Should Gays and Lesbians have their own conferences in the United Methodist church?

[mathinspiration]

Do you agree or not?

 

[salt-n-light]

what type of conferences?

 

[brocke]

How would that work since they would not be geographical and wouldn't that violate the restrictions in the Book of Discipline that ended the creation of conferences based on race?

 

[actionsub]

How would that work since they would not be geographical and wouldn't that violate the restrictions in the Book of Discipline that ended the creation of conferences based on race?

One of the ideas being batted about in the "Way Forward" commission is kind of a "big tent" scenario where conferences will move from being geographical entities to affinity-based groupings. So an LGBT-friendly conference within the UMC in the US is not too big a stretch here.

 

[Arcangl86]

what type of conferences?

In the UMC an "annual conference" is what they call a geographical collection of churches.

 

[Truth7t7]

Do you agree or not?

I Think God Speaks Loud And Clear On The Issue Of Homosexuality.

2 Peter 2:6KJV
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.

Romans 1:26-32KJV
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[Andy centek]

Do you agree or not?

The question is should be: What does God say about such a thing?
He is against it.

Also; who appointed Apostles for the work of His church? Jesus Christ, not man.
Andy Centek

 

[Chuck Stuart]

Homosexuals should not be allowed their own churches.

The bible says that we should "expel the immoral brother".

 

[brocke]

Homosexuals should not be allowed their own churches.

The bible says that we should "expel the immoral brother".

One what about a homosexual who is able to be celibate?

Secondly it can be argued that Paul's statement to "Drive out the wicked person among you," in Corinthians 5:13b (NSRV) could be referring specifically to the person who he mentioned was in an incestuous relationship with his father's wife. (I never understood if that meant his mother or mother-in-law).

Again we are not talking about someone who is in promiscuous sexual relationship(s). The UMC vows for ordination require that single people practice celibacy. So the question is does having an attraction to the same sex alone, yet practicing celibacy an act of sin? If so then we have some scientific and psychological studies that need to be addressed. Especially those showing that a person could be born wired to be attracted to the same sex.

 

[JLB777]

Do you agree or not?

Gays and Lesbians should repent or be lost for eternity in the everlasting fires of hell.


8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Revelation 21:7





JLB

 

[Willie T]

I thought the UMC was already totally homosexually oriented.

 

[hedrick]

The original question is a bit misleading. No one is proposing that homosexuals would have separate churches. The issue isn't homosexuals, but churches that accept them. And in the UMC the actual issue is larger units, particularly jurisdictions.

In the UMC, the Western jurisdiction has decided to allow gays to be ordained. If nothing is done, it is likely the some jurisdictions in the East will do so as well.

If the denomination throws out those jurisdictions, it will leave conservative congregations in those areas in a difficult position. There are also many people in the UMC who don't feel this is an issue over which the Church should split. There are congregations, and even families, who don't agree, and in many cases they want to maintain fellowship with each other.

One suggestion is to allow non-geographical jurisdictions. That's the proposal that the OP was referring to. That would allow conservative churches in liberal jurisdictions to move to a conservative jurisdiction and visa versa. However it has the same problem of requiring churches to decide one way or the other.

It's also the kind of compromise that I think is likely to fail. The UMC is an interesting denomination. There is no American ruling body. The top-level body is international, with a large participation from African churches. The representatives from African churches aren't willing to accept anything that provides any degree of legitimacy to accepting gays. Many of them are in areas with a strong Muslim influence. It can be dangerous to their lives to give any appearance of accepting gays. This has caused the situation in the UMC to be different than in other mainline American churches. No compromise such as allowing some jurisdictions to accept gays has been possible so far.

In my opinion that compromise, like all others, is going to fail. I think the jurisdictions in liberal areas will end up separating (or being ejected) and become a new denomination. If that happens, there will be loads of court cases, and churches torn with conflict, as churches that disagree with the position of the jurisdiction they're in, and churches with a mixed membership, try to deal with the results.

 

[JackRT]

Sometimes Christians come to new understandings. Several come to mind immediately. The first is the issue of slavery and that involved centuries of dispute in Christian denominations. The second, which has not yet been fully resolved, is the full spiritual and intellectual equality of women and their role in the church. The third, which is still raging, involves the acceptance of homosexuals not just as normal human beings but as fellow Christians. It is increasingly obvious that Christianity is no longer limited to cultural understandings that are thousands of years old.

 

[lee11]

Should Gays and Lesbians have their own conferences in the United Methodist church?

Do you agree or not?

what about the sinners and luke warm that already use the building?

 

[JackRT]

Should Gays and Lesbians have their own conferences in the United Methodist church?



what about the sinners and luke warm that already use the building?

You'll find those in every church, synagogue, mosque and temple.

 

[brocke]

I thought the UMC was already totally homosexually oriented.

No actually the opposite officially. The Book of Discipline explicitly declares that homosexuals are not to be ordained nor are marriage or union services to be performed in the churches. Also the UMC is prohibited from giving funds of any kind to organizations that support homosexuality.

The situation in the UMC is that this has been under contest for a good two decades or more. It has finally come to a head where both sides of the issue are threatening to leave the connection unless their position becomes the official policy of the church. So we are about to see a 3 way split in the UMC. 1-side: Allow homosexuals. 2-Side: Centerics; that is let each church decide for self and state openly that we disagree on the issue. 3-Side: Anti-homosexual don't let them even be part of the church.

I think in the next few years we will see three denominations form based on these three sides.

 

[quidam65]

Instead of splitting a denomination, why don't they join a group like the Unitarian Universalists (who allow anyone to have whatever creed they want) or the Metropolitan Community Church (which is an LGBT-centered one)?

 

[Arcangl86]

Instead of splitting a denomination, why don't they join a group like the Unitarian Universalists (who allow anyone to have whatever creed they want) or the Metropolitan Community Church (which is an LGBT-centered one)?

Because being Methodists is important to them?

 

[quidam65]

Because being Methodists is important to them?

Why is it these groups want to be members of a denomination but don't want to agree with its teachings?

That would be like me saying: "I want to join the Catholic Church but I don't agree with the perpetual virginity of Mary, the authority of the Pope, etc."

The answer to that is simple: "Fine. Go join the Southern Baptists."

 

[Arcangl86]

Why is it these groups want to be members of a denomination but don't want to agree with its teachings?

That would be like me saying: "I want to join the Catholic Church but I don't agree with the perpetual virginity of Mary, the authority of the Pope, etc."

The answer to that is simple: "Fine. Go join the Southern Baptists."

They disagree with one particular matter of ethics. Opposition to LGBT people isn't a defining feature of Methodism.