# Methodists Avoid Scism; Condemn Homosexuals **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 5, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680 "2004-05-05T18:24:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Llama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@The\_Llama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Llama)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/61 "2004-05-06T21:16:21Z")
You know, \*\* otters \*\* is the only one I could ever agree with in that respect. If, after all of your questioning, after all of your research, you still decided that living the way jesus taught is still what you want to do, then I would agree to disagree with you, and respect your method. (Disagree with believing he was god, or there is a god, I think the golden rule is the best way to live) No ostracizing rules, no high and mighty rhetoric, just peaceful worship and practice with those that believe as you do. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/62 "2004-05-06T21:52:36Z")
> [@Otters We Love](#): > > I am a christian, yet I belong to no church. > I have a small group of people who believe as I do, indeed, we probably believe the same things Jodi does. > However, we have no statement nor rules on sexuality. > I think we should do away with denomiations ad just have local groups of believers. > Would solve a lot of hard feelings. Welcome, friend. I hope you sign up. If you need sponsorship, just let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Eyke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Eyke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyke)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/63 "2004-05-06T22:21:30Z")
> [@Otters We Love](#): > > I think we should do away with denomiations ad just have local groups of believers. > Would solve a lot of hard feelings. That would certainly be a _very_ fundimentalist view! 🙂 Being serious, the letters of Paul were written to individual congregations of Christians. These were local groups of believers who were having problems with getting along. Maybe Jesus should have said, “When two or more of you are together in my name, there will be problems.” ☹ ---
**Author:** ![UrbanChic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9dc877/32.png) [@UrbanChic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UrbanChic)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/64 "2004-05-06T22:41:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Is it just me, or is it pretty much only straight people who try to make this distinction? No, it is not just you. I don’t know how to convey my belief that when it comes to christians there is a difference. It is subtle but I still think there’s a difference. How about this: I don’t lump the United Methodist Church in with those who believe all homosexuals should be round up and jailed. The former condemns the acts, in other words a celibate homosexual is acceptable while the latter condemns the person, celibate or not. These are not statements with which I agree but I do feel that, with regards to christians to whom the passages in the bible that condemn homosexuality are key, the distinction is worth making. ---
**Author:** ![Eyke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Eyke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyke)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/65 "2004-05-06T23:04:26Z")
> [@The\_Llama](#): > > Where? And don’t give me any of that Leviticus crap, I’m sure Methodists eat pork and mix fabric in dresses. Levitcus, IMHO AWA others, are a set of rules that define who the Isrealite nation is. It is my firm believe, that since I’m a gentile, those rules do not apply to me. Paul has wrote some things that are not pro-gay, ref Romans 1:26-27. The thing is in interpetation. What is he trying to say and to whom? There are theologians that are reinterpeting his passages and seeing that though he brings it up, is he really condemning what we understand as same-sex relationships. One book to reference is “What the Bible _Really_ Says About Homosexuality” by Daniel Helminiak > [@The\_Llama](#): > > Personally, I can’t understand why any intelligent person would want to be a part of a religion, but it’s even harder for me to understand why a group who’s beliefs are so trodden upon would care one way or the other to be “accepted.” Sometimes I wonder myself and for a time was not going to church. I dunno, there’s something there that makes me want to go. Since I feel as if I need whatever ritualistic mumbojumbo that is part of the Christian experience, I trod off to church as often as I can. Maybe I feel that if I can show by my actions that I’m just as much as a Christian as they are, maybe they’ll start to change their mind. To me, the very basic tenent of Christianity is unconditional acceptance that we _all_ sin and fall short of the glory of God. Then, too, maybe I’m just pissing in the ocean to make the tide rise. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![whiterabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cab0a1/32.png) [@whiterabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whiterabbit)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/66 "2004-05-06T23:12:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Is it just me, or is it pretty much only straight people who try to make this distinction? Well, not all of us. I am no less straight, even though I’m not currently sexually active (nobody to be active with). **gobear** , say. would be no less gay if he were celibate. Why is this so hard for people to understand? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/67 "2004-05-07T00:49:48Z")
> [@JuanitaTech](#): > > No, it is not just you. I don’t know how to convey my belief that when it comes to christians there is a difference. It is subtle but I still think there’s a difference. How about this: I don’t lump the United Methodist Church in with those who believe all homosexuals should be round up and jailed. The former condemns the acts, in other words a celibate homosexual is acceptable while the latter condemns the person, celibate or not. > > These are not statements with which I agree but I do feel that, with regards to christians to whom the passages in the bible that condemn homosexuality are key, the distinction is worth making. I see what you’re saying, and I agree there is a difference between the Christian who says “love the sinner, hate the sin,” and the Christian who says “God hates fags.” However, to my mind, it is pretty much the difference between a Nazi and a garden variety anti-Semitic. The fact that there are some people who are even more intolerant than they are does not excuse their own lesser intolerance. The people who say “love the sinner, hate the sin” and argue that they are not homophobes are lying. To themselves, maybe, but it is a lie none the less. They are trying to salve their moral consciences by creating a distinction that does not exsist. They know that they have a morally untenable position, and are trying to invent an excuse that seperates them from the “real” bigots, but does not force them to re-examine their own beliefs, or take a stand against those their own parishes or religious hierarchy. I put it into the same category as those who use the word “nigger,” and try to excuse it on the grounds that white people can be niggers, too. It’s a bullshit, self-serving justification, and the only people who are going to buy it are those that share the underlying prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![Otters\_We\_Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3da27b/32.png) [@Otters\_We\_Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otters_We_Love)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/68 "2004-05-07T01:46:29Z")
Libertarian, how may I get in touch with you? My e mail is [ottersbymail@yahoo.com](mailto:ottersbymail@yahoo.com) ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/69 "2004-05-07T06:49:04Z")
GOBEAR – > [@](#): > > Oh, you think me a bigot because I am angry that your church thinks people who love members of their own gender should be condemned as filthy sinners? Gosh, how unreasonable of me! No, I think you’re a bigot based on virtually every post I’ve ever seen you post on Christianity. You’re gratuitious snarky shot at me in this thread only makes me think you’re snarky. But I do think you are an anti-Christian bigot. There is no way to sugar-coat that. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe in your religion but I encourage you to embrace it . . . Why not, “my church is fucking WRONG on this issue and I’m ashamed to call myself a Methodist”? That at least was worth a chuckle. 🙂 Gee, with all that encouragement to embrace my religion, it’s a wonder I ever leave the sanctuary. > [@](#): > > What saddens me, though, is your persistence in dismissing righteous, legitimate anger at your church’s vote to condemn homosexuality as mere “bigotry.” Oh, please. I have not dismissed anyone’s anger. Saying that I understand the basis for the decision doesn’t mean I dismiss the legitimate anger and frustration of those who feel excluded and turned away. Not only do I not dismiss that anger, I share it. I just find it ridiculous that people would expect me to give up my church over this one issue or any one issue. Besides, I wasn’t even involved in this conversation under your petty little shot at me. > [@](#): > > Do you really, genuinely think that gay people have no reason to be angry with the Methodist church, that we are just being irrationally prejudiced against your faith? No, I really, genuinely don’t think that at all. But then, I never said I did. I think _you_ are irrationally prejudiced against religion in general and Christianity in particular, but that opinion does not extend to most other gay people. Maybe that’s just because they haven’t made their contempt of my faith as explicit as you have. ATHELAS – > [@](#): > > I actually applaud the decision. No, really. The Bible clearly says that homosexuality (not homosexuals) is a sin; to repudiate that part would be to contaminate it with human interpretations. Ah, Biblical literalism. The refuge of those who do not wish to think for themselves. The Bible has already been subject to by human interpretation. Unless you imagine it was handed down from God in English, somehow translated into Aramaic, then to Greek, then to Latin, then back to English. KALHOUN – > [@](#): > > Jodi, that’s like saying, “I own slaves, but I’m good to them, so I’m really not so bad.” Really? How so? If I’m the slave-owner in this scenario, am I then a person who rejects gay people in my life, because the national convention of my church does? Slavery is an interesting choice for the comparison, because what would be more accurate would be to say that I was a 19th century Northern member of the UMC who refused to leave the church over the issue of slavery – as some did, forming the Methodist Free Church – despite my strong opposition to it, but who chose instead to fight within the church to have it repudiate the insitution. Which the church eventually did. > [@](#): > > Supporting a faith that guides your life, and belittles the existence of others to the point that they’re not accepted as members of your faith is wrong. A conscientious person would not want to align themselves with broad brush bigotry. _:: Patiently ::_ My faith does not belittle the existence of others. My faith does not exclude homosexuals as members of it, and neither does my church – and there is a difference between my faith and my church. There are many, many gay members of the UMC. My church affirms that gay people, no less than straight people, are people of sacred worth who should be embraced and supported with love and tolerance. So maybe you should learn a little more about my church before you decide it practices “broad brush bigotry.” I might give your opinion a little more credence if it seemed like an informed one. Though, to be honest, I might not. > [@](#): > > But when your church comes out and says you’re not allowed to disagree with their stance, well…I just think it’s time to go shopping for a new religion. You’d give them that power over you, huh? They tell you what you can talk about or disagree about, and you just roll right over? Not me, man. They’re not making me leave. They’re not shutting me up. I don’t give a rat’s ass if they don’t want to discuss it; we’re going to discuss. Next conference, and the next conference, and the one after that. In our pulpits, in our outreach, in our schools. And allow me to say that a person who thinks it’s just ever so easy to go “shopping” for a new religion, as if it’s a pair of shoes you’ve just tried on, is almost always a person for whom religion is not very important. Back to GOBEAR – > [@](#): > > That’s not fait to Jodi–she’s a good person who is torn between her faith and her conscience. Actually, I’m not. My faith and my conscience rub along pretty well together. I don’t feel the least bit torn. Disappointed sure, but torn? Nah. My choice of church is not driven by this single issue or any single issue. I have to decide if the church has value to me personally and as an institution in spite of this wrongheaded affirmation. And I believe that it does – enormous value. > [@](#): > > It’s got to be very difficult for her to walk that tightrope in dealing with a retrograde institution like the UMC. I don’t think it’s retrograde, I think it is openly and honestly dealing with an issue that the entire country is confronting. So I’m not experiencing much difficulty, and I don’t consider myself to be on a tightrope. > [@](#): > > She can despise me, but that won’t stop me from liking her. You know, I don’t understand you at all. How can you be as insulting and dismissive of my religion, my faith, and my church, and still say you like me? Do you not understand how intergral a part of me this is? I can’t imagine being openly contemptous of something so fundamental to another person and still claiming to like that person. I mean, I assume I would have concluded that this wrongheaded other person was either willfully deluded or soft in the head. Neither characteristic would incline me to admire them. At a minimum, if I liked that person I would attempt to rein in my contempt in their presence, not to be dishonest but rather to avoid hurting or insulting someone I liked. At a _bare_ minimum, I would not take random pot-shots at them over something I know is personally important, and potentially painful, to them. I am not asking you to change what you think of me, or what you say to me, or a single thing you might say about religion or any other subject at any time. I decided some time ago that I could not respect your opinion in this area, and so, frankly, I don’t pay much attention to what you say on this subject anymore. But I’m beyond surprised – I’m baffled – to hear you claim to like me. > [@](#): > > What troubles me is that she seems unable to understand that there are legitimate reasons for a gay man to be angry at an institution that condemns him for being who he is. I understand this perfectly. What have I said that indicates I do not? Absolutely there is a basis for anger here, and frustration. I would not expect a gay person to accept this decision; I’m a straight person and I don’t accept it, I reject it. [quot]Calling me a bigot for returning fire on the UMC is nonsense–she might as well have called a black person a bigot for criticizing pro-segregationist churches. [/quote] Let’s be clear: I called you a bigot because I think you’re a bigot. I’m sure you find that offensive, but there it is. You are IMO irrationally prejudiced against religions in general and Christianity in particular. And your bigotry is IMO exceptionally deplorable, because you should know better; your prejudice arises not from ignorance or lack of education, but from a willful disregard of facts inconvenient to your point of view – like the fact that this issue is a deeply conflicted one within my church, with strong feelings on both sides and with many pro-gay rights supporters. I know you know there’s more to this issue in the UMC than meets the eye, because you’ve been party to discussions about it in the past. But you ignore that information in favor of judging this one action as proof of that all of mainstream Christianity – heck, you can’t even limit yourself to the UMC – is intolerant and ignorant. Then you commiserate over what you imagine t be my struggle and claim you like me. Like I said, I don’t understand you at all. But don’t trouble yourself to explain; I’m sure you’re aware that you have no obligation to explain yourself to me, and indeed I’m not asking you to. For better or for worse, I think I know as much about you as I need to know. And I probably will not have the time to respond any further anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/70 "2004-05-07T12:34:23Z")
> [@Eyke](#): > > Sometimes I wonder myself and for a time was not going to church. I dunno, there’s something there that makes me want to go. Since I feel as if I need whatever ritualistic mumbojumbo that is part of the Christian experience, I trod off to church as often as I can. > > Maybe I feel that if I can show by my actions that I’m just as much as a Christian as they are, maybe they’ll start to change their mind. To me, the very basic tenent of Christianity is unconditional acceptance that we _all_ sin and fall short of the glory of God. Then, too, maybe I’m just pissing in the ocean to make the tide rise. :dubious: Are you “out” at church? Do you openly discuss your predicament with your pastor and fellow parishoners? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/71 "2004-05-07T13:13:28Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > KALHOUN – > > Really? How so? If I’m the slave-owner in this scenario, am I then a person who rejects gay people in my life, because the national convention of my church does? Slavery is an interesting choice for the comparison, because what would be more accurate would be to say that I was a 19th century Northern member of the UMC who refused to leave the church over the issue of slavery – as some did, forming the Methodist Free Church – despite my strong opposition to it, but who chose instead to fight within the church to have it repudiate the insitution. Which the church eventually did. By belonging to a church that condemns homosexuality, you are supporting their stance. You can say you’re fighting it, and I believe you’re trying, in some way. But your membership alone is supporting their stance. Now, if you broke away and formed a modern day “Methodist Free Church”-type group, your energies might be better spent. After all, they did say the subject is no longer up for discussion. They’ve made their opinion abundently clear, and you continue to align yourself with them. > [@](#): > > _:: Patiently ::_ My faith does not belittle the existence of others. My faith does not exclude homosexuals as members of it, and neither does my church Delegates at a United Methodist Church conference voted yesterday to condemn homosexuality How else am I supposed to read this statement? Your church condemns them. It is belittling their existence. How much plainer can they make it? > [@](#): > > my church affirms that gay people, no less than straight people, are people of sacred worth who should be embraced and supported with love and tolerance. Not according to their statement. I didn’t make it up. I believe the Washington Post is a pretty reliable source. > [@](#): > > So maybe you should learn a little more about my church before you decide it practices “broad brush bigotry.” I might give your opinion a little more credence if it seemed like an informed one. Though, to be honest, I might not. Your church marginalizes a group of people for who they love; not who they hate. That’s broad and bigoted. I’ve learned about as much about your religion as I care to. It’s not a club I’d want to be a member of. In fact, I’d be downright embarrassed to make the claims you make regarding your efforts, and still be a member. You don’t like their stand on a HUGE issue. A humanitarian issue. What _would_ it take for you to say they’re no longer worthy of your membership? Delegates at a United Methodist Church conference voted yesterday to condemn homosexuality and to reject a statement saying Christians disagree on the issue. “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” If homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, they are saying homosexuals can’t be good christians. It’s pretty clear. > [@](#): > > You’d give them that power over you, huh? They tell you what you can talk about or disagree about, and you just roll right over? Not me, man. They’re not making me leave. They’re not shutting me up. I don’t give a rat’s ass if they don’t want to discuss it; we’re going to discuss. Next conference, and the next conference, and the one after that. In our pulpits, in our outreach, in our schools. It’s a pretty unconvincing fight if you’re still supporting them, emotionally and financially. I think the slavery analogy was pretty fitting. Owning slaves and saying you’re against slavery are opposing stands. > [@](#): > > And allow me to say that a person who thinks it’s just ever so easy to go “shopping” for a new religion, as if it’s a pair of shoes you’ve just tried on, is almost always a person for whom religion is not very important. Very perceptive! All I’m saying is that if you feel a need to belong to a religious group, there may be one that would fit better than this one. You say this issue is important enough that you’ll fight at every convention. Great. But you should be fighting from the other side, and not supporting the very group you’re fighting against. It just doesn’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/72 "2004-05-07T13:46:47Z")
Not content with the affront earlier in the week, UMC delegates have also made it a chargeable offense under church law for clergy to conduct same-sex marriages. Oh wait, that’s still not good enough. The Fundaloonies in the church are _still_ wanting scism [from PlanetOut.com](http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/05/06/2) > [@](#): > > “I think that a number of us in the evangelical coalition are wondering if it’s time for us to consider some kind of loving division,’” said the Rev. James Heidinger, leader of the Methodist evangelical group Good News. “Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.” Bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/73 "2004-05-07T13:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > By belonging to a church that condemns homosexuality, you are supporting their stance. You can say you’re fighting it, and I believe you’re trying, in some way. But your membership alone is supporting their stance. So, what choices does **Jodi** have here? 1. She can stay and fight ignorance from the inside. 2. She can leave. Which do you think will change more minds? Which do you think has a better chance of succeeding in the fight against ignorance? Again, the UMC is not a monolithic entity. The Methodist church isn’t like the Catholic church, where the word of the Vatican is law. Methodist parishes are somewhat independent. So, if **Jodi** continues to attend her services, and continues to fight ignorance, she actually has a chance _to make a real difference_. She can stand up and say, “I’m a Methodist, and I support gay rights.” That will not happen if she leaves, guaranteed. That would be saying “You can’t be a Methodist and support gay rights.” No, I left the Methodist church some time ago (not over this, over something else). But your attitude, **Kalhoun** , is defeatist in the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/74 "2004-05-07T13:50:45Z")
[More info on the proposed scism](http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=17&mid=4686) > [@](#): > > A proposed resolution to the denomination’s top legislative assembly, meeting through May 7, may not come to the floor before the end of General Conference. But two key conservative church leaders openly talked May 6 about an “amicable” divorce over “irreconcilable differences.” > > “‘United Methodist’ is an oxymoron,” said the Rev. Bill Hinson, president of the Confessing Movement and former senior pastor at First United Methodist Church in Houston. “We haven’t been united for a long time. Others ridicule us as the ‘untied’ Methodist Church.” > > “We have no expectation that we can ever reach an agreement,” said the Rev. James V. Heidinger II, president of the Good News organization, “and the dialogue and debate have gone on for 30 years. This is a deep theological divide.” > > Heidinger said the possible resolution “may or may not” be offered at this General Conference. Copies of the document were distributed to the media. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/75 "2004-05-07T13:52:38Z")
> [@](#): > > You know, I don’t understand you at all. How can you be as insulting and dismissive of my religion, my faith, and my church, and still say you like me? Do you not understand how intergral a part of me this is? I can’t imagine being openly contemptous of something so fundamental to another person and still claiming to like that person. Your church is openly contemptuous of me! Your church voted to condemn homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teaching, and yet you call me bigoted. Your church does NOT “affirm that gay people, no less than straight people, are people of sacred worth who should be embraced and supported with love and tolerance” when they vote to condemn my 3-year relationship as inherently sinful. You cannot have it both ways, try as you might. I understand that you wish to remain part of your church and to continue engagement with its antigay stance. From my POV, however, your church is hypocritical, professing love and tolerance out of one side of its mouth while spewing condemnation from the other. [quote] For better or for worse, I think I know as much about you as I need to know. And I probably will not have the time to respond any further anyway. [/quote[ And then you dismiss any possibility of constructive discussion. Fine, we can remain two stubborn people glaring at each other across the board for all eternity. I ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/76 "2004-05-07T14:03:13Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > So, what choices does **Jodi** have here? > > 1. She can stay and fight ignorance from the inside. > 2. She can leave. > > Which do you think will change more minds? Which do you think has a better chance of succeeding in the fight against ignorance? > > Again, the UMC is not a monolithic entity. The Methodist church isn’t like the Catholic church, where the word of the Vatican is law. Methodist parishes are somewhat independent. So, if **Jodi** continues to attend her services, and continues to fight ignorance, she actually has a chance _to make a real difference_. She can stand up and say, “I’m a Methodist, and I support gay rights.” That will not happen if she leaves, guaranteed. That would be saying “You can’t be a Methodist and support gay rights.” > > No, I left the Methodist church some time ago (not over this, over something else). But your attitude, **Kalhoun** , is defeatist in the extreme. I disagree. As Gobear said, you can’t have it both ways. You either support them or you fight them. You say they’re not a monolithic entity, but in fact, they made a statement that speaks for the entire religion. And they’re so pig-headed that they refuse to discuss it! Yeah…Jodi can carry on and fight the fight, but They. Don’t. Care. Talk about defeatist! Fight them without forking over the money that feeds THEIR cause. If you’re truly interested in seeing change, you have to stop supporting them. And, according the Methodist doctrine, you really _CAN’T_ be Methodist and support gay rights. Jodi may be something close to Methodist, but at this point, she does not believe what her church believes. You join the religion – the religion doesn’t join you. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/77 "2004-05-07T14:12:40Z")
**Kalhoun** , you ain’t listening either. **Jodi** _is_ fighting. And the Methodist church is **not** a monolithic entity. Individual parishes _do_ have the right to ignore the common council’s words. This is **not** having it both ways. You live in a country with a President that has supported a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Are you implicit in that decision? Should you leave the country? Or are you going to work to effect change? As for “you can’t be Methodist and support gay rights,” of course you can. The whole point of Methodism is that parishioners are their own ministers. Again, Methodism is not like other congregationalist sects. It is really up to the individual believer to decide what he or she believes. There are no priests in Methodism, only pastors who are considered church leaders. You can believe what you like in Methodism, be as liberal or conservative or decide not to drink or gamble or whatever. You can’t be excommunicated for not agreeing with the Methodist church. There is no religion to join, no set of rules to follow. I suggest you read a bit about the Methodist church before making such statements about it. It’s clear you really don’t understand it when you say “You join the religion – the religion doesn’t join you.” There is **no** Methodist religion, period. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/78 "2004-05-07T14:21:08Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > **Kalhoun** , you ain’t listening either. **Jodi** _is_ fighting. And the Methodist church is **not** a monolithic entity. Individual parishes _do_ have the right to ignore the common council’s words. That’s not entirely true. As I’ve shown, they’ve strengthened the rules to allow pastors to be charged if they perform same-sex marriages or to be defrocked if they are homosexual and have an active sex life. They’ve voted to deny an addition to the Social Principles that acknowledges disagreement on the issue. I’m sorry, but the truth is, the General Convention does not allow for variation on this issue. Because if you actually do anything to show the inherent worth of the homosexual you can be charged with a church crime. The claim to value the worth of the homosexual is a lie. The church has made it clear that we aren’t welcome. They’ve made a mockery of their own Social Principles. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/79 "2004-05-07T14:23:20Z")
Well, if the apparent designs of the harder-line conservative wing to have a schism _anyway_ get any sort of traction, it may be that the pro-gay Methodists’ conundrum is solved in spite of them. From **Homebrew** ’s link, one of the conservative potential schismatics: > [@](#): > > “They say they feel spiritually assaulted,” he said, referring to groups which support including homosexuals, “and that we’re using our strength to push our laws on them. But our people are hurting, too. We hurt when they hurt. Nobody is going home happy, because ‘we’ve held them off one more time.’ We’re hurting each other Notice, though, that the same article would indicate that the _liberal_ faction is vigorously opposed to any schism or split, and so are the more moderate conservatives. Wotta mess. Sometimes you do wonder if democracy is a good idea for a religion. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680/80 "2004-05-07T14:26:16Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > **Kalhoun** , you ain’t listening either. **Jodi** _is_ fighting. And the Methodist church is **not** a monolithic entity. Individual parishes _do_ have the right to ignore the common council’s words. I’m trying to understand…honest. Why would they make a statement such as the one they made if no one has to follow it. And why the heavy-handedness, in saying it’s not up for discussion? You’re saying these guys are just blowing hot air and they KNOW no one has to listen to them? > [@](#): > > This is **not** having it both ways. You live in a country with a President that has supported a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Are you implicit in that decision? Should you leave the country? Or are you going to work to effect change? I don’t equate government with religion. A democratic society is designed to foster dissent and change. Religion is something you sign up for. I don’t know why anyone would want to belong to _any_ church, but certainly not one whose tenets went against your position on an important subject. But if what you say is true, regarding no one having to follow the common council, there really isn’t much structure to it to begin with. Sort of a non-religion, I guess. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/methodists-avoid-scism-condemn-homosexuals/243680.md?page=5)