Being a member of an independent Baptist church, there aren't many religious news items I'm specifically qualified to opine on. Nevertheless, Methodists are fairly similar to my church doctrinally, so I'll comment a bit on their recent decision to continue not condoning homosexuality.
The United Methodist Church reaffirmed yesterday that homosexual activity is "incompatible with Christian teaching" and struck down language that would have made the church more inclusive of gays and lesbians.Since Christianity is a revealed religion, agreement is irrelevant. The Bible incontrovertably condemns the practice, and there's no further discussion to be had on the matter.
Matt Freed, Post-Gazette
Peggy Gaylord, left, of Binghamton, N.Y., comforts her friend, Vivian Waltz, of Alum Bank, Bedford County, after a vote at the United Methodist Church General Conference yesterday that reaffirmed the church's stance on homosexuality.Delegates to the denomination's General Conference, meeting at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, voted 579 to 376 to strengthen the church's stand on the issue.
A proposal for more moderate language, recognizing "that Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian teaching," failed to advance.
The Rev. Margaret Mallory, who chaired the Church and Society subcommittee that voted to move more inclusive language forward last week, called the issue "a thorn in the collective side of the church."There's no point in dialogue, because the positions are irreconcilable. Acceding that discussion on the matter would serve any purpose whatsoever would be a total defeat for the side standing on the teachings of the Bible, because it would be an acknowledgement that human discussion has something to contribute to God's revelation. Once that line is crossed, there's no reason to stick to Biblical teachings on anything anyone disagrees with.She said the committee recommended the inclusive language to move the church out of "irreconcilable corners and to a place of dialogue."
At the end of the morning plenary, scores of United Methodists, most wearing the rainbow-colored collars acknowledging support of a more liberal church, shared communion. When they were done, a communion cup was shattered as sign of a broken church.If it's broken, they're the culprits, because the Bible hasn't changed.
Delegates also voted 436-466 [sic?] to reject a proposed amendment from the legislative committee that would have added the statement, "As this difficult judgment is made, it is acknowledged that faithful Christians hold differing opinions in this matter."I can't speak for the Methodists, but our church holds periodic "votes" on important topics. Despite how it may appear, the church is not a democracy, it's a theocracy. We don't vote to display our personal preferences, we vote to affirm that we are in agreement over what is God's will. The Head of the church is Christ -- not any pastor, not any team of leaders, any not any ballot or conference.
When our leadership team asks the members of the church to vote on a topic, the question is never "do you want to do this?". The focus is not on what people want, but rather on whether or not they affirm what the leadership team believes to be God's will. Do some people vote based on their preferences? Probably so, but we try to make it clear that that's not the point.
Faith Geer, a reserve delegate from St. Paul United Methodist Church in McCandless, was one of those who wore a rainbow stole to show her support of gay ordination. Yesterday's votes saddened her, she said later. "It seems so simple to agree to disagree. That's all the petitions asked for, and we couldn't accept it," she said.They have agreed to disagree, unless anyone was thrown out of the church and it's not being reported. The majority just hasn't agreed to agree that the opposition has a theologically valid position.
However, in arguing for language inclusive of gays and lesbians, Preston said he believes the church fails to send a message of compassion that would heal wounds. "It is misleading to say people are welcomed, but if you disagree with [the church's perspective] you are not because you will not be acknowledged."I'm not sure what is meant by "acknowledged" (does it have some special denominational meaning?), but I didn't read anything here that leads me to believe that homosexuals are not welcome to be members of the church. In fact, churches should welcome homosexuals, as well as anyone else who wants to learn about God. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any standards of right and wrong, or any prerequisites for leadership positions.
As with Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and the Catholics, these agitators in the Methodist church appear to want to both have their cake and eat it too.
Human discussion doesn't determine what God's revelation is, but if 100 people in a church have 100 different understandings of what that revelation is, there has to be dialogue.
Because the split within the United Methodist Church breaks down geographically (California, and other western states United Methodists delegates voting strongly for homosexual ordinations, etc., while souhtern delegates vote overhelmingly against), the eventual result likely will be schism.
I'm not sure why I am replying to your post because you seem to be saying you don't want to dialogue with anyone who disagrees with you. but I do at least enjoy reading what you write.
You know what they say about Baptists: They're Methodists who can read. :-)
JT: I think you will agree that some interpretations of scripture are so clearly wrong that they don't really need to be seriously discussed.
Except that you know, Michael, that I don't agree with your interpretation of Scripture on the topic of homosexuality, usury, tithing, gambling, capital punishment, of when war is justified etc.
JT:
The topic of homosexuality and how the Bible deals with this subject cannot be "interpreted". Simply reading the Bible will reveal several passages in which God "abhors" homosexuality. You either accept it, or not, but picking and choosing what you like from the Bible is not, in my opinion, acceptable to God, as I see it. It is not interpretation, it is acceptance. You either accept the Bible as the "word of God", or you don't.
My brother and I have had several lengthy discussions concerning this, and he is gay. This is the core of my brother's internal struggle with his lifestyle. (And no I do not preach to him, or try to "convert" him. We have very open and honest discussions.)
Jim G:
What is the core of your brother's spiritual confusion? Does he feel that homosexuality is a state of being he was "offered" by society and accepted - meaning it's a choice he made (for good or bad), or does he believe that he truly was born this way and cannot feel like a normal person any other way?
I think that's the heart of the controversy - so many homosexuals believe they were born that way, and no persuasion to the contrary will "change" them. Those of us who are heterosexual can't fathom being told our attraction to the opposite sex is anything but normal for us, and would be extremely torn and confused if confronted with Biblical instruction to the contrary. I personally never made a "choice" to like women, that's me. It's who I am since I first fell in love with the little girl with long black hair in the 7th grade ;)
So, regardless of what the scripture says, it seems (by their accounts) to be antithecal to (I would guess) a majority of homosexuals' very being to "renounce" their lifestyle and turn back to the "light" side as it were.
Didn't the Methodists decide a few years ago that a good Methodist shouldn't own a firearm? I'm pretty sure they did.
Wonder what they think of Luke, chapter 22:
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.
Does that mean we should be carrying foils, or Claymores?
JT: We don't have to agree, we don't go to the same church.
Barry: It doesn't matter if people are "born that way" or not, as I've said before. Many people are born with inclincations to do wrong things. That doesn't make them right.
And I'm not a Methodist, so I really don't know what they've said about guns in the past. At least provide a link or some substantiation.
If you and JT both purport to believe in the same Bible, what does it matter whether or not you are members of the same church? On this issue, it seems to me that the only reasonable debate is over whether or not the Bible itself is valid. [Or, at a minimum, whether it is 100% valid/inerrant, and if not, how mere mortals are supposed to figure out which parts are correct and which parts have been screwed up by their fellow mortals.]
Why the question mark following sic? Contrary to popular opinion, "sic" does not mean the original statement was erroneous; it merely means that you are repeating the original exactly.
Michael,
There is a difference, I believe, between knowing that something like murder or theft is a sin, and doing it anyway, or believing you are meant to be with people of the same sex as you, although you read in the Bible it's a sin.
I don't think too many people out there feel perfectly comfortable killing, stealing, etc - those that do are arrested and/or put in mental hospitals.
Again, I don't know the mindset of a homosexual. Most of those I've known believe they were born that way, and trying to be any way else is like trying to spontaneously grow a third arm - it's not natural (to them), regardless of what the Bible says.
I'd like to hear someone who is homosexual and feels this way comment...
X: Yes, you're right. The Bible is clear in what it says, and the real debate then is over whether it's binding and to what extent.
As for sic, I intended it as a question: "thus?". I thought that the article may have quoted the numbers wrong, even though the meaning is clear. It should have either reversed the numbers, or said "failed to pass" rather than "rejected".
Barry: If someone thinks they are meant (by God) to engage in homosexual practices, they are wrong. God says so explicitly.
And you're wrong, there are a lot of people who feel perfectly comfortable (due to environment and/or genetics) with theft, lying, pyromania, and so forth. Some do belong in mental hospitals. I don't think homosexuals do, becuase when when they engage in homosexual behavior they don't generally endanger society (although they do impose a cost on society in the form of health care and so forth).
But, again, it doesn't matter how anyone, gay or straight, feels about it. Feelings have very little do with truth. We feel all sorts of things, but those feelings don't change or define objective reality. Good and evil are not based on human opinion.
All of this is from a Christian's position, of course. If you reject God or the Bible, then these arguments won't be convincing at all. My point is that practicing, encouraging, and accepting-as-valid homosexuality is unbiblical, and that you can't rationally claim otherwise.
1st of all, the bible is a collection of many different stories that sometimes contradict, so how can you say it's the "WORD OF GOD"??? Does that mean that God makes mistakes because there are contradicting stories in it (2 Genesis stories, eye 4 eye vs. turn other cheek, etc.)? Why do all you bible-thumpers refuse to even consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, your precious book has a couple chapters or verses that they threw in for political reasons, say maybe when the Bible was 1st organized LONG after the time of Christ when Constantine was merging the Roman pagan religion w/ the new Christian religion. It's well documentted that many 'alternative' versions of biblical stories were destroyed if they didn't agree w/ Constantine. Also, the number of similarities between ancient religions and the Bible are too blatant to be mere chance. for example: Roman Emperor's were descendant's of gods which gave them legitimacy, as was Christ. The story of the Virgin birth comes from the times of Zeus and Greek mythology. The idea that one man, whether Pope or preist or minister, can hear God's voice better than you, is entirely a human addition to religion. Even the jewish Sabbath was Saturday, but moved to the pagan sabbath of Sunday (named for the Sun god).
ALL these things changed, after Christ's death, and htis isn't even takign into account the fact that most of the bible was passed by word of mouth for generations, so are you still so sure that the rest of the bible is exactly as it was originally "heard", then passed on, then written, then re-written, and all still straight from the mouth of God? If you are, you need to open your mind a bit, preferably w/ a crowbar.
And lastly, one more tidbit for ya Michael, being such a bible-thumper, what do you think of the war in Iraq - I mean, God SAID Christians should be opposed to war because you should literally followed Jesus' commandments to "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." - so what gives???
Gordon: I could spend a year correcting your mistaken facts and responding to your fanatical assertions, but I think I'll pass. If you're really interested in answers, I recommend Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell.
All I'm doing is relating by anecdotal evidence the feelings of homosexuals I have known. Maybe they believe they were born to be homosexual the same way you and I were born to breathe air, or maybe they don't. Unless you are one, there's no way to tell what's in someone's heart.
I'm not trying to rationalize or explain away behaviour, just trying to clarify the subjects of what's being discussed.
Barry: I think we can all understand what it feels like to have a nearly overwhelming compulsion to do something, whatever that something is, good or bad. I don't think genetics is a large factor in homosexuality, but even if it's completely determinative, it doesn't affect the morality of the situation.
Barry,
I can't say for sure the root of my brother’s spiritual problems, however you do touch on them. He does believe that his sexuality "feels normal and right" however he also "feels it's wrong". That is the conundrum, it is an internal struggle that he fights on a daily basis, and it has begun to manifest itself in alcohol/drug abuse as well as outward anger.
I do feel sorry for him, and I believe that this internal struggle in turn manifests itself into the current "equal rights" argument for homosexuality that we see today. My brother at least feels that his internal struggle would end if only the rest of society would truly "accept" him. However, he fails to see that he is having problems "accepting" himself.
Yes, the Mthodists did vote to encourage the government to prohibit firearm ownership by private individuals.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15359
So if their teaching on homosexuality is "Bible-based" was this teaching equally well-founded?
TL: That is pretty bizarre. I'm glad I'm not a Methodist. That resolution is political posturing, not theological or even vaguely Biblically-based, so no, I would say it's not as well-founded as the resolution on homosexuality.
Michael,
at least answer my question if you choose to ignore the rest :
What do you think of the war in Iraq - I mean, God SAID Christians should be opposed to war because you should literally followed Jesus' commandments to "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." - so what gives??? Are you going to hell for supporting Bush in Iraq? Is your brother for that matter? or will a quick trip to confession make it all better?
PS: "fanatical" would best describe a believer (you), not a skeptic (me)
Gordon: What makes you think I'm more fanatical about my beliefs than you are about yours? You're using far more extraneous punctuation and capitalization than I am.
Listen, this is not complicated at all. The church should welcome everyone with open arms...Gays, Lesbians, homeless, sick, confused...The church should welcome the adulterer, the murderer, the rapist and any other catagory I haven't mentioned. What the Gays and Lesbians want is to be accepted into the church without having the lifestyle they lead being challenged. That is not going to happen! If you want to serve Christ in truth, his word is against the lifestyle that you lead. Why? Not because you're a bad person and He hates you. No! It's because when His Father, God, created the heavens and the earth He made it the way He wanted it to be. The sky is above, the earth is below, air in between. And when He made humans He made them the way he wanted them to be, male and female. One for the other for the purpose of pleasure and procreation. God created sex and he made it a wonderful thing that is shared between husband and wife. We've taken what is altogether lovely and perverted it into something that God did not intend. So stop trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. The church does not accept what God does not allow. If however you want to be cleansed form within and live your life the way it is intended, God is waiting for you with open arms ready to forgive and forget! That's what's so great about Him! He forgave me for abusing my body with drugs and alcohol. Not only that, He cleaned my up and I didn't have to go through a 12 step program. Better yet, He took away all desire to do drugs and smoke! For anyone who smokes, you know that's a miracle! Now I owe Him me. I own Him my arms to give hugs, my words to encourage, my feet to walk in your shoes and let you know that if you were born male, you're male and if you were born female, you're female. Come to God just as you are, ask for His help and He'll take it from there. But you gotta be real - No Games - God is very loving and sensative. We should never take advantge of that.
P. S. Regarding the 'war' question posted by Gordon. Gordon, God tells us in His word, the Bible, that we must obey the laws of the land. Example: Let's say I live in Alaska and those in authority in the state of Alaska pass a law saying that they no longer allow Salmon fishing. But here I am, a lover of fresh Salmon and these people are now telling me that I can't fish for Salmon. So I decide to do just as I please and fish anyway. Well Gordon, I just broke the law and if i get caught, I get what ever punishment they dole out for Salmon finshing.
God is not crazy. Governments are in place to keep some type of order. We Christians are obligated not to kick against what has been put in order unless it goes against God's word. We have to pay taxes. If you have alternate side of the street parking you'd better move your car or you'll get a ticket. And unfortunately if Uncle Sam calls you to war and you don't go, you will go to jail - Christain or not. Nobody likes this war. I think it's just crazy! People are dieing to render a service to a country that doesn't want it. DAH! I bet I'll know how to vote next time around...