Is the United Methodist Church moving towards acceptance of Homosexuals?

Great Debates
21

Well, obviously, I’m not sure of it. But IIRC, the votes at the Conference on the issue of homosexuality – and other so-called “liberal” issues – pretty much broke down on geographic lines – with some exceptions, of course. As they consistently have in the past.

But in general and historically, South = conservative; Northeast and extreme Northwest = liberal; West and Midwest = moderate, tending slightly more to the conservative. Similarly, cities = more liberal; rural locations = more conservative. These are huge generalizations of course, but I think they nevertheless are accurate – or as accurate as huge generalizations ever are.

This is not limited to Methodists, BTW. The same patterns exist in the Presbyterian church, the Baptist church, and other major Protestant denominations, most (all?) of which are understood to be significantly more conservative in the South and especially in the rural South. There’s no criticism implied, either. That’s just the way it is, demongraphically speaking.

22

Best typo ever in that last sentence, Jodi. :smiley:

23

I have to concur with Phil, Jodi. That was truly hilarious!! :slight_smile:

(I can visualize these maps indicating the degree to which various regions of the country are subject to temptation, obsession, and possession. Amityville, LI, for example, is bright red. ;))
Mr. Visible, you’ll find that the Episcopal Church, despite having declined to change some outmoded language that is anti-gay, is generally largely of one mind that gay people are more than welcome as members, with varying views on whether sexually active gay people can be good members, can commit to a church-blessed union, and can serve as clergy. In general, the leadership and the majority of members approve of all three, with a smaller group of conservative protesters, many of whom object to other things as well and often schism as a result. The same, in general terms, is true for the United Church of Christ and a few other denominations as well. Methodism appears to occupy more or less of a midpoint on the issue – though the more conservative and anti-gay denominations get by far more news coverage.

24

Oh come on, Mr. Visible. I get so weary of hearing this same old “my interpretation, your interpretation” argument. It seems to me that people like to bring this up all the time because they don’t really want there to be a right interpetation that way they don’t have to follow what it says. Does plain english mean anything to you? If you have children and you tell them to do something, you expect them to abide by it not stand around debating as to whether or not you really meant what you said…“well, maybe dad really meant this and the other one says well I think dad meant something entireley different, etc.” If you told them not to go outside anymore for the evening how many different ways can you interpret that? You meant just what you said, didn’t you? Here’s what God plainly says about homosexuality :
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

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.

God hasn’t changed His mind about homosexuality since Sodom and Gomorrah. He says it’s an abomination and against nature. He created male and female, not male and male or female and female. You can accept what He says or not.

25

His4Ever, can you do me a favor? Please list every single word that Jesus Christ said about homosexuals.

26

The whole Bible is God’s word, not just the words of Jesus. The apostle Paul spoke about it in Roman’s 1. He was a follower of Christ and met Him on the road to Damascus. I think the Holy Spirit would have corrected him had he been mistaken. Also God doesn’'t change, He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha over this sin. They even wanted to have sex with the angels who came to take Lot and his family out of the city. Seems like people want to use and twist the Scripture so they can contintue in their wrong actions. If what the Bible says about it doesn’t convince you, I doubt I can. Just because Jesus Himself doesn’t mention something specifically doesn’t mean it’s okay to do if it’s condemned elsewhere in Scripture. You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

27

Scream about it though you might, "His"4ever, that is still only your interpretation. Other people, who are just as godly as you, read those words very differently, and come to different conclusions as to what they mean. Who is to say you are right? You can’t prove that you’re right. Your position is only your position, do not presume to think that God has magically given YOU the only possibly true view of the Bible.

Most of the best Christians I know are gay. All of the worst are not. You can draw your conclusions from the safety of your bigotry. I’ll draw mine from life’s experiences.

28

Back to the OP. No, I don’t think the methodists are moving towards acceptance of homosexuals
Church appeals gay pastor decision

29

I think you need to reread Isaiah and Ezekiel, as well as the Gospels. In every case where the sins of Sodom are mentioned, it is said to have been destroyed for turning from justice, for neglecting the poor and for pride.

Nope, no mention of homosexuality. Try again.

Laughable considering none of the Bible was originally written in English, therefore every word is an interpretation unless you happen to read Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew. If it is so clear-cut then why are different passages interpreted using different words depending on which translation you use. But of course, since you’re a Chick fan, you’re going to say only the KJV is acceptable.

The prohibition listed in Leviticus are part of the Holiness Code for the Jews. Since you insist they are still applicable, I have no choice but to ask you if you’ve enjoyed any good cheeseburgers or ham sandwiches lately. What about wearing mixed fiber clothing?

As to the references Paul made, it seems interesting that his choice of words, in the original greek, all have various meanings which indicate he could have been refering specifically to temple prostitutes.

And then, again, Jesus never mentioned the topic. But he had quite a bit to say about setting yourself up as a judge of others, piousness and legalism.

Here’s a couple of references you might be interested in. If you approach them with an open mind, you might find you need to re-think you position.

The Cathedral of Hope.
Reconsidering Homosexuality and the Bible

30

I think this link will work if you have an older browser, or Java disabled.

31

ELCA here but we’re facing the same issues. There is increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians but it’s isn’t in every congregation yet. I am a member of a reconciling in Christ congregation that fully accept and affirms everyone regardless of sexual orientation. That’s right, we even accept heterosexuals :smiley: We push the envelope a bit and use that to help congregations who are apprehensive about how to face the issue. We have an active Lutherans Concerned chapter that works to advance full acceptance. I bet most of you have never seen a Jesus fish like that.

The reason I take a stand on this issue is because of the damaging experience my own family had in the southern Baptist church when my brother was finding his sexuality. Their attitude was much in the Jack Chick mold, telling my parents it was their fault they had a gay son because my mother worked outside the home and handled the finances rather than being a submissive, passive housewife.

Christians will always disagree on scripture interpretation but I don’t have a hard time deciding which church is trying to follow the teachings of Christ.

32

I’m not going to scream about anything. Just share the truth and pray. There’s no point going around and around on something we will NEVER agree on. I would like your opinion as to how you interpret the words “thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination”. How many ways are there to interpret “thou shalt not”? Also, how do YOU interpret Romans 1:26-27? I really don’t understand how you can get something out of it other than what it plainly says. In my humble opinion, it really seems to me like you can take any scripture you want and look at it and make it say anything you want. Just doesn’t seem logical to me. Is it that you don’t want what it says to be true so you have to find another interpretation? I’m really puzzled, not being sarcastic. As I stated in another post, the number of people and cultures participating in something is NOT an indicator of it’s wrongness or rightness. Sorry, but I still think God has plainly spoken on the subject. Let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that.

33

** His4ever**, if the interpretation doesn’t suit some people the first thing they do is change it. Sad really. But yes, it is very clear.

I think that the problem was bound to happen. If you start out wrong, you will end up wrong. That’s why now, homosexuality is the issue with that church. As it is the pastor/reverend is a woman, and she has no place being an elder. The Bible clearly says that too. That also has changed in some congregations because it doesn’t make some happy.
JD

34

No, you’re going to share what your feeble mind believes the truth to be, and pray. As we’ve seen elsewhere, you’re one of the bigots from the Cult of Jack T. Chick, so your opinions are therefore worthless, because you clearly have no intellect or common sense.

I don’t interpret those words, because I don’t saddle myself with the garbage that is the King Jimbo Translation. Now, if you’re talking about Leviticus, it don’t apply. Christians are not under the Levitical law.

I don’t. It has no bearing on modern homosexuality. Homosexuality that Paul would have been aware of was the temple sex of the pagan cults of Rome and Greece. There was no real model in New Testament times of modern, loving, committed gay relationships.

And in any case, what Paul says (and Paul wrote Romans, not God), doesn’t weigh as heavy as what Jesus said about homosexuality, which was nothing.

And again, many of thebest Christians I know, and ones smart enough not to buy into Jack T. Chick’s Cult of Pseudo-Fascist Bigotry’s inane dribblings, are gay. If being gay and being Christian were incompatible, I’d know it far better than you ever would. Because your eyes are clouded by hate, bigotry and your mind filled with pseudo-Christian fundamentalist nonsense. Like all fundamentalists, you are Christian only in the most tangental of ways.

Of course, you fundies do that all the time. You pervert the entire Bible, you idolize it, you treat it like it was God himself. You’re so concerned with what it says (in your 20th Century Literalist worldview, which is totally incompatible with ancient literature) that you totally miss what any of it means. You do contortions to make it never support Catholicism (which it supports far more than your nonsense), you hunt through it to find verses you can use to attack those you hate (gays, Catholics, real Christians in mainstream denominations), and you ignore anything that makes you uncomfortable (fundies have the highest divorce rate of any religious group in America… spitting right in Jesus “don’t get divorced, remarriage is adultery” Christ’s face).

No, but some old guy being able to build a boat big enough to hold every animal in the world, that makes sense to you. :rolleyes:

Never. You, and cultists like you, are a danger to my person, my rights, my freedoms and my life. Leaving “well enough alone” will only result in more innocent gay people being attacked, beatened, denied equality, denied continued existence, by hate cultists like you.

Kirk

35

Kirkland, once again, you show yourself to be a terrible ‘spokesman’ for any sort of gay agenda.

Your anti-fundamentalist rantings are NO better then fundamentalist anti-gay rantings.

36

Brutus, I think that Kirkland’s rhetoric could stand some improvement but I’m inclined to cut him some slack. We may give fundies a hard time on SDMB for not showing critical thinking but that’s a far cry from what gays and lesbians have to face in this country still. There are enlightend places but don’t think it’s universal. It’s still not safe to be out in a lot of America. I have two good fiends who are out but always live with the fear that someone may use their sexual orientation against them and jeopardize their ministry work.

37

Brutus, you’re wrong: Kirkland’s expressed opinion is not part of a cultural fabric of bigotry and hypocrisy that is actively trying to chip away at the civil rights of certain human beings–i.e., in h4e’s view, creatures of God. The selective scriptural citing that h4e thoughtlessly spouts contributes to the oppression of a group of people who, for whatever reason, gives narrowminded scripture spouters the freudian willies.

It seems pretty clear to me h4e and her ilk (to put it their own idiom) have been tempted by Satan to hate their neighbor, and have willingly succumbed to that tempatation. The joke’s on her; she’s failed the test and is going to hell.

38

Whoa! Tests??? Hell??? I better go study…

I realise that some gay people probably have problems being accepted in certain places. (Could that sentence be any vaguer?)

BUT…I don’t see attacking one group as a solution to the problems of another. (We’re talking domestic US policy here).

Sort of back the OP…I assume that there are Christian denominations that accept gay members? From my understanding, even the RCC no longer condemns homosexuality. Doesn’t it make sense to simply attend mass/etc at one of these churches?

39

His4Ever and JerseyDiamond, how do you interpret these words:

I’m willing to bet that you “interpret” those words right out of existence. But that’s probably OK for you, right?

40

I don’t understand why I’m being called names. All I’ve done is say what God has said about it in His word. And now I’m considered hateful, bigoted, etc. I can’t help it because people don’t like what it says. And all churches will never accept this practice as being okay. I used to go to a church that withdrew from a denomination over this issue. They can bring up all the old trestament laws they want to try and gain appoval for homosexuality. They’ll never get it from me or many other Christians. I’ve tried to share the truth in love and look what it’s got me. They just won’t accept it. So be it. As I said, let’s agree to disagree for I can never accept this practice because God doesn’t accept it. Period. And it has nothing to do with Jack Chick.