I used to be a Methodist, and hear my parents go on and on about how tolerant it is. Next time they do, I’m sending them a copy of that article. This is one major reason that I have my doubts about ever returning to that faith.
The other is “not believing in God” stuff.
There is no such thing. To hate my love as a sin is to totally, completely and unabashedly hate every aspect of my humanity. You cannot separate me into parts, and extract anything from me which isn’t gay. If you reject my sexuality, you hate and reject me. And on that note, right back at you.
That’s the general “you,” not a specific statement to Juanita.
So they pulled the old ‘True Scotsman’ thing?
I still resent the fact that my mother made me take those gay lessons as a kid, and spend hours upon hours practicing homosexuality, when I could have been playing Nintendo or something,
You don’t have to be a practicing homosexual once you’ve perfected it! 
LOL, Lib.
I think the vote’s a little close to make a blanket condemnation of all Methodists, btw. Can you imagine this even being an ISSUE for most Baptist groups? Or what the results would have been if it’d been put to vote before, say, the Southern Baptist Council or the Baptist Temple?
Um…why does the idea that the Baptists might have voted more overwhelmingly in favor of such a resolution have any bearing on anything?
I shouldn’t have singled out the Baptists, and in fact I didn’t mean to.
In context, the Methodists aren’t nearly as bad as they COULD be. Which, of course, is a million miles from excusing this vote, but it’s better than fucking zero.
Because, obviously, the Methodists are less bad.
“The Methodists cut off my foot!”
“Hey, that’s too bad, but can you imagine what the Baptists would’ve cut off?”
It doesn’t play.
Fine.
Oh, I’m right here. But I never said all Christians are tolerant of gays, or even all Methodists. Not sure what you mean by “mainstream,” though; I suppose under the theory “anyone not 100% with us is against us,” you may fairly lump all adherents of any not-100%-with-you-faith in the “enemies” camp (which pretty much covers Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). Seems kind of stupid to me, though, given the number of supporters of gay rights in my church and my denomination, and other churches and other denominations. But if I can’t be your friend and be a Methodist at the same time – hey, I don’t need to be your friend. God knows that where you’re concerned, GOBEAR, my continuing support of gay rights is not because of you, but in spite of you.
I could just as easily (and just as sarcastically) say, “What a pity GOBEAR isn’t here to post how tolerant and understanding gay people are of Christians, given that he’s a gay person.” But the difference between us is that I really am tolerant of gay people, not in spite of, but because of, my Christianity. You, on the other hand, are an anti-Christian bigot, either because of, or in spite of, your homosexuality. So while I may not be able to defend the actions of the national conference of my entire flipping denomination, I comfort myself that I continue to be a pretty good example of a Christian practicing tolerance. And as far as I can see, you are a singularly shitty example of a gay person practicing tolerance. Why you would think that this somehow makes you and your philosophy a better example of openness and acceptance than me and my religion, I have no idea; but, hey – whatever gets you through the day.
Turning to the larger issue: I was disappointed, but not surprised, by the actions of the National Conference. There was this year an increasing push to place the survival of the church above the exigencies of any one particular issue – especially one as explosive as this one. I realize that is difficult to understand by people who live and die (sometimes literally) by that one issue, but there was a noticable backlash this conference of people who felt that this may be the central issue of your life (generic “you”), you (generic “you”) do not have the right to make it the central issue of the entire church’s life – especially when irreconcilable moral beliefs amidst the various congregations very likely meant that pushing the issue would lead to schism and the death of the church.
So they papered over the issue and then pretended it wasn’t an issue at all. I don’t understand the long-term value of that, since it’s just putting off the inevitable. We must confront this issue, and we must deal with it, because if they think the issue is just going to go away, they are dreaming. It’s not going away; we will see to that.
Schism and the death of the church.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? If there is such fundamental disagreement on this issue that its continued discussion would lead to SADOC, is perhaps the church not worth saving? Would it not perhaps make some sense to cast away a church which embraces a tenet which is so at odds with one’s personal understanding of one’s religion? If the church is wrong on this moral issue, can it be trusted on others?
This sounded a lot better in my head when was planning it out but I hope it makes some sense.
Well, that’s the old conundrum, OTTO. At what point does the poison in a branch poison the entire tree? If one is morally deficient in one aspect, is one without any moral authority in any other aspect? I think the answer to this latter question must be “no,” or else the only moral authority among us would be perfect people with no moral failings. The only problem is that no such people exist.
I think we have to look at the good the church does in all its efforts and balance that against the harm it does by refusing to do the most right thing in this one area. For a person for whom this is THE issue, maybe the weighing leads to a different result than for a person (like me) for whom this is only one of many issues facing the church. By the same token, if I agree with my brothers and sisters in the UMC on virtually every issue but this one, do I turn my back on them over this one? Maybe you would say yes, but I hope you can see that others might just as reasonably say no. It is an enormous thing to decide the church is not worth saving, and ultimately that is a decision to be made by those within it, not those outside of it. And, in a way, they have made that decision by refusing to change the status quo. That this may be the wrong decision in the long run is certainly possible, maybe even probable, but I confess that in the short run, I am relieved. They may be papering over the cracks, but others are genuining trying to fill them, and I’d like to give them more time to accomplsih that before the whole thing is shattered apart.
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!
I don’t believe in your religion but I encourage you to embrace it and would defend your freedom to worship as you please. Your church, on the other hand, is officially against reciprocating the same tolerance. Certainly, the only times you ever post on the subject is to tell me to shut up and make lame excuses for your church’s prejudice. Congratualting yourself for not spitting on gay people doesn’t make you a supporter of gay people. As far as I can see, as long as you continue to stay in your church and not to speak up,
you
are
the
bigot.
" I may not be able to defend the actions of the national conference of my entire flipping denomination"–how fucking weak. Why not, “my church is fucking WRONG on this issue and I’m ashamed to call myself a Methodist”?
On second (and thrid) thought, I retract my last post. I know you’re a ggod person, Jodi, and that you want amity between your church and its gay perisioners.
What saddens me, though, is your persistence in dismissing righteous, legitimate anger at your church’s vote to condemn homosexuality as mere “bigotry.” 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
Y’know, this is one of the difficult points about one putative “advantage” of that whole Reformation shindig they had back 400 years ago – that if you find that what your church is is doing is intolerable, and after attempts to reform it you get nowhere, you can start it on your own. Because while it “liberates” you, it also creates the temptation of not bothering to slog it out for the long haul to effect change from within, AND an expectation by outsiders that believers abandoning their churches should be as casual as drivers getting rid of a car that turns out lemon. That’s an easy demand for ME to make of someone, but I’d be asking them to do something deeply painful at a level that I do not share.
Churches and religions have doctrines. Some believe in sticking to orthodoxy, some believe in a dynamic, evolving-with-the-times doctrine, some fall somewhere in-between. In any case, this doesn’t obligate the rest of us to wait for them to get their stuff squared away. I’d be inclined to let the UMC take care of its own internal problem, while working to make society-at-large change.
And btw, gobear, there’s plenty reason to be angry. But as you may have just noticed, the impression one makes by lashing out in a fit of rage can overpower that which one tries to make reasonably to express rightful indignation.
Agreed, and I’m trying to dial it back. The irony of having Jodi calling me a bigot for objecting to her church’s embrace of official anti-gay hate really infuriates me.
Dat’s me! (OK, not really…haven’t considered myself Methodist in years…)
I hate to bring You-Know-Who into this debate, but…I sort of have to wonder whether having a Methodist, not-exactly-gay-friendly leader of our nation has had anything to do with the distressing lurch of the Methodist council. When I lived in England, I found most Methodist churches to be very gay-friendly, much more so than the C of E.