UMC's first openly gay bishop

[circuitrider]

Author Lauren Winner is a convert to Anglican Christianity from orthodox Judaism during her college years. (a somewhat circuitous route described in her first book Mudhouse Sabbath) In one of her later books on sexuality, (do not remember the name) she made the point that the church as a whole erred by hiding and privatizing marital sexuality. Her reading of NT scripture (probably from her Jewish cultural understanding) said it was to be a communal act.

So I am not so sure that such things should be considered "personal life."

I often appreciate how the Jewish tradition informs Christianity. But, I'm not sure it always applies to everything in the Church.

 

[John Davidson]

The Bible also refers to eating shrimp and wearing mixed fabrics as an abomination. So I assume you support executing persons who eat at Red Lobster and those who wear cotton-poly blend dress shirts?

If not, how about we try to be consistent with how we read the Bible and not pick sexual sins out of the Old Testament when we don't follow hardly any other prescription out of the holiness code in the Church?

And what of the New Testament references to homosexuality that speak of it as sin?

 

[circuitrider]

And what of the New Testament references to homosexuality that speak of it as sin?

Basically, it doesn't. My language and Biblical research over the years has led me to agree with theologians like UMC theologian Victor Furnish who see those passages as talking about temple prostitution and pedastry (a form of pedophilia.) The New Testament doesn't say anything about committed loving same sex relationships. Jesus never uttered a word about it, as far as we are aware.

 

[John Davidson]

Basically, it doesn't. My language and Biblical research over the years has led me to agree with theologians like UMC theologian Victor Furnish who see those passages as talking about temple prostitution and pedastry (a form of pedophilia.) The New Testament doesn't say anything about committed loving same sex relationships. Jesus never uttered a word about it, as far as we are aware.

Romans 1:26-27
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: 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.

 

[circuitrider]

And where do you find in that passage John a description of loving committed same sex relationships? Again, it isn't there. What Paul is talking about is people giving up their natural sexuality out of lust. That isn't what we see from LGBT people. Their natural sexuality is an attraction to persons of the same sex. The problem is that we have been proof texting issues on sexuality with the bare few verses in the Bible that say anything about it.

This is the same way southerners in the US during the civil war use the Bible to support slavery.

 

[John Davidson]

And where do you find in that passage John a description of loving committed same sex relationships? Again, it isn't there. What Paul is talking about is people giving up their natural sexuality out of lust. That isn't what we see from LGBT people. Their natural sexuality is an attraction to persons of the same sex. The problem is that we have been proof texting issues on sexuality with the bare few verses in the Bible that say anything about it.

This is the same way southerners in the US during the civil war use the Bible to support slavery.

Everyone can read what is plainly written.

The passage clearly states that homosexuality is sin.

 

[circuitrider]

Everyone can read what is plainly written.

The passage clearly states that homosexuality is sin.

Really? Where do you see the word "homosexuality" in that passage? (Hint, the word wasn't invented yet when the Bible was written.) We have interpreted what Paul has said over the years as referring to homosexuality and same sex relationships when our understanding of what homosexuality was still being developed.

This has been hashed and rehashed a lot here. What happens is that Wesleyan Christians start discussing this subjection and almost always it is someone who lists some other kind of Christianity as their background who jumps in and restarts the argument. You might want to go back and read old threads.

 

[hedrick]

If you don't mind a Presbyterian amplifying circuitrider's comments:

The subject in Rom 1 is not homosexuality. It's idolatry. He believes that one consequence of idolatry is that sexual relationships become disordered. From what I know about Roman culture, there was a reasonable evidence for his view. One of the Jewish stereotypes of homosexuality was that it was a result of people so far gone in lust that heterosexual sex didn't excite them enough. I believe that's precisely what Paul is referring to in 1:26-27. These are people with degrading passions who give up natural sexuality. I believe this kind of thing actually did go on in Roman society, and I have no objection to Paul connecting it to idolatry.

But the people we're talking about today aren't idolaters, and they haven't abandoned their natural sexuality. I don't think Paul was talking about Christians who want to live was same-sex partners according to normal Christian standards. He never even thought about such a thing.

What do we do when Scripture doesn't directly deal with a question? Do we find verses that use some of the relevant words, even though the question they're answering isn't the same? I don't think so. I think the Church is given the power of the keys in order to answer questions to which we don't have a direct answer. We do that based upon more genereal principles that we do have.

Why might a church decide that it’s OK? God did create us male and female, and Jesus did bless relationships between them. However what do you do about people whose orientation is homosexual? I don’t think you want to force them to try a heterosexual marriage. It’s not fair to the partner. (I should note that a family member of mine found herself on the wrong end of that kind of thing. The results weren’t good.) Paul recognized that celibacy is a gift that not everyone has. Therefore I think the Church has a right to endorse gay relationships, preferably in marriage.

This does not mean that the Church has to endorse everything that a person feels motivated to do. There may well be a genetic component to criminality. We don't have to endorse that. However we have to look at things like the nature of the action and how difficult it is to change. There's no reason that gay relationships can't still have most of the good points of heterosexual ones. Hence I think in this case most Christians who have considered the issue, and aren't already precommitted to one decision because by a literalistic hermeneutic, conclude that for this case thre's no reason not to endorse it.

 

[John Davidson]

Really? Where do you see the word "homosexuality" in that passage?

The passage clearly addresses women and men who are having sex with members of the same sex.

 

[circuitrider]

The passage clearly addresses women and men who are having sex with members of the same sex.

Read Hedrick's answer above. The explanation he gives is how this passage is generally understood by progressive Christians to be its intent.

The passage address some sex that happened in Paul's day between persons of the same sex. But it doesn't address all situations. It is addresses temple prostitution and idolatry. You shouldn't posit that Paul is talking about more (or less) than he is talking about. There are also plenty of situations where sex between a man and a woman can be either right or wrong depending on the circumstances.

Paul has given one circumstance in which sex is wrong (that is in worship of an false God.) He doesn't say anything in particular about same sex couples who choose a loving committed relationship with each other. In fact the Bible doesn't really talk about the way even heterosexual couples are married today.

Today people marry for love. In the Bible marriages were arranged. Paul knew nothing of someone about men and women freely choosing who they would marry.

 

[farout]

As a conservative Christian and Methodist, I don't see anything wrong with allowing a gay person to preach the word of God, but only so long as he or she is celibate. The evidence seems pretty clear that people are born with homosexual inclinations, which in and of itself isn't sinful – it only becomes a sin when those desires are acted out in sexually immoral relationships.

If someone is gay and wants to serve God by preaching his word, but also remains aware that he can't act out his orientation because it's sinful, who are we to judge?

The article that you linked didn't say if the new bishop is celibate or actively engages in sinful lesbian conduct.

The issue is he celibate?

 

[farout]

"Oliveto is married to Robin Ridenour, who is a deaconess in California-Nevada Conference"
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/western-jurisdiction-elects-openly-gay-united-methodist-bishop

That,s bad and goes against Scripture, Romans 1.

 

[circuitrider]

The issue is he celibate?

He who? The Bishop we are talking about is a woman. She is married so I'd guess she isn't celibate. But then, how do you ever know if anyone is celibate or not unless they say so?

No, the issue is that Christians who are well meaning and read the Bible have different views on if same sex relationships are right or wrong. That is what the UMC is fighting over. We aren't the first denomination to do through this nor will we be the last.

 

[circuitrider]

That,s bad and goes against Scripture, Romans 1.

Um, no. Read the thread please for the previous argument.

 

[farout]

It is very troublesome to me, perhaps enough for me to leave the denomination should it go uncorrected.

This ahs been going on for about thirty years. The Methodist Seminary in KC MO in 1986 openly had wear Blue Genes on Friday id you support Homosexuality. It all started long ago.

 

[circuitrider]

This ahs been going on for about thirty years. The Methodist Seminary in KC MO in 1986 openly had wear Blue Genes on Friday id you support Homosexuality. It all started long ago.

Even longer. The Book of Discipline was modified in 1972 to make homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching. We did just fine as Methodists without this rule in the Discipline for generations. But since we adopted this rule it has caused more and more fighting as it has become a bigger and bigger issue in our culture.

 

[Rhamiel]

No, the issue is that Christians who are well meaning and read the Bible have different views on if same sex relationships are right or wrong.

can we not say that about any issue?

I do not think anyone wakes up and says "today, I am going to support EVIL! muahahaha"

 

[circuitrider]

can we not say that about any issue?

I do not think anyone wakes up and says "today, I am going to support EVIL! muahahaha"

I don't know Rhamiel, can you say that about any issue? Probably not. But you can say it about many of the current hot button moral issues many of which do not have instruction in the Bible for us to follow. For example, What does the Bible say about:

1. Gun violence?
2. Nuclear War?
3. Cloning?
4. Stem Cell Research?

These kind of dilemmas cause us to have to see if we can find guidance in the bible. But since they are not directly addressed, Christians will have different opinions as to the right and wrongs related to such issues.

 

[BearJMG]

Your point makes no sense circuitrider. There was no problems with scientific experiments and nuclear or gun powder weapons 2 to 6 thousand years ago. There was however a problem with homosexual behavior and it was mentioned in the old and new testaments. Never was it condoned by ANY biblical writings and it was pointed out as being a sin. Why else would God say that they were to be killed and blood be on their heads (leviticus 20:13)? This did not change in the new testament. It is still a sin today and that does not change with society. Just because it's new and hip to be gay does not make it right. It's exactly the opposite. As this world goes further and further away from God we as Christians need to stand on the bible and declare it's words. Not change them.

 

[circuitrider]

Jim, note that this is the Nazarene/Methodist/Wesleyan Forum. You aren't supposed to be arguing with us here if you aren't one of us. Check the forum rules.

Any time homosexuality comes up in this forum every outsider to the forum on Christian Forums thinks they have to come in and beat down those who disagree with the conservative position on this issue.

Be that as it may, you totally missed my point.