and probably not in pleasant terms, and I wasn't out to pick a fight.

Let me reiterate: Christians who oppose the ordination of gay people do not necessarily oppose the presence of gays in the body of Christ. To the contrary, I believe most would welcome gays to the church as fellow sinners and lovers of God.

 

[BarbB]

...
Let me reiterate: Christians who oppose the ordination of gay people do not necessarily oppose the presence of gays in the body of Christ. To the contrary, I believe most would welcome gays to the church as fellow sinners and lovers of God.

Amen, Momzilla. This is ABSOLUTELY correct and the position that I believe all Christian churches should take. That said, if it is in a denomination's legal documents to not have homosexual clergy or leadership, then obviously the pastor should have been found guilty.

LBZ said:

The UMC Book of Discipline and social creed is very pro-gay except on the issue of clergy, but it's the exception, and there are forces within the UMC seeking to overturn UMC's inclusive policies,

I don't interpret the UMC Book of Discipline to be "pro-gay" as much as to be tolerant of a sinful congregation and desirous of bringing all to a contrite spirit.

And to all UM's - I'm praying for your denomination as well as the Episcopalian denom!

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

this whole controversy has deeply hurt me.

With all due respect any "hurt" experienced by those who seek to exclude people from the ministry is miniscule compared to the harm inflicted on Rev. Dammann and her family by the vengeful, meanspirited Christians who brought her up on charges and subjected her to a trial while she is caring for a medically needy child.

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.

Every single Christians, you, I, them, all of us, "pick and choose" what we want to believe in the Bible. To deny that is to deny reality.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

As Christians, our duty is to push the boundaries of justice, mercy, and reconciliation. By deciding to institute inclusion of a member of an oppressed group, the United Methodist trial court in Rev. Dammann's case has done exactly that.

Problems that occur in our Christian walk are opportunities to excel. James wrote that we should be "...quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" (1:19).

The message of 1 Corinthians 13 is that it is more important to be loving than to be right. Everyone should be treated as a Child of God. Empathy requires more of us. Judgement must be left to God.

 

[CryptoKnight]

With all due respect any "hurt" experienced by those who seek to exclude people from the ministry is miniscule compared to the harm inflicted on Rev. Dammann and her family by the vengeful, meanspirited Christians who brought her up on charges and subjected her to a trial while she is caring for a medically needy child.

Eh, read up on it a bit. She *wanted* to force the issue. She deliberately sent the letter to the Bishop, knowing full well that a "practicing homosexual" is defined by the UMC as one who has informed his/her local Bishop. She forced the issue to further her agenda.

Now, while I disagree with her ordination, I commend her for her bravery. I do *not*, however, have sympathy for her trial while she's caring for a "medially needy child" when she *chose* the time and place to force this on the church. Maybe she should have put her child before her homosexual agenda? Maybe not. It's a legitimate question, however.

 

[Wrigley]

I don't feel one bit betrayed by my church, and I am no apostate. When people say the our church has gone against its discipline, they don't quote everything our discipline says on the subject.
Those of you who are United Methodist and feel so betrayed had your chance to vote, as did we all.
The General Conference is meeting late next month, and this subject is on the agenda. Any United Methodists who fervently disgaree with what they decide have numerous Methodist denominations to choose from; no one is forced to belong to a particular denomination.

And I hope at that General Conference there is a loud and strong reputiation of what happened in WA. If not, the UMC deserves what it will get.

And, the right minded and conservative members should walk away from the apostacy of the UMC, if anything less happens.

 

[Wrigley]

That's nothing new. The Bible contradicts itself.

Nothing more needs to be said about this.

If the Bible, the Word of God, contradicts Itself, how can we have any standards? How can we have any assurance of what God, thru His Word is teaching us?

That you seem to have such a low view of God's Word doesn't surprise me. From the many posts I've read of yours, that has been a consistant theme.

When the condemnation of homosexuality is clearly taught, what is said? Those who believe it are fundamentalist bigots. What the Bible says can't be true, because God is revealing more about Himself as time goes by.

My God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yours, it seems does.

 

[wvmtnkid]

As Christians, our duty is to push the boundaries of justice, mercy, and reconciliation. By deciding to institute inclusion of a member of an oppressed group, the United Methodist trial court in Rev. Dammann's case has done exactly that.

Problems that occur in our Christian walk are opportunities to excel. James wrote that we should be "...quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" (1:19).

The message of 1 Corinthians 13 is that it is more important to be loving than to be right. Everyone should be treated as a Child of God. Empathy requires more of us. Judgement must be left to God.

From what I have read of the posts here, nobody was saying that Dammann should be kicked out of the fellowship of her church, rode out of town on a rail or tar and feathered. Nobody said that she should not be treated with love or as a Child of God. The distinction being made is that because she is self admittedly leading a life that is contrary to the law of her church (which apparently she knew or she wouldn't have felt the need to keep her relationship hidden for so long) and contrary to God's word, she should step down as minister of her church. We are to love one another, but as Christians part of that love is holding one another accountable. That doesn't mean that I can judge your salvation (that is between you and God), but if I see you heading in the wrong direction, I am commanded by scripture that I am to help get you back on track.

Every single Christians, you, I, them, all of us, "pick and choose" what we want to believe in the Bible. To deny that is to deny reality.

Again, I may not like something that I read in the Bible or find a teaching hard to understand or accept, but that doesn't meant that there isn't Truth there. To deny that is to deny faith.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Eh, read up on it a bit. She *wanted* to force the issue. She deliberately sent the letter to the Bishop, knowing full well that a "practicing homosexual" is defined by the UMC as one who has informed his/her local Bishop. She forced the issue to further her agenda.

I wouldn't be so sure of anyone's motives or 'agenda'.

Now, while I disagree with her ordination, I commend her for her bravery. I do *not*, however, have sympathy for her trial while she's caring for a "medially needy child" when she *chose* the time and place to force this on the church. Maybe she should have put her child before her homosexual agenda? Maybe not. It's a legitimate question, however.

There's no indication Rev. Dammann had a "homosexual agenda"

Her son knows she is a person of integrity. It is obvious she did the right thing.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

And I hope at that General Conference there is a loud and strong reputiation of what happened in WA. If not, the UMC deserves what it will get.

A church body composed of Christians against exclusion? Excellent.

And, the right minded and conservative members should walk away from the apostacy of the UMC, if anything less happens.

Inclusion of oppressed people is hardly apostacy.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

If the Bible, the Word of God, contradicts Itself, how can we have any standards?

Quite easily.

How can we have any assurance of what God, thru His Word is teaching us?

Faith and reason.

That you seem to have such a low view of God's Word doesn't surprise me. From the many posts I've read of yours, that has been a consistant theme.

You are quite mistaken.

My God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yours, it seems does.

Why was Abraham able to talk him down on Sodom and Gommorah, then?

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

From what I have read of the posts here, nobody was saying that Dammann should be kicked out of the fellowship of her church, rode out of town on a rail or tar and feathered. Nobody said that she should not be treated with love or as a Child of God. The distinction being made is that because she is self admittedly leading a life that is contrary to the law of her church (which apparently she knew or she wouldn't have felt the need to keep her relationship hidden for so long) and contrary to God's word, she should step down as minister of her church.

The trial court, after much prayerful deliberation abviously disagreed. Nothing about her in their view justified her removal.

Again, I may not like something that I read in the Bible or find a teaching hard to understand or accept, but that doesn't meant that there isn't Truth there. To deny that is to deny faith.

About issues of right conduct and faith, yes. About issues of human interaction for which its authors had incomplete information, no.

 

[Wrigley]

A church body composed of Christians against exclusion? Excellent.


Inclusion of oppressed people is hardly apostacy.

Who's oppressed? Gays? Wrong. Look how mainstream the behavior has become. There is no opression there. None at all.

What's lacking is a clear teaching that homosexuality is a sinful condition. Just like alcoholism and drug additiction.

 

[Wrigley]

Quite easily.

How, by relying on your own understanding?

Faith and reason.

Which trumps? Faith or reason?

You are quite mistaken.

Hardly. Its self evident from your posts.

Why was Abraham able to talk him down on Sodom and Gommorah, then?

 

[wvmtnkid]

The trial court, after much prayerful deliberation abviously disagreed. Nothing about her in their view justified her removal.

Which is exactly what concerns me about this decision. When the Discipline explicitly states that any self-avowed practicing homosexual is not to be accepted as a minister, then I have to wonder what exactly this trial court was basing their decision on. If they are going on the technicality that she was already ordained, then that saddens me. I think the spirit of the church law and biblical law is very plain. She showed intregrity when she stepped forward and said that she could no longer live a lie. And for that I applaud her. But to re-instate her as a minister, in my opinion, goes directly against the convenant these pastors have taken to uphold the Discipline, pure and simple.

About issues of right conduct and faith, yes. About issues of human interaction for which its authors had incomplete information, no.

Well, then this is an issue we will have to agree to disagree on, because I feel that the bible is the inspired Word of God, and in which case, God has no incomplete information. I guess what I don't understand is if the Bible is the basis for the Christian faith, why base your faith on a book that you feel is incomplete? Why let it have any authority in your life if it can't be trusted, if only parts of it are true? If that part about homosexual behavior is not quite right, then maybe that part about that resurrection isn't totally accurate either? Just a thought......

 

[CryptoKnight]

I wouldn't be so sure of anyone's motives or 'agenda'.

There's no indication Rev. Dammann had a "homosexual agenda"

There is every indication she has an agenda. Her agenda is the same as that of blacks, hispanics, and even women: To be treated equally. The difference is that the last time I checked, being black wasn't a sin. As a matter of fact, by no reasonable twisting of scripture is being black a sin. By a reasonable reading of scripture, we *do* have homosexuality as a sin.

Minorities (and women, who are a majority) sought social acceptance first, just like homosexuals. Homosexuals have achieved significant milestones in social acceptance. As a matter of fact, in one recent episode of Will and Grace (yes, one of my favorite shows, since Hidden Hills got cancelled) a character laments "I can't wait until being gay is no longer en vogue".

In a society where theives sue their victims because they get hurt while robbing, social acceptance of homosexuals should pose no problem.

However, in a church that has fairly well-defined rules, we invite the thief, homeowner, and homosexual to come share with us in the Lord.

But we shouldn't take guidence from them (read: ordain) until they show that they are aligned with the "plumb line" of God according to modern Christianity: the Bible.

Absolutely she has an agenda. From her perspective, she *should*. I just disagree with it based on scripture. Frankly, I wish scripture did *not* call homosexuality an "abomination". But it does.

 

[Yitzchak]

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.

I will gladly pray for The United Methodist Church. I have to be honest about my feelings though which are that I will actually pray for the people who are a part of the United Methodist Church. Because I think that it would be God's will for The United Methodist Church to cease to exist as an organization. I pray for the day when we have churches which are known by their geography. So that it will be the church of eastern Chicago or of southern New York for example.

 

[Yitzchak]

Why was Abraham able to talk him down on Sodom and Gommorah, then?

The bible is not a book of rules. It is a progressive revelation of a God who desires relationship with us. Abraham was able to talk God into changing His mind about Sodom and Gomorrah because it is God's nature and character which does not change and not God's dealings with us. God has always desired a partnership with us in prayer and His works upon this earth.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Who's oppressed? Gays? Wrong. Look how mainstream the behavior has become. There is no opression there. None at all.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

How, by relying on your own understanding?

What do you think?

Which trumps? Faith or reason?

Why is trumping called for at all?

[in response to a protest to a flame]Hardly. Its self evident from your posts.

Absolutely nothing is ever self evident.