Sodomite weddings at the UMC

[Deadworm]

I agree that sodomy constitutes abuse. Specifically, it is abuse against nature and the Word of God.

Compassion 4 to DW: "You argue that anti-gay scriptures are really about abusive relationships where a homosexual adult takes advantage of a minor to fulfill his sexual proclivities. But your thesis isn't correct. If it were, it would clearly spell it out in the Bible and leave no ambiguities.

LOL. The Bible is full of ambiguities. That's why there are so many academic books and theological journals."

Compassion 4: "Also, if your idea is right, that would suggest the Holy Word of God is imperfect due to supposed translations errors."

Translation errors are the fault of the translators, not the Bible.

"Do you really wish to question the inerrancy of the Bible?"

Here are 3 important points you need to realize about the Bible:
(1) NT texts on biblical inspiration apply Scripture to faith and life, but don't claim genera; inerrancy.
(2) NT texts about biblical inspiration apply only to the OT because the NT didn't yet exist as a completed canon of books and there is no consensus about the books to be included until after 200 AD. Thus, because the NT can't comment on it's own inspiration, that issue depends on how you understand the inspiration of the Catholic Fathers who determined the scope and limits of the canon.

(3) Crucially, whatever your view of the inspiration of Scripture, you need to recognize that as a book that contains divine revelation, the Bible is very incomplete. For example, it lacks an explicit condemnation of abortion. That's why Jesus admitted that the coming Spirit is needed to compensate for the fact that Jesus has so much to teach that He won't get to teach His disciples during his incarnation (John 16:11-12).

And Hedrick, I never said that the phrase "eunuchs from birth" means gay people; I said it means men who, for whatever reason, aren't attracted to women and that would include gay people. There is no evidence that the application of this phrase can be restricted to infertility. The core meaning of "eunuch" is a lack of capacity for sex, not for procreation; and sexual attraction and performance is essential to such a capacity. Similarly, the phrase "eunuchs for the kingdom" refers to sexual abstinence. not to castration; it is the phrase "eunuchs made by men" that refers to castration.

 

[Deadworm]

I don't think it can be delayed further. They've got a jurisdiction that is accepting gay ordination. There are others that will likely follow. Either they do nothing, in which case there's a de facto split, or they do something.

I made this point before the thousand plus delegates at one of our last regional conferences: ordinands are required to read all of our Book of Disciple and pledge to obey it. The Book prohibits both gay marriage and gay ordination. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught that our yes should be an unequivocal yes and our no an unequivocal no: "Everything else derives from evil." To swear to obey a book that you in fact repudiate on gay issues is disingenuous. When I made this point, the large auditorium was silent.

But when immediately after my words, the ordinands were called to the platform and asked if they had read The Book of Disciple and then asked if they would obey it, there was a chorus of groans! My point seems to have been effective. The problem is that the principles in The Book of Discipline express the laws of the church, without which we would cease to be a coherent denomination.

So decisive action must be taken at our next General Conference. While the American UMC is in slow steady decline, the international UMC is experiencing revival and rapid growth, which means more and more delegates. The votes just aren't there to revise our Book of Discipline and approve gay marriage and gay ordination. Since many regions of the American UMC are unwilling to comply with the status quo, a painful split is the only solution. I would respect them more if they would just disavow our Book of Discipline; but it is dishonest to pledge loyalty to it and then ignore that pledge when it comes to gay issues.

 

[redleghunter]

Book of Discipline

If they don't follow and endorse the Book of Discipline then what happens? Can you paddle unruly members?

 

[Rescued One]

That's not true. There are definitely different degrees of sins in God's eyes:

Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:11)

Yes, and other verses agree that some sins receive greater punishment than others.

 

[redleghunter]

Relating this back to the OP, if a pastor is in a gay relationship which is continent (a word used at times by Catholics I've seen to indicate refraining from intercourse), then....well, is it really different than a philia love?

I don't think this is the case but now does the pastor meet the requirements for elder ? No it says an elder should be the husband of one wife.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

I would disagree with you on one point. I would rather stay and fight than leave the church.

Our bishop is a lesbian (California-Nevada Conference). I'm sure the majority of pastors in this conference support her lifestyle. Yes, what is becoming of our church? But let's not leave it. Let's stand our ground.

If the majority of pastors support that lifestyle I wouldn't be able to stay. There comes a point when it is time to move on. At this juncture I don't think a few people standing their ground will help. The church leaders have made their decision and if the leaders aren't worth following I'd be gone.

 

[Zoii]

Do you think not stoning women , people eating what they choose, women in leadership... you think this is simply a whim?

 

[Dave-W]

There are numerous parts in the Bible where homosexuality is condemned

Male homosexuality, if you give a close reading. Not female.

 

[hedrick]

Male homosexuality, if you give a close reading. Not female.

Look at Romans 1 again. Not sure it’s about current Christian gays, but it treats both genders the same.

 

[Dave-W]

Look at Romans 1 again. Not sure it’s about current Christian gays, but it treats both genders the same.

Rom 1 is the only place in scripture where that is even mentioned, and it is not a prohibition; but more of a symptom of being apart from God.

 

[dreadnought]

If the majority of pastors support that lifestyle I wouldn't be able to stay. There comes a point when it is time to move on. At this juncture I don't think a few people standing their ground will help. The church leaders have made their decision and if the leaders aren't worth following I'd be gone.

Yes, if you are looking top down (conference down to the local church). However, I love my local church, and the fact of the matter is, we have very little to do with our district or conference. I can't remember the last time I saw a bishop or superintendent. My only problem is keeping my pastor from saying improper things from the pulpit.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

True. But the OP subject is about the UMC 'norming' sin. A specific sin.

And this is exactly the problem. We can't decide that what God said is wrong is suddenly right, because we say it is. I was in the UMC. There was a lot of division over this topic. Once they started pushing their "open door" agenda, a lot of people left and they probably had a lot of influx of Romans 1-types. One bishop I am personally aware of claimed she had "new revelation from God" on the subject when I was still a part of this denomination. But, any new revelation cannot contradict what we have in the New Testament. If it could, we would have no promise we could stand on.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Rom 1 is the only place in scripture where that is even mentioned, and it is not a prohibition; but more of a symptom of being apart from God.

It is beyond a symptom of being apart from God. It appears to be a progressive curse. Not everyone who is "apart from God" prefers the same sex. Why on earth would Romans 1 highlight one symptom of being apart from God? Are you saying that you don't find any other mentions or prohibitions of homosexual behavior in the OT or NT (Scripture) other than Romans 1? And, you don't find any place where marriage was clearly defined between a man and a woman in both the OT and the NT? Is that really what you are claiming?

 

[FireDragon76]

Our bishop is a lesbian (California-Nevada Conference). I'm sure the majority of pastors in this conference support her lifestyle. Yes, what is becoming of our church? But let's not leave it. Let's stand our ground.

If people leave the UMC, then they will have little influence over what Methodists do, as some progressives will just see it as an oppurtunity to purify their church. It's not like other Methodists or Christians who accept gays in leadership will suddenly change their mind just because some people separate from them.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Compassion 4: "Cool story, bro. The pro-sodomy interpretation of scriptures which you brought up isn't original.

As I made clear, I favor traditional marriage. But you have not earned your anti-gay vitriol. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when one exclusively relies on shallow internet tripe rather than scholarly books in the issue, which you obviously haven't read. Academic commentaries on Genesis 19 recognize that the Sodomite desire to rape the male visitors is heterosexual xenophobia, not gay sexual perversion.
So your use of the term displays ignorance of the correct scholarly consensus.

Consider, for example, the charge in Romans 1:26-27 that same-sex sexual relationship are "against nature (Greek: physis)." There was no knowledge of genetics in Paul's day. Indeed, Paul reflects the Stoic understanding of the expression "against nature" as a violation of social convention. For Seneca, for example, hot baths, potted plants, banquets after sunset, and a man's passive sexual role were all considered "against nature" (contra naturam)" (quoted from Martti Nissinin's excellent book on the subject, "Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, p. 105).

redleghunter: "All of the above wiped out with the words of Christ )in Matthew 19).

Pro-gay marriage advocates would dismiss your claim as nonsense on 4 grounds:
(1) Jesus condones the gay orientation (Matthew 19:12).
(2) Gay marriage was not an option in the culture of the time, and so, exclusively heterosexual marriage cannot be inferred from Jesus support of traditional marriage
(3) The Bible never considers the possibility of 2 gay people in a genuinely loving and committed relationship. Therefore, the gay marriage issue can't be decided on the basis of bibllcal prooftexting.
(4) The claim that the purpose of biblical marriage is procreative is irrelevant because marriage between elderly people beyond child-bearing years is biblically permissible.

And this is what happens when we get turned over to a reprobate mind (see Romans 1:28-32). Pharisees followed man-made traditions and wisdom and missed Jesus in the flesh. The foolishness of God is far superior to the wisdom of man, according to the Bible I read (1 Cor 1:25).

How on earth do you see a eunuch and a person with a wrong sexual orientation as the same thing? Jesus discussion is not about choosing to participate in same-sex relationships. It is about choosing not to marry to devote oneself to the God completely. Paul also addresses this further in Scripture, though he doesn't say the word eunuch (1 Cor 7:7-9). Every definition for eunuch suggests remaining single, not marrying--as opposed to a different sexual orientation. So, some are born without desire to marry (or maybe can't propagate) from their mother's womb. It certainly doesn't suggest they were born with a different sexual orientation. Some being made into eunuchs by men implies castration, not a forced sexual orientation. Some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God wouldn't imply men preferring men, either. It would clearly imply exercising restraint from getting married to women in order to devote oneself to God.

If the purpose of marriage, as God intended it, is not propagation, (1) why didn't God just create another Adam from Adam's rib? Why create woman in the first place? (2) why would He give them the command "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (if He didn't design us for males to prefer females and females to prefer males)? Wouldn't it seem odd to give a command to a couple that they couldn't fulfill--if what you believe is part of the original intention of God?

What if every man preferred man exclusively and every woman preferred woman exclusively? Humanity would cease to exist. But, if every man prefers a woman and vice versa, reproduction is never a problem. When God had Noah load into the ark, why didn't Noah just put two males or two females of each species on the ark? I mean really! Are you that far on the Romans 1 track that you can't see the flaws in your "wisdom"?

Romans 1 is very clear that homosexuality is an God-given aberration (He turns people over to it--not designed them for it). He turns them over to it in response to people choosing to reject Him. He didn't make it the new "normal". You can try to redefine Scripture from what you want to believe, but that won't end well. I can assure you of that.

In that day, many will call Him "Lord, Lord", but will not do the will of His Father in heaven and He will say "I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice iniquity." (Matt 7:21-27). It would sure be sad to find out that you were falsely re-assuring people right up to the gates of hell. It may actually cost you your own salvation as well.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

If people leave the UMC, then they will have little influence over what Methodists do, as some progressives will just see it as an oppurtunity to purify their church. It's not like other Methodists or Christians who accept gays in leadership will suddenly change their mind just because some people separate from them.

You cannot willfully submit to authority that runs counter to the Bible. You need to separate. Leadership is making the decision to go an unScriptural direction. What makes it a church as defined by Scripture? Because they claim to follow Jesus Christ? Because they have been around for a long time? Paul expressed concern in his last address to the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20, especially verse 30). Today, it isn't one church in a city. There are many places that call themselves churches with no unity between them in one city, why would you not separate yourself from the unclean? (as suggested in 2 Cor 6:17), if you have that option?

 

[Roseonathorn]

Sharing a picture from another thread... this is how I would feel as a kid if someone told me I have been adopted by a homosexual couple, that is rather upset, afraid and horrified.

 

[dreadnought]

If people leave the UMC, then they will have little influence over what Methodists do, as some progressives will just see it as an oppurtunity to purify their church. It's not like other Methodists or Christians who accept gays in leadership will suddenly change their mind just because some people separate from them.

It is not a battle we are going to win without the Lord's help. However, there are those of us who will stand by the Lord's teaching regarding homosexuality. Down the road the tide might turn.

We need to fight the battle in our local churches. What is done at the district and conference levels has little to do with what goes on in our local churches. Just keep reminding people of Leviticus 18:22.

 

[Dave-W]

Are you saying that you don't find any other mentions or prohibitions of homosexual behavior in the OT or NT (Scripture) other than Romans 1? A

You did not give a close reading of what I said. I said there were many places prohibiting MALE-MALE homosexuality in both testaments; but Romans 1 is the ONLY place in scripture FEMALE-FEMALE homosexuality is even mentioned.

And, you don't find any place where marriage was clearly defined between a man and a woman in both the OT and the NT?

I made no such statement. Of course marriage is given BY EXAMPLE as one man and one (or more) women. There is no verse that DEFINES what it is. There was no need for a definition as everyone knew what marriage was. (far better than we do today)

 

[Houston Watson]

I don't claim homosexuality to not be a sin, but I see the judgemental hateful attitude of fellow Christians to be just as bad of a sin if not worse because it is breaking the second commandment of Christ.

I don't believe that pointing out the sin of an individual is hateful. As long as we understand we ourselves sin, and do not claim to be infallible, it is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge the sin of another and even take action. Especially if the person sinning is, in this case, a church leader. We can still love someone yet criticize their actions. The question at hand, whether sodomy is acceptable in the United Methodist Church, especially among clergy, should be easily answerable. The Bible is clear that sodomy is a sin, and quite a severe one. Thus the conclusion should be easily made that a homosexual pastor is unacceptable. The counter argument, as you've stated, is that all people sin. This is true, but one of the core ideas of Christianity is that we at least attempt to not sin, and we feel guilty for our sins when they happen. If a pastor, as in this instance, fully embraces his homosexual tendencies then he is quite clearly unfit to serve.