I’m Assembly of God, sometimes thinking its a bit too righty for me & wondering what would be a good church to switch if it ever came to that- UMC actually has gained some points with me this week. Alas, in 10 years, I still think it’ll be where the ECUSA is now.
An irony to me about the Methodist decision: as I’ve said many times on this board and other forums, the only marital law that God himself felt so strongly about that he wrote in stone with his own hand was “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, actually fled Georgia literally in the middle of the night due to a sex scandal involving a married woman and was later divorced by his wife (after a long disaster of a union) for strong suspicion of adultery, but c’est la vie.
I’ll have Christianity on the Meat & Three plan, please… Let’s have some Methodism with divorcees, ordained women and churches built with mortgages*, but hold the homosexuals. They are strictly forbidden on this diet.
*Three no-nos from the Bible ignored by the Methodist Church
HWMBO would be glad to hear someone else has a problem with the phrase “practicing homosexual”. His comment is, “What? Heterosexuals don’t need to practice?” :rolleyes:
Sounds like a thread on MPSIMS or IMHO 
This is sad news.
I’m not a Methodist, so I guess I have no say in the rules they decide to post on their treehouse, but the fact that such a large denomination might decide to stop discriminating against homosexuals gave me a warm happy feeling that maybe our society was moving in the Right Direction after all . . .
This setback is disheartening.
Practicing Methodist who agrees with Jodi, albeit from a somewhat less gay-friendly corner, checking in.
One of the things to remember about the United Methodist Church and its many parishes and members, is that it is at times a little too prone to going with the local flow. Thus I grew up in a “German Lutheran- United Methodist church”, my parents now attend a “Baptist Bible Belt Methodist Church” Churches in the Pacific Northwest are prone to being New Age-y. Churches in San Fransico are (often) Pro-gay. Churches in rural communities are sometimes hostile to Female Pastors. I have also heard that the church leadership is more liberal than much of the membership. (Thus meaning that the percentage of church members nationwide who would have voted in a pro-gay manner is probably lower than the number of people at General Conference that did so.)
I’m not sure that Schism would neccessarily lead to the death of the church. I would be horrified if it did. I would be horrified if schism had occured. I have a feeling that Jodi is right, and the issues have not gone away, and will not go away.
I used to be a member of a UMC. The pastor lamented the fact that the church is far too often following society on social issues rather than leading. The church had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights movement in the past and will have to be dragged into the 21st century on Gay Rights, he said. It seems he was right.
I guess the actions of the UMC GC is not all that suprising to me. Still it is disappointing for them to blindly say, “Conflict, what conflict? There’s no conflict here. We’re all in agreement, homosexuality is bad.” I always get a kick out of their billboards stating, “Open Doors, Open Hearts.” to which I mentally add, “Closed Minds.”
I know a female pastor who had a church in a backwoods rural area of central PA. She was removed because she was too liberal and brought that whole “homosexual agenda” into the church. HWMBO and I plus a few other supporters attended her final church service. Her words as she left were, “I did not bring the homosexual issue to this church. It was here when I came and it will be here when I leave.” IIRC, she also said she was worried about the children if they start to question their sexuality.
As I said, I am a queer Lutheran involved in Lutherans Concerned, a GBLT group trying to change the Lutheran church from within. As some of you are aware, the Lutheran church is going thru a 5 year study of human sexuality. Specifically, whether gays in same-sex relationships should be pastors and whether to bless same-sex unions. What will the result be when the votes are cast next year? I can not say, but I would imagine the church will vote to uphold the status quo (We’re Lutherans after all 
). Will I leave leave if the church if the vote does not go my way? Probably not. I converted to Lutheranism from, of all things, Methodism. As long as I am treated with respect by the church, I can agree to disagree.
It’s only a good sign for religious homosexuals. I take it as a very bad sign for the church in general.
I actually applaud the decision. ducks
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.
“Well, you know, I’m a kleptomanic, and that eighth commandment is rather annoying. So I’ll say that it needs to change with changing times. There it goes! Yay!”
Agree with them or condemn them; at least they are holding the line on their faith.
And the “no dissent vote” is not really as strange as it sounds; it’s like how public school teachers can vote to not teach creationism. It’s a matter of what you teach people, not what you believe.
ducks, runs
There is no difference. To accept homosexuals who are celibate is to deny them sexuality. They wouldn’t deny sexuality to anyone else.
You so aren’t getting away that easily. Is there a Methodist vote condeming eaters of shellfish? People who spill their seed upon the ground? Wearers of poly-blend fabric? People who associate with women during their period?
Before you applaud them for being consistent, let them be consistent. Also, what is the official Methodist dogma on “Judge not, lest ye be judged” anyway?
I’m sorry you feel this way, but it sounds to me like you are coinflating Methodism with some of the more conservative faiths that tend to get more airtime. Methodism as a whole generally does not believe in Biblical inerrancy or literalism, and will recognize the contexts that the various books of the Bible were written. Thus it would not be generally inconsistent with their teachings to start “contaminating” the Bible with human interpetations, as that in and of itself isn’t going to be the issue for Methodism.
Again, note that I am only a former (according to me at least) Methodist, but have attended church for the majority of the last twelve years. Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest, which you can take as you will. But I don’t think that will change that fact that Methodists have never had a problem with human interpetations.
Jodi, that’s like saying, “I own slaves, but I’m good to them, so I’m really not so bad.”
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.
Can I get an Amen brother???
This is my rant when people say homosexuality is not consistant with the Bible. I like to say, “ahem…neither are you” Yes there are passages that speak against homosexual behavior, but before we can blindly say, “see…see…” we have to understand the context of those verses. One letter in the local paper quoted a Deuteronmy passage, in my rebuttal, I said “That has to do with temple prostitutes, not the kind of relationship we are discussing now.”
I am not opposed to quoting scripture and then giving my spin on those passages that I’ve derived from reading theologians. I’m sure it really irks them to see the Bible being used against them no matter how rational I seem.
We can all only hope that in ten years the UMC is as open, caring, progressive and Christian as the Episcopal Church.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Jodi, that’s like saying, “I own slaves, but I’m good to them, so I’m really not so bad.”
[/quote
That’s not fait to Jodi–she’s a good person who is torn between her faith and her conscience. It’s got to be very difficult for her to walk that tightrope in dealing with a retrograde institution like the UMC. She can despise me, but that won’t stop me from liking her.
Jodi doesn’t, IMO, associate herself with broad brush bigotry and I beleive that she is trying to effect change in her church.
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. 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.
Where? And don’t give me any of that Leviticus crap, I’m sure Methodists eat pork and mix fabric in dresses.
And nowhere in the 10 commandments is there anything even close to mentioning homosexuality. So to put one on level with the other is out of line.
I am a hard-core atheist, but I was brought up catholic, and I still read as much as possible on these subjects. I have read a great deal of the bible and enjoy the research aspect of religions. 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.” It looks to me like a black person being pissed he can’t join the KKK.
Yes, yes, I know, people grew up in a specific religion, and then accept the fact that they’re gay, but also still believe in god, etc, and want to be able to stay. But if you’ve taken that first step in realizing that a major tenet of your religion is wrong, why not take the next one and see what else they’re wrong about.
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.
Is it just me, or is it pretty much only straight people who try to make this distinction?
I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head, Miller.
Re: Gobear’s comments on Jodi. I understand a person being torn, and I understand a person trying to effect change in the church. 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. They’re saying they don’t want to discuss it. That sounds like she’ll be beating a dead horse for a very long time.