Problems within the Methodist Church

[Wrigley]

This is one of those type of hurtful, meanspirited attitudes which would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Really? You'll have to explain that to me. Your definition of a "hurtful, meanspirted attitude" is as liberal as Paul Wellstone.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

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.

I would like to have more info about the decision. If it was merely a yes or no vote and nothing else was officially documented the jurors would need to speak, but I haven't seen any official quotes from any of them in any news stories about the trial. I don't know whether it's to be forthcoming or not. I mean, these jurors were all pastors and the trial was a private matter of the UMC, so, there's not likely to be any positive response from jurors who don't want to discuss the deliberations, and, indeed, maybe they're not suppossed to anyway-IOW it won't be like the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson trial where the jurors will be guests on Nightline with Ted Koppell. And actually, except for those of us with strong opinions on either side of the issue, there's not much interest. We belong to a reconciling congregation which actively recruits LGBT members and yesterday at church and church council nobody said word one about the Dammann case.

Well, then this is an issue we will have to agree to disagree on[Biblical inerrancy], because I feel that the bible is the inspired Word of God,

As do I but that does not mean in any sense it is to be taken literally. Otherwise we could codify our marriage practices to prohibit divorce in all instances per deuteronomy 22:19 and Mark 10:9, and of course take back the UMC practice or ordaining female clergy, among other things.

and in which case, God has no incomplete information.

Of course not, but, whether or not it is imparted to us is another question.

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?

CHRIST is the basis of the Christian faith, not the Bible. To elevate the Bible where it is revered where the risen Christ should be instead is a form of idolatry called Bibliology.

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......

Which is exactly why it is wonderful God gave us working minds to use. Philosophy and Religion is never an all-or-nothing, black-or-white proposition.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

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.

Okay, I'm not sure of your intent here, but what you posted appears to support my position better than the alternative.

 

[Yitzchak]

Okay, I'm not sure of your intent here, but what you posted appears to support my position better than the alternative.

I think we agree on this issue. A person saying that God does not change and applying that to mean that we are stuck with whatever rules we had 3000 years ago is disturbing to me if I thought I had to follow that logic. We are not bound by 3000 year old rules but rather by our current relationship with a living God. So, yes, I agree with your basic premise rather enthusiastically actually.

I was also subtlely introducing an additional point that there are more than two options. Meaning that thankfully I don't have to choose between stalwartly following rules layed down for others in another time or just doing my own rebellious thing with no regard for God's will. I believe that there are more than two options about such issues.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Really? You'll have to explain that to me. Your definition of a "hurtful, meanspirted attitude" is as liberal as Paul Wellstone.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

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

There's not much to explain. Either oppression exists or it doesn't.

Those committing it don't often recognize it. Whenever the complete dignity and worth of individuals is not accepted, oppression is occurring.

BTW, Wellstone was a hero, but in the end rather conservative.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I think we agree on this issue. A person saying that God does not change and applying that to mean that we are stuck with whatever rules we had 3000 years ago is disturbing to me if I thought I had to follow that logic. We are not bound by 3000 year old rules but rather by our current relationship with a living God. So, yes, I agree with your basic premise rather enthusiastically actually.

I was also subtlely introducing an additional point that there are more than two options. Meaning that thankfully I don't have to choose between stalwartly following rules layed down for others in another time or just doing my own rebellious thing with no regard for God's will. I believe that there are more than two options about such issues.

Thanks, I agree.

 

[Yitzchak]

How, by relying on your own understanding?

While I applaud a person seeking the Lord's will and wanting to be consistent with what the Lord has revealed through scripture. I do however have a strong differing opinion on this matter. I believe in freedom of conscience. The scripture itself says "come let us reason together". We as humans have always been called upon to enter into a divine partnership with the living God when it comes to working out our salvation and His purposes upon this earth. I object to a an educated guess about what God's word means being a better basis than our own understanding.

 

[CryptoKnight]

I believe the UMC should drop the language in the United Methodist Book of Discipline which led to this trial and instead affirm that there will not be any more witch hunts like this about pastors' private lives...

Wai, wai...waitaminute! Some information needs to be cleared up here.


witch-hunt: a rigorous campaign to round up or expose dissenters on the pretext of safeguarding the welfare of the public (wordreference.com)

UMC Book of Discipline 304.3: Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1[/font] are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

Note 1 from UMC BOD 304.3: "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844.


So, this was not a "witch hunt" because Dammann, exposed herself! She was not "rounded up", rather she deliberately sent a letter to her Bishop proclaiming her lifestyle! When you have someone scream "I'm a witch!" you hardly need a witch-hunt! What you then have is someone literally begging for the issue!

She openly declared herself to be in conflict with the Discipline, which defines the rules for the organization of the United Methodist Church. She wanted the issue resolved one way or another, so she could move on with her life. The UMC did not initiate a "witch-hunt" to get HER, she brought it to the church!

(and BTW, what in 304.3 is vague?)

 

[wvmtnkid]

Unlike for the Episcopals, the right-wing movement to influence the UMC represents a powerful bloc.

Of which I seem to be a member of, I suppose.

CHRIST is the basis of the Christian faith, not the Bible. To elevate the Bible where it is revered where the risen Christ should be instead is a form of idolatry called Bibliology.

You got me on that on. I should have done a better job with semantics. Christ is the basis for our faith, but, the Bible is what we use to learn about our faith, about Jesus, how he expects us to live, how we are to live our life's as Christians. It gives us our faith history, tells us about the character of God. When new believers become Christians, what is one of the first things we tell them to do? Read their Bible. Not just for the heck of it, but to teach them. No, the bible isn't revered above Christ because it is Christ who saves us, but the bible is the Word of God that "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

Which is exactly why it is wonderful God gave us working minds to use. Philosophy and Religion is never an all-or-nothing, black-or-white proposition.

Yes, we do have minds, but not every thought that comes out of our minds is right. That is why we are called to test our thoughts against scripture to make sure false doctrine isn't slipping it's way in.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Note 1 from UMC BOD 304.3: "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual.

So, this was not a "witch hunt" because Dammann, exposed herself! She was not "rounded up", rather she deliberately sent a letter to her Bishop proclaiming her lifestyle! When you have someone scream "I'm a witch!" you hardly need a witch-hunt! What you then have is someone literally begging for the issue!

She openly declared herself to be in conflict with the Discipline, which defines the rules for the organization of the United Methodist Church. She wanted the issue resolved one way or another, so she could move on with her life. The UMC did not initiate a "witch-hunt" to get HER, she brought it to the church!

At which point, the Bishop responded as he should have, with appropriate nonchalance, until right-wing elements in the UMC brought forth these formal charges.

Like I said in one post above, we can't know all what occurred in this trial or the jury deliberations nor are we ever really likely to know. But I would not be surprised if something equivalent to what can happen in criminal trials where there is obvious prosecution misconduct occurred, where the judge directs the jury to reach an acquittal.

(and BTW, what in 304.3 is vague?)

It's obvious from the language it's an anachronism.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Other points that we will have to disagree on. If the UMC agrees to the above mentioned practices, they will truly be outside of biblically sound teaching.

The very concept that one can determine what is and isn't such is offensive to the free mind. Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in.

If you want the US to go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, then by all means, let's go ahead with what you have described.

Since the sin of Sodom was inhospitability to guests, the other side is the one that should be quaking in their Tony Lamas.

Yes, we do have minds, but not every thought that comes out of our minds is right. That is why we are called to test our thoughts against scripture to make sure false doctrine isn't slipping it's way in.

Yes, and unless we do vice versa we risk doing what the Catholics did to poor Gallileo and Copernicus.

 

[Momzilla]

[/color]
It's obvious from the language it's an anachronism.

Anachronistic is not the same thing as vague. It's clear you disagree with the book of discipline, but that is not the question you were asked. The question was, is it vague?

 

[CryptoKnight]

It's obvious from the language it's an anachronism.

Main Entry: anach·ro·nism : 2 : a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present (from Mirriam Webster...I chose definition 2 because it seems to be the best representation of what you wanted to say, not because of my own agenda).


I absolutely agree the language is an anachronism. Funny, though, that throughout the Bible this seems to be the case with the words of the prophets. ergo, this isn't a *bad* thing. Being incongruous with todays standards is a step in the right direction, from a Biblical Christian perspective.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

MOD HAT ON

I am reopening this thread. Much of it has been edited as there were flagrant rules violations. These have been handled accordingly. A quick note, the following can be considered flames and probably should be avoided:

1. Bigot
2. Homophobe
3. Ignorant

Please also take note of rule #4 as it has changed in the past 60 days:

.:Forum Rule 4:. Rule No. 4 - No "Offensive" or "Illegal" Posts, Links or Images

4) You will not post or PM any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, blasphemous, satanic or otherwise violative of any local or international laws, or anything that encourages drug use or relates to gambling. This includes links in your signature, profile, bookmarks as well as posted images, photos and avatars. This includes the posting of copyright material (for example, pirated software or music). This includes posts in Christian-only forums that promote behavior considered "sin" in the Bible (in the Christian-only forums you will not advocate encourage or sanction any kind of extramarital sexual activity either in the forums or by private message, especially with minors. Marriage is defined as the legal union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. You may not describe sexual organs or activities). Avatars, fake email addresses or usernames that are blatantly offensive will result in an automatic ban. Sexual harrassment, stalking and other related behavior at CF will result in an automatic ban. Staff will ultimately decide if something is appropriate or not.

The lack of Christian grace and love that has been shown in this thread so far is not a good sign. If it heads in that direction again I will have no qualms with sending it right to the trash. Please remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and deserving of each other's love due to the fact we are all human. If you feel a need to comment on this please PM me, any comments in the thread will be deleted.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[CryptoKnight]

MOD HAT ON...

The lack of Christian grace and love that has been shown in this thread so far is not a good sign.
...MOD HAT OFF

Bummer. I must've missed some posts before you nuked 'em, because the one thing that has kept me coming here is the thoughtful dialogue many people have put into this. I guess I was just fortunate enough to not see the hurtful side (either that, or I'm a part of it and am blind to it. ouch)

Regardless, your modding efforts are appreciated, even if some of us don't notice them ;-) I guess that's when you know you're doing your job!

Whoops, NOW I see the "Any comments in the thread will be deleted." I'm not in top form today! (and I can't see how to delete this comment...oh well)

 

[wvmtnkid]

Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in.

I fail to see how using the bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian is "phariseeism".

I absolutely agree the language is an anachronism. Funny, though, that throughout the Bible this seems to be the case with the words of the prophets. ergo, this isn't a *bad* thing. Being incongruous with todays standards is a step in the right direction, from a Biblical Christian perspective.

I agree with CryptoKnight's statment here. As Christians we are called to be set apart from the world. Yes we are living in the the world, but it should be evident we are not apart of the world. When those lines get blurred, then there is a problem. Yes, Jesus walked among and ministered to and ate with the "sinners", but he still kept himself apart from talking up their lifestyle.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I fail to see how using the bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian is "phariseeism".

So do I. When I said

"Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in."

It referred to demanding political correctness of fellow Christians and clergy, which is something quite different from "using the Bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian".

 

[Wrigley]

So do I. When I said

"Attempted enforcement of orthodoxy is nothing but phariseeism, and not a good practice for Christians to engage in."

It referred to demanding political correctness of fellow Christians and clergy, which is something quite different from "using the Bible as practical guidelines for day to day living as a Christian".

Wow. Its now politically correct to view homosexual bahavior for what it is, which is sin, now?

 

[Momzilla]

And alas, I still wait for an explanation of the vagueness of the Book of Discipline...

 

[Yitzchak]

And alas, I still wait for an explanation of the vagueness of the Book of Discipline...

The vagueness is in the interpretation and not in the writing of it. I am a firm believer that a person interprets according to their heart condiiton and not according to their brain alone. Which of course is why Jesus spoke in parables. So that the hard hearted would not understand. Some blessings of God are only intended for those with soft hearts.