Question About Methodist Pastors!

[jinc1019]

I know you asked Graceseeker and I'm sure he will answer for himself. But, I grew up Baptist and chose to become a United Methodist. My greatest attractions to Methodism Wesley's understanding of grace and how that effects the doctrine of soteriology, that is how God redeems people.

My previous Baptist family often viewed salvation as a single event of confession while Wesleyan theology views salvation not as an event but as a journey. I see this as much more in keeping with the New Testament.

As an aside. I would disagree with you on the issues of homosexuality and sexuality in general being about Biblical authority. Most all theological difference among Christians are about Biblical interpretation and not authority.

It isn't that liberal and progressive Christians don't view the Bible as authoritative. It is that liberal and conservative Christians interpret the Bible differently.

That's a fair criticism of what I said, but for it to be true, there must be a reasonable, biblical argument for homosexual sex in the Bible. I'd love to believe that is the case, but I don't see it. As far as I can tell, the best arguments regarding homosexuality on your side are related to LOVE, not sex.

In other words, I think you can make a very strong case that there is nothing unbiblical at all about homosexual love. Not at all. I wouldn't even argue there's something unbiblical about homosexual relationships. The argument is about sex...and I don't see anything in the Bible that could ever be construed as allowing homosexual sex. Again, I wish that weren't true...but I don't see any reasonable arguments to the contrary.

Yes, I've read the scholars who try to identify the prohibitions on homosexual sex as exclusively related to certain kinds of homosexual sex...such as Man-boy relationships, etc. I've also read the arguments that say Paul was only talking about homosexual sex as it related to idolatry and pagan worship...But honestly, I just don't think any of those arguments are very good or reasonable. Further, at the First Jerusalem Council, the elders ruled that Gentile Christians were required to maintain Jewish regulations regarding sexuality, which obviously strictly forbid homosexual sex...Again, not homosexual love.

With all due respect, I think it's absolutely impossible to come to the conclusion based on the Bible that homosexual sex is permissible. I don't see it as a matter of interpretation...I think it's simply a matter of following what the Bible plainly teaches.

If you know of good biblical arguments to the contrary, I would absolutely love to hear them! I am certainly open to hearing different views, but at the end of the day, the evidence I have seen makes me think many, although not all, of those who hold your view don't care at all about biblical authority--precisely because I hear so many of them say, "who cares?" when it comes to biblical authority and sexual issues.

 

[jinc1019]

Primarily because I was born and raised within the context of Methodism. My father was a Methodist pastor. I was heavily involved in the youth ministry of our annual conference. So, I was so soaked in Methodism that I never really considered anything else seriously.

I say "seriously" because there were times that I did. I can remember rebelling against my father as a teenager and telling him that the only reason that he insisted I go to church was because he was the pastor. He called my bluff, reminded me that he hadn't always been a pastor. And said that if he had continued in sales, such as he was employed before I was born, that he would still have been taking his family to church every Sunday. He also told me that if I didn't want to attend his church I was free to attend another, but that he still expected me to go to church on Sunday morning. If not at his, then somewhere else. So, I took him up on that for about three weeks, and visit other churches that my friends attended. Then, after about three weeks I asked myself why I was getting up early to go to these other churches, when there was a perfectly good one across the driveway from my own house that I could pretty much roll out of bed and walk to in just seconds.

But, I have served in other denominations. While in seminary I served as the Christian Education/Youth director of a UCC church. I never seriously considered it, and found nothing in it that was particularly attractive for the long term.

Now, my leave of absence to work in the ELCA is a different story. In some ways it was the best years of my ministry. It was the perfect type of ministry for me providing leadership to the larger church as the synod youth coordinator and then being on staff in a local congregation as their youth pastor. I was teaching youth Sunday school, confirmation, adult Bible study, and youth (fellowship) group on a weekly basis, preaching about once a month in the local church, and then working with representative youth, youth group leaders, and others from across the synod to help build the youth programs in other congregations by providing large-scale events and other programs that a congregation might not be able to do on its own but that we could when working cooperatively, as well as providing guidance to congregations exploring new directions in youth ministries. I could have stayed there, probably forever. But, my immediate supervisor had a health issue and have to leave his position. At this level there is a political aspect to ministry (and I don't mean that in a bad way) and the new person who took his place had the right to bring his own staff on board with him to synodical staff. The bishop did offer to find me another place to serve in the ELCA, but as I thought about it, I realized that I was more of a Methodist than a Lutheran. And it was primarily over baptism. I had a sense that among my Lutheran colleagues they not only saw baptism as being grace-filled, but the actual means by which God irresistibly made a person a Christian. Now, they never said that. But, it was just something I felt below the surface. (Just like when I was appointed to serve a church in extreme southern Illinois I had a sense that most Methodist laity there were in fact Bapto-Methodist.) So, having opportunity to serve in either the ELCA or the UMC, I just decided that I was still more UMC in my heart than I was ELCA. But, in truth I'm ecumenical enough (and the UMC is imperfect in other areas) that I would feel comfortable in many different denominations.

All very interesting stuff. I am sincerely very thankful for you taking the time to tell me all of that! I have learned a lot from both you and Circuit over the past few days, and I am very thankful.

By the way, I also believe Lutherans hold this view, and it doesn't present some problems for me as well.

-Justin

 

[RainsInApril]

You may want to make that determination based on the local congregation more than the denominational affiliation. Within both of those denominations you may find more variation within the denomination than between the denominations.

I think this is sound advice, and very true in my experience. My own church search led me from the UMC (where I was raised) to TEC, but I know I would still feel at home in some UMC congregations (and out of place in many in TEC).

 

[jinc1019]

I think this is sound advice, and very true in my experience. My own church search led me from the UMC (where I was raised) to TEC, but I know I would still feel at home in some UMC congregations (and out of place in many in TEC).

Thanks for the contribution!

 

[circuitrider]

If I were not clergy there are churches I'd feel comfortable with in most of the mainline denominations. It starts to make more of a difference when you want to be in full-time ministry because you won't always be in the same local church. So the bigger denominations then matters more.

 

[jinc1019]

If I were not clergy there are churches I'd feel comfortable with in most of the mainline denominations. It starts to make more of a difference when you want to be in full-time ministry because you won't always be in the same local church. So the bigger denominations then matters more.

Good point!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Now, my leave of absence to work in the ELCA is a different story. In some ways it was the best years of my ministry. It was the perfect type of ministry for me providing leadership to the larger church as the synod youth coordinator and then being on staff in a local congregation as their youth pastor. I was teaching youth Sunday school, confirmation, adult Bible study, and youth (fellowship) group on a weekly basis, preaching about once a month in the local church, and then working with representative youth, youth group leaders, and others from across the synod to help build the youth programs in other congregations by providing large-scale events and other programs that a congregation might not be able to do on its own but that we could when working cooperatively, as well as providing guidance to congregations exploring new directions in youth ministries. I could have stayed there, probably forever. But, my immediate supervisor had a health issue and have to leave his position. At this level there is a political aspect to ministry (and I don't mean that in a bad way) and the new person who took his place had the right to bring his own staff on board with him to synodical staff. The bishop did offer to find me another place to serve in the ELCA, but as I thought about it, I realized that I was more of a Methodist than a Lutheran. And it was primarily over baptism. I had a sense that among my Lutheran colleagues they not only saw baptism as being grace-filled, but the actual means by which God irresistibly made a person a Christian. Now, they never said that. But, it was just something I felt below the surface. (Just like when I was appointed to serve a church in extreme southern Illinois I had a sense that most Methodist laity there were in fact Bapto-Methodist.) So, having opportunity to serve in either the ELCA or the UMC, I just decided that I was still more UMC in my heart than I was ELCA. But, in truth I'm ecumenical enough (and the UMC is imperfect in other areas) that I would feel comfortable in many different denominations.

You are the first Methodist to serve a Lutheran church I've come across. Appreciate your ecumenical latitude. Did you have any issues concerning the Real Presence? Do you know any other UMC/ ELCA clergy serving Lutheran or Methodist parishes?

 

[GraceSeeker]

You are the first Methodist to serve a Lutheran church I've come across. Appreciate your ecumenical latitude. Did you have any issues concerning the Real Presence?

I never had any issues concerning the Real Presence. It was the first question put to me by the bishop and others, but Methodists also believe in the Real Presence. We don't have the same way of talking about it -- in, with and under -- but our conceptualization is very much the same.

Do you know any other UMC/ ELCA clergy serving Lutheran or Methodist parishes?

No, I don't. But then, again, that's been more than 10 years since I was in the ELCA. I'm sure that there are lots of things that I don't know about today.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I never had any issues concerning the Real Presence. It was the first question put to me by the bishop and others, but Methodists also believe in the Real Presence. We don't have the same way of talking about it -- in, with and under -- but our conceptualization is very much the same.





No, I don't. But then, again, that's been more than 10 years since I was in the ELCA. I'm sure that there are lots of things that I don't know about today.

Your experience speaks well for full-communion fellowship. Any discussion between Methodist and Anglicans on full-communion?

 

[Anto9us]

"If you know of good biblical arguments to the contrary, I would absolutely love to hear them!"

But CF, by policy, would not want them to be put forth - if indeed such arguments existed.

 

[jinc1019]

"If you know of good biblical arguments to the contrary, I would absolutely love to hear them!"

But CF, by policy, would not want them to be put forth - if indeed such arguments existed.

Not publicly...But anyone can private message me!

 

[Anto9us]

"there must be a reasonable, biblical argument for homosexual sex in the Bible.'

Who said there "must be" this or that?

Do you claim Jesus "must have had a reasonable, biblical argument " for allowing the woman caught in adultery to go free?

On the contrary - He said "Ye have judged her rightly".

The people itchin' to throw rocks HAD THE BIBLE ON THEIR SIDE.

Jesus knew it.

Yet he stopped them. With whatever He wrote on the ground, and saying "Now whoever is without sin can cast the first stone "

- He stopped 'em cold.

But I am heterosexual, I am not a "Pastor", and I do not see myself in any way a
spokesman "out to provide a 'reasonable, biblical argument for homosexual sex in the Bible' "

Even if I was -- using PM's rather than Forums would still -- IMO -- violate CF's rule about "no promoting of homosexuality"

I just wonder if today -- people would actually lay down their stones as they apparently did when Jesus said what He said...

THE BIBLE says its ok to have slaves - and that slaves should obey their masters - yet I don't hear biblical inerrantists claiming that its ok to own slaves today.

Society changes. Ways of looking at the Bible CHANGE over time -- as has been pointed out in another thread --"Inerrancy" is a real new kid on the block theologically.

People can say "this MUST be" or "That MUST be" -- but that doesn't make it so -- things do not always conform to one's perceptions.

 

[jinc1019]

"there must be a reasonable, biblical argument for homosexual sex in the Bible.'

Who said there "must be" this or that?

Do you claim Jesus "must have had a reasonable, biblical argument " for allowing the woman caught in adultery to go free?

On the contrary - He said "Ye have judged her rightly".

The people itchin' to throw rocks HAD THE BIBLE ON THEIR SIDE.

Jesus knew it.

Yet he stopped them. With whatever He wrote on the ground, and saying "Now whoever is without sin can cast the first stone "

- He stopped 'em cold.

But I am heterosexual, I am not a "Pastor", and I do not see myself in any way a
spokesman "out to provide a 'reasonable, biblical argument for homosexual sex in the Bible' "

Even if I was -- using PM's rather than Forums would still -- IMO -- violate CF's rule about "no promoting of homosexuality"

I just wonder if today -- people would actually lay down their stones as they apparently did when Jesus said what He said...

THE BIBLE says its ok to have slaves - and that slaves should obey their masters - yet I don't hear biblical inerrantists claiming that its ok to own slaves today.

Society changes. Ways of looking at the Bible CHANGE over time -- as has been pointed out in another thread --"Inerrancy" is a real new kid on the block theologically.

People can say "this MUST be" or "That MUST be" -- but that doesn't make it so -- things do not always conform to one's perceptions.

First of all, no one here is throwing stones at homosexual people. I am, by no means, a hardliner. I support legal homosexual rights and have for a long time, even though many in my political circles do not.

But based on your logic, Godly living can be constantly reinterpreted by the Christian community (even a minority) whenever it feels like it and for pretty much any reason it wants! I'm not saying God hates all forms of homosexual sex. I'm not God and it's not my job to judge. However, it is my job to put myself in the best possible community of believers, and that means being with people who take the faith of the apostles and early church seriously. I'm not saying all those who believe homosexual sex is not a sin are not taking things seriously; many of them do! But, judging the evidence as fairly as I can, I can't see how anyone can make a reasonable argument that favors allowing homosexual sex. The best one can do is make the argument that morality changes over time, which is a really weak argument in my estimation.

What two people do, whether they are male or female or gay or straight, has nothing to do with me and my faith. But what I want to do is ensure I am committing myself to a church that is fully committed to the Gospel, however uncomfortable that may be for everyone around me or around it. I'm not interested in simply saying that the Church can alter its standards on holy living whenever it wants for whatever reason it wants.

 

[circuitrider]

I'm not saying that there must be a reasonable argument from the Bible I'm saying that there is a reasonable argument from the Bible that homosexuality in the Bible has largely been misinterpreted by the Church, particularly Paul's work. Paul likely was talking about pedastry and temple prostitution and not same sex monogamous relationships as we are discussing them today.

We do indeed reinterpret the message of the Bible for each new generation because situations change and have to be addressed. Anto9us pointed out slavery. But we also have issues never addressed in the Bible such as stem cell research, cloning, artificial insemination, gun violence, same sex marriage, etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of issues that we deal with now that are not directly spoken about in the Bible.

The Wesleyan Quadrilaterial, one of our guides for doctrine, is that reason is one of the four criteria for sound doctrine. It isn't the only criteria and may arguable be not the most important of the four but reason and experience both effect our doctrine and how it evolves with new circumstances.

 

[jinc1019]

I'm not saying that there must be a reasonable argument from the Bible I'm saying that there is a reasonable argument from the Bible that homosexuality in the Bible has largely been misinterpreted by the Church, particularly Paul's work. Paul likely was talking about pedastry and temple prostitution and not same sex monogamous relationships as we are discussing them today.

We do indeed reinterpret the message of the Bible for each new generation because situations change and have to be addressed. Anto9us pointed out slavery. But we also have issues never addressed in the Bible such as stem cell research, cloning, artificial insemination, gun violence, same sex marriage, etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of issues that we deal with now that are not directly spoken about in the Bible.

The Wesleyan Quadrilaterial, one of our guides for doctrine, is that reason is one of the four criteria for sound doctrine. It isn't the only criteria and may arguable be not the most important of the four but reason and experience both effect our doctrine and how it evolves with new circumstances.

Those are all fair points...But unlike slavery, women's rights, racial equality and other issues, I can't think of one biblical principle that supports the conclusion homosexual sex (not homosexuality itself) is permissible. I truly wish I was wrong, and I'd be more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary via private message, but I just don't see it. You can make the case for homosexual love and commitment, but I just don't see any reasonable arguments for homosexual sex itself. Again, I'm more than slightly open to hearing an alternative view on that!

 

[circuitrider]

Those are all fair points...But unlike slavery, women's rights, racial equality and other issues, I can't think of one biblical principle that supports the conclusion homosexual sex (not homosexuality itself) is permissible. I truly wish I was wrong, and I'd be more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary via private message, but I just don't see it. You can make the case for homosexual love and commitment, but I just don't see any reasonable arguments for homosexual sex itself. Again, I'm more than slightly open to hearing an alternative view on that!

I can think of a lot of principles about love and relationship from the Bible that applies to same sex marriage. If hurdle is if you believe the Bible condemns it in such away that it applies to today. The OT passages are in the holiness code that include a host of rules we no longer follow. If the New Testament passage are about pedastry and prostitution then the Bible is largely silent on the issue.

If the Bible is silent than other principles from the Bible that apply to the law of love take precedence.

I am well aware that Christians have divergent views on these issues. And I respect people who differ as long as they differ because they've thought through the issues involved and aren't just retelling what someone else told them about homosexuality and the Bible. What I actually find is that many people make up their mind without actually having ever studied the issue in any great detail.

 

[jinc1019]

I can think of a lot of principles about love and relationship from the Bible that applies to same sex marriage. If hurdle is if you believe the Bible condemns it in such away that it applies to today. The OT passages are in the holiness code that include a host of rules we no longer follow. If the New Testament passage are about pedastry and prostitution then the Bible is largely silent on the issue.

If the Bible is silent than other principles from the Bible that apply to the law of love take precedence.

I am well aware that Christians have divergent views on these issues. And I respect people who differ as long as they differ because they've thought through the issues involved and aren't just retelling what someone else told them about homosexuality and the Bible. What I actually find is that many people make up their mind without actually having ever studied the issue in any great detail.

All of the issues you are referring to relate to love, not sex. I completely agree there are no prohibitions against love. The issue is sex, not love. Principles having to do with love are not related here. For instance, a woman who is married is still not permitted to have sex with another man other than her husband, even if she loves him. Love isn't the issue. That's my point. I've never heard a single argument supporting the sex itself, which is the actual sin according to Paul in Bible.

 

[GraceSeeker]

All of the issues you are referring to relate to love, not sex. I completely agree there are no prohibitions against love. The issue is sex, not love. Principles having to do with love are not related here. For instance, a woman who is married is still not permitted to have sex with another man other than her husband, even if she loves him. Love isn't the issue. That's my point. I've never heard a single argument supporting the sex itself, which is the actual sin according to Paul in Bible.

I think circuitrider's point, which I do NOT agree with, but believe I do understand where he is coming from, is that the comments that many people read as being against homosexual sex are in fact not about all homosexual sex any more than the prohibitions against adultery are prohibitions against all heterosexual sex. They are prohibitions against particular forms of sex that are problematic because of the way there is abuse and the taking advantage of people in the relationship. But sex which is part of a loving committed relationship in which the individuals enter into a covenant relationship similar to that which exists between Christ and his Church can indeed be something that we recognize as not just condoned, but even blessed by God. Homosexual relationships of this order were not addressed in the Bible one way or another. But as they exist now, one can apply the same reasoning for their acceptance as one does to any other relationship.

So, since (according to circuitrider's theory) such relationships are not addressed in scripture at all, does one prohibit them because they are not mentioned as approved in scripture? Or, since (according to circuitrider's theory) such relationships are not addressed in scripture at all, does one allow them because they are not mentioned as prohibited in scripture?

The UMC has generally said that all things are permissible unless it is specifically prohibited in scripture. O(f course, in typical Wesleyan fashion) we have also applied reason to draw conclusions from some of those specifics to other things that were not.)


Now, again, this is my understanding of circuitrider and others who have argued that homosexual relationships (including homosexual sex) as practiced by many today should not be viewed as disapproved of by the Church today. He may wish to correct it if I have misstated his position or views.

 

[jinc1019]

I think circuitrider's point, which I do NOT agree with, but believe I do understand where he is coming from, is that the comments that many people read as being against homosexual sex are in fact not about all homosexual sex any more than the prohibitions against adultery are prohibitions against all heterosexual sex. They are prohibitions against particular forms of sex that are problematic because of the way there is abuse and the taking advantage of people in the relationship. But sex which is part of a loving committed relationship in which the individuals enter into a covenant relationship similar to that which exists between Christ and his Church can indeed be something that we recognize as not just condoned, but even blessed by God. Homosexual relationships of this order were not addressed in the Bible one way or another. But as they exist now, one can apply the same reasoning for their acceptance as one does to any other relationship.

So, since (according to circuitrider's theory) such relationships are not addressed in scripture at all, does one prohibit them because they are not mentioned as approved in scripture? Or, since (according to circuitrider's theory) such relationships are not addressed in scripture at all, does one allow them because they are not mentioned as prohibited in scripture?

The UMC has generally said that all things are permissible unless it is specifically prohibited in scripture. O(f course, in typical Wesleyan fashion) we have also applied reason to draw conclusions from some of those specifics to other things that were not.)


Now, again, this is my understanding of circuitrider and others who have argued that homosexual relationships (including homosexual sex) as practiced by many today should not be viewed as disapproved of by the Church today. He may wish to correct it if I have misstated his position or views.

Thanks for clearing up Circuit Rider's argument. I don't necessarily disagree that Paul may not have been addressing all forms of homosexual sex, but how can we know which forms he is addressing and which forms he isn't? It seems pretty presumptuous to assume we can determine he wasn't talking about what we consider to be modern same-sex relationships.

Plus, every single mention of sex in the Bible, unless it's mentioned negatively, speaks of sex as something that occurs between a man and a woman.

From a biblical standpoint, the best one can do is assume that Paul didn't mean what he plainly wrote and instead meant something entirely different. I'm not saying there aren't any clues at all that point in that direction. I actually think there are some clues which suggest he may only have been speaking about certain forms of abusive homosexual relationships -- not all forms of sex -- but there are also clues that suggest he was talking about all forms of sex. For instance, when Paul calls the sex "unnatural."

Perhaps I'm wrong, but where in the Bible does Paul or anyone else refer to heterosexual sex between non-related people, even if sinful, as "unnatural"?

In the end, I think in order to get a place, theologically, where homosexual sex is ok, a lot of assumptions have to be made. In the end, there really aren't good reasons to support homosexual sex from the biblical data. There are, I think, great arguments to support homosexual love and even non-sexual homosexual loving relationships. But any arguments supporting homosexual sex cannot possibly be derived from the Bible without a lot of guessing, at least that's what I see.

I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise. I don't understand why God would want people who love each other to be deprived of this kind of relationship, but I just can't get around what the Bible says. If I'm going to start picking and choosing which biblical commands to listen to and which ones not to listen to, then all sorts of problems arise. Obviously there are practices the apostles themselves allowed for, such as slavery, that Christians today totally reject. But there are clear biblical reasons for rejecting slavery. There are no biblical principles that promote sex outside of a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. That's just a fact. The best one can do is assume Paul didn't mean all homosexual relationships, then assume because Paul didn't mean all that some are ok, then assume that the ones that are ok are any homosexual relationship where the people are committed. There is absolutely nothing in the text that validates any of those claims! Just guesses and hopes.

Again, for the millionth time, I truly wish and hope I am wrong. I hate this teaching because I truly don't understand it.

 

[circuitrider]

By the way, it isn't Circuitwriter's theory on homosexuality. It is the theory of a number of scholars including Victor Furnish and Walter Wink.

However, I am a pretty decent at basic Greek translation and it is pretty clear the the Greek words translated in English to refer to homosexuality in Paul are much fuzzier in the original Greek than they are in the English. The translations of these words are not definitive or exact.

People make a lot of definitive statements about sexuality based on English translations which are not necessarily unbiased. The NRSV tends to translate ideas and words the way the KJV does because it is in the same translation family. The NIV has some notable passages where deaconia is translated "Deacon" when next to a mans name and "servant" when next to a woman's name for no other reason than the conservatism of the translation team.

On issues of sexuality the 1st century Christians came out of an entirely different culture than we do where marriages were arranged, for economics more than love, at a very young age, and women largely considered property.

Little about what we believe and teach about marriage fits the way people got married in Jesus' and Paul's day. Yet people talk about "Biblical marriage" as if it describes what our heterosexual marriages are like today when it bears only passing resemblance to our current understanding of any marriage.