Northeast United Methodists Vow Pro-LGBT Defiance; Evangelicals Pledge Fidelity to Church

The declining, liberal dominated Northeastern Jurisdiction (NEJ) of United Methodism, meeting in Charleston, WV, this week, has declared defiance against the church’s teaching on sexual ethics.

Meanwhile, evangelicals in the jurisdiction have declared their fidelity to the church’s stance.

Sixty one percent of the 227 delegates vowed their dissent. “Leaders of the conferences that comprise our jurisdiction, including cabinet members, bishops and members of boards and agencies of the annual conference, while bound to the Book of Discipline, are also bound to exercise their consciences and are bound by Jesus’s commandment to stand with the marginalized and the oppressed in our midst when called upon to enforce unjust laws, policies and procedures to the detriment of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals wishing to participate fully in the life of The United Methodist Church and those who minister faithfully to them; and be it further resolved, that the jurisdictional conference recognize that individuals who take punitive actions against others for offering the sacraments and rituals of the church on an equal basis do so contrary to the highest ideals of the United Methodist Church at the risk of causing grave harm to LGBT persons, their loved ones, their sisters and brothers in Christ, faithful clergy and the United Methodist Church itself.”

Shortly after the NEJ vote, the Northeast Jurisdiction Evangelical Connection (NEJEC) of United Methodists released its own statement:

“The NEJEC is disappointed with the “Statement of Principle” concerning LGBT issues that was adopted today by the Northeast Jurisdiction (NEJ) of the United Methodist Church. This statement stands in opposition to the doctrine and discipline of the United Methodist Church. A Jurisdictional Conference does not have the authority to speak in a manner contrary to the General Conference of the denomination. Therefore, we do not believe this statement can be implemented or enforced in any way. The position of the United Methodist Church on human sexuality has not changed. It remains consistent with 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian ethical tradition and continues to reflect the overwhelming consensus of opinion by Christians of all denominations world-wide. We call on all bishops and clergy members in the Northeast Jurisdiction to be faithful to their vows and continue to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the denomination.”

The NEJEC is a network of evangelical United Methodists from throughout the jurisdiction, including several delegates to the 2012 NEJ Conference. Despite the NEJ vote defying the church on sexual ethics, one of its three newly elected bishops is a graduate of Asbury Seminary and considered evangelical. Rev. Mark Webb of York, PA, was elected after a prolonged gridlock that culminated with 35 ballots.

NEJ as of 2010 had 1.3 million members and had lost 15 percent of its membership since 2000. United Methodism has 7.6 million members in the U.S. and over 4.4 million outside the U.S.

Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 6:21 am

Living in Northeast Pennsylvania as I do, I’ve seen too many UM churches closed due to lack of interest which means lack of funds to keep them afloat along with lack of attendance. Yet the leadership of the church spends time debating the selfish interests of a few. This continued defiance of the church’s teaching on sexual ethics is having a detrimental affect and turning people off. No one wants to be part of a church that is being torn apart with this loosening of moral values just to make a minor group feel good about their sexual preferences. .How incredibly selfish.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 7:12 am

Miss Marilyn (et al): The churches who support our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters don’t do it to make “selfish” people “feel good” about themselves. We do so in a good faith effort to follow God, walking in the steps of Christ our Savior.

We may disagree about this particular behavior, but that does not mean that we are not pledging fidelity to God (to God, not “the church”) or that we have immoral, irresponsible reasons for doing so.

After all, we think you (collectively “you,” not just you personally) are mistaken on this point and causing harm to the Church, but we don’t suggest you all do so for selfish, ugly reasons or that you aren’t our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 7:25 am

Well, that’s just wonderful, not to mention self-righteous.
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 7:48 am

Dear Dan, I’m sorry for the obvious sarcasm in the above reply to you. In re-reading what you wrote, this struck me as relevant to your thoughts: ” We may disagree about this particular behavior, but that does not mean that we are not pledging fidelity to God (to God, not “the church”.)…” This makes me wonder what you think “the church” is that you separate it the way that you do. How is that “walking in the steps of Christ, your Savior”?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 10:15 am

The church is the fallible human collection of Christ’s followers. My fidelity is to a perfect, holy, glorious God, not an imperfect, prone to error collection of my peers.

Don’t get me wrong: I LOVE the church. I belong to a wonderful, God-following, Bible-loving collection of brothers and sisters. But my allegiance is not to “the church,” but to God. My church helps me in our collective walk to follow in Christ’s steps, but I would never equate my church or its members (and they are truly the very best of Christendom, as far as I’m concerned) with God.

Doesn’t that seem reasonable.

And I’m sorry if what I said sounds self-righteous, it was not my intent. What specifically did I say that sounds self-righteous so that I can watch my words better?

You’re not referring to my statement that I happen to believe “my side” (ie, those who agree with my understanding on marriage equity) to be right and your “side” to be mistaken? If that is it, well, is that any different than your position? You believe your understanding to be correct and mine to be wrong, isn’t that right? There’s nothing especially self-righteous about holding opinions, is there?

As to my points, do you understand what I’m saying? That we’re not “rejecting” God, that we don’t do it for shallow reasons of making people “feel good,” or to be in rebellion to the church… we do it to follow God. We just disagree with the segment of church that is opposed to marriage equity, but we are doing it out of pure hearts seeking to follow God – do you get that point, even if we disagree about the correctness of the others’ position?
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 11:01 am

It is not a “segment of church that is opposed to marriage equity” as you stated. It is the few who are sucking the oxygen out of the church meetings and conferences who are the minority. They want the church to march to their drumbeat (and drumbeat it was at the last Annual Conference). The tail wants to wag the dog.
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 20, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Dan,
I remind you that you took vows to uphold the doctrine and the Discipline of the “church”. You are in covenant with all who have done that. When the time comes that you can no longer honor that covenant, the honorable thing to do is to leave and find a place where you can minister with integrity. It is not your place to create anarchy and call it “faithful”. You are welcome to work for change within the boundaries created by holy conferencing, but until that change comes, you are bound by covenant to teach what the church teaches – to abide by the Discipline – period.
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Yes, I just now saw your reply. Problem is that we had a bishop who totally ignored her vows a few years ago and demonstrated and led walk-outs of this issue. Some of us signed letters of investigation about her that were turned down by other bishops for further action. There is a conspiracy among bishops to protect each other. How can local ministers adhere to their vows when bishops do not and act against the discipline with impunity? They are poor examples for ministers as well as laypersons.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm

I took a vow to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church?

1. Which church?

2. Not in my faith tradition, Wesley. At least not literally. In the Baptist/Anabaptist tradition which I have grown up in/identify most with, we believe in the priesthood of the believer, where each person is ultimately responsible not to fallen humans, but to God and God alone.

Having said that, I DO uphold the church herself, I work to follow in Christ’s steps, loving and supporting my fellow Christians. It’s one reason why I strive to avoid demonizing them, even when they disagree with me. And I do strive to maintain/support the Teachings of Christ (ie, loosely, “doctrine”) and the discipling of myself and my fellow believers. But none of us are rationally or biblically beholden to one human-made denominations specific creeds.

So, it appears to me that you are speaking from a faith tradition/denomination that I’m not part of (what is “the Discipline” to which you refer? what are “the vows” to which you refer? Those terms do not appear in the Bible or my faith tradition…). Maybe one could make the case that IF someone has taken “vows” to a specific human tradition, you can reasonably make the case that they should step aside from that tradition if they don’t agree with those vows. Maybe. But that one tradition is not all of Christendom or the Church, right?
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Dan,
I’m sorry. I assumed you were a member of the UMC. It is that church I was referring to. That is where a covenant vow is taken by every pastor that they are in agreement with the doctrines and theology of the church and will teach it and defend it. I’m not sure why someone of another faith wants to get involved in this UM fight.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm

Wesley (what a great name for a Methodist!)…

I’m sorry. I assumed you were a member of the UMC.

No problem. I’ve certainly visited Methodist churches and have had UMC friends and read a good amount of the Wesley boys, but I’m no Methodist.

Wesley…

I’m not sure why someone of another faith wants to get involved in this UM fight.

I absolutely don’t want to be a part of any fight, but as a fellow Christian in love with my other fellow Christians, I am concerned when any of us bite and snap, gossip or twist the Others’ positions. I’m just doing my part to make a call for civility and respect when it comes to dialog amongst one another.

I’m sick of the divisiveness and bitterness that comes about (and gets so freely expressed) when brothers and sisters in Christ disagree – which seems to happen especially frequently on these internets.

I’m just making a call to try to get us to move from…

THOSE people don’t want to follow God, they just want to destroy the church and embrace Satan’s ways…

(when clearly, this is not what any of us “want” to do – even when we’re mistaken, it is almost always an honest mistake)

I want to see us move from THAT, to something more like…

My brother/sister, I strongly disagree with your position. I think you’re mistaken and your take on this position, I think, is undermining the work of the church…

More like that. I have no problem with disagreement, just with demonization and tearing down one another.

Doesn’t that seem reasonable and, well, Christian?
Comment by jpinsatx - Hmmm... on July 21, 2012 at 9:46 am

Hmmm… There are many doctrines of a less essential nature… In these we may think and let think; we may ‘agree to disagree.’ These are the fundamental doctrines… summed up, as it were, in two words, — the new birth, and justification by faith.

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

– John Wesley
Comment by Rick on July 24, 2012 at 11:00 am

You do not “equate” your (the) church with God? Has their been a divine divorce?
My Bible tells me that the “church” is the “Bride of Christ”…..how can you or humankind separate that?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 24, 2012 at 11:24 am

Separated from God? No. I did not say that (look at my actual words and you can see that).

But that does not make us infallible, does it?

I’m merely stating the obvious: We are fallible. The church itself is fallible. There is not one single scripture nor one bit of real world evidence that I can think of to suggest otherwise.

Rather, “We see now, as through a glass, darkly… Now, we know in part…”

In part, not completely know everything.

Is it the case that you think you (or your local church, or your denomination) is infallible?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 11:10 am

I’m sorry, Marilyn. What I was saying was that me and my “tribe” are a segment of the church. We disagree with the majority segment on this issue, the majority being the “segment of the church opposed to marriage equity…” I wasn’t trying to suggest those opposed to marriage equity were the minority.

My point is: We don’t want to “wag the dog,” we want to be true to God and follow in the the Way of Jesus, as best we understand it. We just disagree with the majority on this issue.

My point is that we would have better dialog if we didn’t demonize the Other, suggesting “WE want to follow God, while THEY want to make sin acceptable… WE want to be true to God’s Ways while THEY want to reject God’s ways…” We ALL want to follow God and we just disagree, as Christians have throughout church history. It’s not ideal, but it happens.

The big problem, it seems to me, is not in disagreeing (we’re imperfect humans and we’re going to disagree) but in the demonization of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Does that point seem reasonable?

And did my explanation about following God, not “the church” make sense?

Thanks.
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Your explanation about following God and not the church does not make sense to me. To turn it into an issue of demonizing does not make sense, either. This is an example of a deflection from the real problem. It is an attempt to weaken the church and make it irrelevant. This may not be the only reason for empty and closing churches in our area of Pennsylvania, but this issue does not go unnoticed.
Comment by Andreas Kjernald on July 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Very interesting debate. I couldn’t help but to offer my thoughts (well, not all of them).

The underlying problem for any Christian is “who is the authority?” When it comes to matters of sin or no sin, there is no room for disagreeing while still being one church, one body under one God. The simple truth is that either HBTQ living is a sin or it isn’t. Sin can’t become a virtue no matter how long you give it or how we vote on it. The church is not a democracy with God with one vote and us with one vote each.

Thus, Christians MUST understand that they are fallible and prone to errors and blindspots in their theology which is why we have something called “church”, i.e. something supernatural to lead us (the Holy Spirit) in the historical and orthodox faith once delivered to the disciples by Jesus Himself.
If you both, as am I, are not Catholics or Orthodox, we have very little authority to lean on. How arrogant to say that we know after 2000 years what God meant by family and sex?
As Methodists we have a fairly solid base since it comes from Anglicanism which comes from Rome and Constantinople. The Bible is the supreme authority, yes, but whose interpretation (in these days of soundbites and jingles and Twitter)?

It is a big problem to demonize each other but it is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is losing sight of God’s holy love while either cozying up to sin or cozying up to being right rather than loving your enemy.

Thanks,
Andreas
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 7:47 pm

Andreas, you wrote: ” How arrogant to say that we know after 2000 years what God meant by family and sex?” Are you saying that our understanding of it has been wrong for 2000 years! Isn’t that a tad arrogant? What am I missing?
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 7:51 pm

P.S. What is HBTQ living? Furthermore;, whatever it is, do you consider it a sin? If so, why or if not, why not? YOU brought it up, after all!
Comment by Andreas Kjernald on July 20, 2012 at 7:57 pm

I was trying to say that in a situation where our understanding of something hasn’t changed in the essentials since Biblical times and the Bible calls something a sin and the historical church has held on to that belief…it is pretty arrogant for somebody in the year 2012 to come on to the scene and say that everybody’s been mistaken, regardless the issue.
Comment by Andreas Kjernald on July 21, 2012 at 3:54 am

Sorry, I live in Sweden and should have explained. HBTQ is Homosexual, Bisexual, Transexueal and Queer. These lifestyles are sinful since the Bible says they are (while obviously also failing the “test” of blind evolution, if one should believe in that. Survival of the fittest for the future of the race hardly seems likely in their case).

The historical and orthodox faith have always held to it as well and since our understanding and Biblical times’ understanding of these lifestyles match, we can be certain that HBTQ today is sinful.
Comment by Scarletjho on August 13, 2012 at 7:42 am

Hi Brian,It’s natural to think it’s uniafr at times. At times things simply do seem uniafr. However that’s where we need to trust in God and remember that it would’ve been fair if God didn’t save us and let us pay the price for our sins. It’s easy to forget about the mercy that God has shown us in our lives I know this helps me a lot. It also convicts me!
Comment by Inigo de Ona on August 13, 2012 at 9:58 am

Actually, my belief is that for us to think that the interpretation has been wrong for 2000 years and that our own modern sensibilities are correct is arrogant.
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 8:02 pm

Andreas, Another thing – you wrote “It is a big problem to demonize each other but it is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is losing sight of God’s holy love while either cozying up to sin or cozying up to being right rather than loving your enemy.”
I figure that you must be fairly young to consider what is the biggest problem in life. When you get to be my age (retired) the biggest problem gets to be suffering fools gladly. We elderly folks begin to realize that there is not that much time left in this world. Yet we continue to try to show patience and understanding and, yes, love, to those with whom we disagree. The ways of the world have been tried and have failed. Yet, there are those who insist on regressing.
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 8:11 pm

“Regardless the issue” is a big qualifier. I’m sure that I don’t understand where you are going with this. Being right used to be important. I suppose I spent most of my life trying to do what is right (with God’s help). My hope now is that the church survives the assault. With God’s help, I’m sure that it will with or without my input.
Comment by Andreas Kjernald on July 21, 2012 at 4:01 am

You missed my point. I didn’t claim to talk about the biggest problem in life but the biggest problem with a debate such as this. I don’t know what age has to do with pointing out problems in a certain debate. Age doesn’t automatically grant wisdom or the right to be right. Old people can just as well be wrong and shortsighted, not that I claim that you are either.

I don’t know whether the church will survive this assault. That is a minor point. Souls may not survive and that is much worse.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 21, 2012 at 7:14 am

Thanks for the thoughts, Andreas. A few short responses…

The biggest problem is losing sight of God’s holy love while either cozying up to sin or cozying up to being right rather than loving your enemy.

One thing I’d want us to keep in mind is that no one (or at least incredibly few) wants to “cozy up to sin.” Those who support marriage equity do so because we believe it to be right, righteous, holy, good. We believe that the position in opposition to marriage equity is the sinful position.

Likewise, those opposed to marriage equity do so because they think marriage relationships between gay folk is wrong.

On neither side is anyone striving to cozy up to sin, just the opposite.

Does that make sense? I think recognizing that we’re all starting from a sincere position seeking to do the Right is vitally important (and part of my point for commenting here in the first place.)

Andreas…

The historical and orthodox faith have always held to it as well and since our understanding and Biblical times’ understanding of these lifestyles match, we can be certain that HBTQ today is sinful.

This would pertain to my earlier point: The church is fallible, it’s not a perfect institution, it’s one composed of fallible humans. Thus, just because people “have always” considered marriage between gay folk wrong (or slavery acceptable, or sexism acceptable, or polygamy acceptable, or destroying even the children of your enemy acceptable…) does not make it right. Thus, we CAN’T be certain based on human precedent that any particular behavior is right or wrong.

Are there some people here taking a position that the “Church…” (which denomination? Whose interpretation? Which sect of which denomination) is infallible?
Comment by Andreas Kjernald on July 21, 2012 at 10:04 am

It may be true that people on opposite sides of the debate are just sincere people trying to stay away from sin and help others do the same. However, that doesn’t change the fact that one of the two sides is in fact cozying up to sin, objectively. Sincerity is not enough.

If you think that the church is just fallible humans you have missed a huge chunk of Bible knowledge. The church is not a human invention, though a denomination might be. Besides, all your examples are red herrings, i.e. logical fallacies that have nothing to do with this issue.

What positive arguments are there that favor a change in our theology? What reasons are there that necessitate such a radical change?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 22, 2012 at 11:01 pm

Andreas…

If you think that the church is just fallible humans you have missed a huge chunk of Bible knowledge.

Okay, enlighten me. Where does the Bible say that the church is comprised of infallible humans? Or that the church as an institution is infallible? And which church would that be? One particular local church? A denomination? Who is infallible and where is your support (logically or biblically) for such an incredible conclusion?

Andreas…

The church is not a human invention, though a denomination might be.

I didn’t say it was. It’s not an invention at all. It is the body of Christ, or that is how the Bible describes the church. It is the collection of we who belong to Christ, and we who belong to Christ are fallible humans.

Where am I mistaken? Teach me.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Okay, I see that you all are speaking specifically within the UMC tradition/denomination, not making blanket statements for all the Church, is that right?

Still, when one Christian (of whatever denomination) says…

It is an attempt to weaken the church and make it irrelevant.

That is either a factual or an NON-factual statement. I’m saying that it is almost certainly a NON-factual statement.

I know progressive Methodists and their desire is NOT to weaken the church or to make it irrelevant, but to follow God, they just disagree with the majority. I suppose there may be some tiny minority of Methodists (progressive as well as conservative) who are doing what they do in an effort to be disruptive and evil, but I seriously doubt it’s that big a group – a literal handful, most likely.

As to taking vows and promising allegiance to a particular denomination, I find that quite unbiblical, quite illogical and would support reformation efforts within any denomination that taught such an ideology.

(But then, I’m anabaptist and don’t believe in any vows, so take that for what it’s worth…)
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Your explanation about following God and not the church does not make sense to me.

Okay, I’m sorry, let me try it another way, then. May I ask a question?

If a particular church taught that Behavior X was a Godly thing and we should embrace Behavior X, and

If you, having read your Bible and prayed and sought God’s will, have reached the conclusion that not only is Behavior X not a good thing to embrace, it is a WRONG thing to embrace and we ought to be opposed to behavior X – this is YOUR specific view of what God’s will is regarding a specific behavior,

Then, do you think that you ought to go along with that church or do you think you ought to go along with what you think is right and Godly?

Surely you and I agree that, in that instance, we ought to go along with what we think is Godly, even if it disagrees with a church (or denomination), right?

That is what I’m saying. We are obliged to follow God, not (human) churches. Now does that make sense?

I can’t imagine that we’d disagree on such a clear point…
Comment by Marilyn on July 20, 2012 at 4:41 pm

Dear Dan, Earlier you wrote: ” Surely you and I agree that, in that instance, we ought to go along with what we think is Godly, even if it disagrees with a church (or denomination), right? That is what I’m saying. We are obliged to follow God, not (human) churches. Now does that make sense? I can’t imagine that we’d disagree on such a clear point…”
Believe it, we do disagree on that “clear” point! It is about as clear as mud. The church that has come down through the ages is very clear about sexual ethics. It is a fairly recent phenomenon where people have bent and twisted the Bible to suit their sexual proclivities. It is natural for people to defend the church from this aggressive assault. My concern is, as I mentioned at the beginning, that this “debate” is taking its toll on church membership and support. I can not wholeheartedly recommend the UMC to my children or my grandchildren. It is certainly not the denomination that I knew as a young person growing up in the MYF and attending the church camps. It has become a haven for dissidents with an ax to grind. As for the IRD that you mentioned – I am very grateful that they keep us informed because the local church certainly does not.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 21, 2012 at 7:24 am

? You would follow Church teaching, EVEN IF you thought it was wrong and sinful?

Then, in the 1700s and before, you would have kept supporting slavery (because the Church tended to hold to acceptance of slavery)? The church and human understanding can be wrong. We can’t blindly accept a teaching simply because of tradition.

You will recall that Jesus had to deal with this frequently. The pharisees had many understandings of OT teachings that they held to fiercely. Simply put, those understandings were wrong. Thousands of years of acceptance of those understandings did not make them right.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, my sister.

My concern is, as I mentioned at the beginning, that this “debate” is taking its toll on church membership and support.

Perhaps we can agree that popular support is not a good reason to hold a position. We don’t hold to position X simply because opposing it might cost us members, right?

Beyond that, from where I sit, churches opposing marriage equity is doing more to damage church credibility than the other way around. I hear from people frequently that they’d given up church because the church has taken a position (opposition to marriage equity) that is so obviously immoral and BECAUSE THEY LOVE GOD and are concerned about morality and justice, they could support an immoral institution.

The thing is, churches WILL begin to accept the obviously moral, loving, respectful reality of marriage equity, probably within my lifetime and certainly within my children’s lifetime. There will be a few outliers who remain opposed, but they will be marginalized and continue to shrink, sort of like those churches who were opposed to “miscegenation…”

That’s my perspective, for what it’s worth.
Comment by John Meunier on July 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

First, Dan, I think much of the confusion is because the assumption was made that you were part of the UMC since the article is about actions taken at a UMC jurisdictional meeting.

Second, are these statements by the conference and the evangelical group online somewhere other than quoted here?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Thanks for the thoughts, John.

As to your first point, John, I’m a concerned Christian, concerned about the degree to which the IRD people seem comfortable in “investigating” and criticizing (generally out of context) those who merely disagree with their political opinions.

Regardless, I will repeat that I find it unsavory and less-than-Christ-like this demonization of the Other, and I don’t see how it matters that it is in a post speaking specifically of a Methodist meeting.

As to your second question, I don’t know. Are they? I’m not sure what the point of the question is.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked earlier…

I’m just making a call to try to get us to move from…

THOSE people don’t want to follow God, they just want to destroy the church and embrace Satan’s ways…

…to something more like…

My brother/sister, I strongly disagree with your position. I think you’re mistaken and your take on this position, I think, is undermining the work of the church…

More like that. I have no problem with disagreement, just with demonization and tearing down one another.

Doesn’t that seem reasonable and, well, Christian?
Comment by John Meunier on July 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Dan, I did not mean to imply you had no business commenting on this story. Of course you have every right to do so. I just think some of the reaction and back-and-forth was because people thought you were speaking from the inside on this issue. That was my only observation.

I’m interested in finding original or full versions of the statements. Maybe these are the full thing, but I used to be a journalist, and I always want to get to the original document

I am quite happy to endorse speaking to each other in Christian ways. Those who support traditional Christian doctrine are not hateful people intent on destroying others. Those who support equality are not spitting in the face of Jesus.

No disagreement there.

I did not actually enter the conversation to take sides. I probably should have skipped my first question and just asked my second one.
Comment by KSK on July 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm

It seems to me that some of these folks don’t have a dog in the hunt…
Pingback by Northeast U.S. United Methodists Vow Pro-LGBT Defiance on July 21, 2012 at 12:03 am

[…] He is a native of Virginia and a life-long Methodist. This article first appear at the IRD blog ‘Juicy Ecumenism’ and is used with […]
Comment by Joe on July 21, 2012 at 12:17 am

I wish we could find someway to stop ceding ground on language that unfairly paints one side or the other into corners. I support “equality” for all persons, all while believing that Scripture and the historical witness of the Church clearly indicates that HT practice is incompatible with obedience to Christ.

Those who hold to an Scriptural view of appropriate human sexual practice are not opposed to “equality” – whatever that loaded term means. Liberals aren’t part of a secret cabal bent on destroying the Church. Orthodox folks aren’t “bullies” or engaging in “hate.” Liberals aren’t the willing conspirators with the devil.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 21, 2012 at 7:30 am

Joe…

Those who hold to an Scriptural view of appropriate human sexual practice are not opposed to “equality”

While I agree with the point of your comment, I would just want to say that those of us who support marriage equity ALSO hold a Scriptural view of appropriate human sexual practices. We just disagree with the traditional interpretation.

The Bible nowhere condemns gay marriage. The Bible nowhere condemns all homosexuality. The Bible hardly even addresses homosexuality accept a few times and in each of those times, it is in the context of something obviously wrong (gay rape, temple prostitution, abuse of children, pagan fertility orgies…)

I grew up holding to the traditional views, simply because that’s what I’d been taught. The more I looked at what the Scriptures actually do say (and don’t say), I could just no longer agree that the traditional view was a biblically apt one.

Beyond that, I agree, though. None of us are trying to do anything but the Right thing. Even though I disagree with the traditionalists on this point, I don’t for a minute think they are intentionally being wrong, I just think they are mistaken. Thus, they/you all remain my dear family in Christ, brothers and sisters that I love and am bound to.

That, to me, should be the starting point for us all.
Comment by Pam on July 21, 2012 at 7:38 am

Could this be the key statement here? “The declining, liberal dominated Northeastern Jurisdiction (NEJ) of United Methodism, meeting in Charleston, WV, this week, has declared defiance against the church’s teaching on sexual ethics.” Appears to make a connection that the decline is due to the liberalism…hmmm… Which churches are growing? The conservative ones in Africa…
Comment by Katherine Button on July 24, 2012 at 11:58 am

Thank you Pam…best argument yet!
Comment by Tess on July 21, 2012 at 8:12 am

Dan, I am glad you listed some of what scriptures do condemn :” the context of something obviously wrong (gay rape, temple prostitution, abuse of children, pagan fertility orgies…)”

I sincerely think you are missing the point in your effort to allow unnatural and harmful activities. By their fruit you will know them! The pretense that LGBT behaviors are GOOD denies these obvious and evil fruits. Gay relations are not healthy or good for the participants. UTI’s, STDs, dammage to the colon, and dammage to the reality of human dignity and self worth happen more in gay relations.

I admit, all of these sad fruits occur with each misuse of our sexuality, both straight and perverse. I have seen in personal experience that gay people suffer more. Encouraging a lifestyle and ignoring the pain it will cause is not loving.
Comment by Pam on July 21, 2012 at 10:37 am

In using Scripture it is important to view the entire Bible…as to slavery…the whole of Scripture opposes oppression. Women pastors…many women have been in key positions in OT and NT. Sexuality…God created us “to fit” and procreate. There are several Scriptures OT and NT (Jude, Romans 1) that speak against the practice of homosexuality. I would also note that both chapters refer to other sinful practices as well. This said, it does not mean we are to abandon 1 Cor 13–we must speak the truth in love.
Comment by Gabe on July 21, 2012 at 11:23 am

Pam, that was well-said. Thank you for that.
Comment by Andreas Kjernald on July 21, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Well said, Pam!
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 21, 2012 at 11:40 am

Tess…

I sincerely think you are missing the point in your effort to allow unnatural and harmful activities.

Thanks for your thoughts. Respectfully, I think you are missing my point: I am making no effort to “allow” unnatural/harmful activities. My effort is to please God and walk in righteousness. I think the traditional position (like the traditional position on slavery prior to 200 years ago) is wrong, harmful and sinful. We who hold to this marriage equity position are making an effort to correct that mistake.

Pam, as to the “several Scriptures” that speak against “the practice of homosexuality,” my point would be that this is a human interpretation of these passages, not what God says and not what the Bible literally says. The Bible no where speaks against all gay behavior. Not one single time.

In a handful of places, it speaks against gay rape (duh.), temple prostitution and other obviously, overtly harmful practices related to some expression of homosexuality. That is not a condemnation of all expressions of homosexuality.

Just like a condemnation of straight rape is not a condemnation of all heterosexuality, so too, with these verses.

Someone asked, “What is the argument in favor of marriage equity?” The answer is that it is an obvious moral good. Paul tells us, whatsoever things are good, noble, pure, loving, etc, to think on these things. These good, true, pure, loving things are, by nature and by definition, “good.”

This is objectively and rationally observably true. It’s why you all are losing this argument. People are looking at what you’re saying (what I used to say, since I used to hold your position) and saying, “Wait, you’re saying that two people committing to one another in respectful, loving, committed, monogamous marriage relationships, that this is ‘bad…’? How so? Of course it’s not bad!”

Promiscuity, loose morals, uncommitted sexuality, these are reasonably bad, having objectively unhealthy, costly consequences. But expressing one’s God-given sexuality in a committed loving relationship, this is obviously moral and good. The Bible nor God have ever said otherwise.
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Dan, I encourage you to research the historic stands of the church and do some serious exegesis of the original languages re: the verses related to this topic. I believe you will find that you are in serious error. The culture has accepted what God clearly, consistently, condemns. The vast majority of Christians in the world believe and try to follow the clear teachings of Scripture. When you ask God to bless unrighteousness, you are asking the impossible.

The Church must continue to reach out to persons who are sexually broken (homosexual and heterosexual) while lifting up the revealed standard He has set up. Calling for repentance where it is needed and offering grace and forgiveness in His name.

When the church marries the present culture, she is destined to become a widow in the next. The truth of God will not bend, flex, or change to suit our beliefs.
Comment by Pam on July 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm

Amen Wesley! Old Testament prophets were not well loved by their culture for that very reason…the culture wanted it their way, not God’s way and look what happened to God’s own people–people He had covenanted with! They refused to listen…their hearts were hardened and they were exiled. A lesson for us today.
Comment by Marilyn on July 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm

Oh, yes!
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 22, 2012 at 12:58 am

Wesley…

I encourage you to research the historic stands of the church and do some serious exegesis of the original languages re: the verses related to this topic. I believe you will find that you are in serious error.

Thanks for the encouragement, Wesley. As it turns out, I spent the first ~27 years of my life (and first 17 years of my Christian life) in conservative Southern Baptist (and a brief time at a Nazarene) churches. Beyond that, I’ve continued studying the topic in the last 22 years of my life when not in a traditional conservative church. I’ve studied the issue a good bit and am familiar with the arguments and the language and the exegesis on the topic. Do I know everything about the topic? No, of course not, but neither am I unfamiliar with the topic.

In short, I’m very familiar with the arguments involved and am not at all convinced of the anti-marriage equity position, from a logical, moral or biblical perspective. Thanks.
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 22, 2012 at 8:38 am

Dan,
In your research, have you encountered these excellent resources?
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon

Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage by Stephen F. Noll

Forgetting How to Blush by Karen Booth

he End of Sexual Identity:Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are
Jenell Williams Paris

These works are highly acclaimed and could be of great benefit to your quest for truth.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 22, 2012 at 10:55 pm

I’ve read Gagnon and was not swayed by his arguments. I find his approach to biblical hermeneutics to be sloppy. I’ve not read the others. Do they provide arguments more compelling than Gagnon?

Keep in mind, I grew up believing as you do, I’m familiar with the arguments, such as they are. I simply disagree with their conclusions.

One problem I have for many folk like Gagnon is their approach to the Bible. Contrary to any good reasoning, they tend to treat the Bible like a rule book, rather than a book of Truth.

The Bible is FULL of rules, but none of us take all of them literally. I’m willing to bet that everyone here ignores the direct command from Jesus, “If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them…,” for instance. Or the killing of men who lay with men or the wearing of head coverings or complying with ancient hair cut rules. We simply don’t believe all the rules in the Bible are universal rules, and rightly so. The Bible never makes such a suggestion, God has never told us to do so and logic dictates away from such a conclusion.

Nor is the Bible a magic rule book – one with some rules that we are all to obey universally and some that are, well, not universal, and the Bible magically “tells” us which ones are universal and which ones are not.

This was the problem of the Pharisees, as I’ve already noted. They took their interpretations and understanding of ancient rules (don’t work on the Sabbath, for instance – that’s clear, direct, what’s there to not understand?) and yet, Jesus rebuked them for rebuking him for working on the Sabbath (what they defined as work, anyway). And much or all of that comes from trying to treat the Bible as a rule book (or a magic rule book). That simply isn’t what it is, it’s a book of Truth, and it seems like sloppy exegesis to me to treat it otherwise.

So, I’ve read Gagnon and found him uncompelling. I think we have the better understanding of the Bible and God’s ways. Now what?

Neither of us are striving for the wrong, we aren’t disagreeing on an essential of the faith, we just disagree about a behavior. Do we demonize the Other and suggest they’re not Christian, or that they’re preaching another gospel or are heretics or are trying to destroy the faith… OR, do we treat them as a beloved sibling whom we simply, humbly and respectfully believe is mistaken?

I say the latter.
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 23, 2012 at 5:11 pm

Dan,
The church owes a great debt of gratitude to you and the progressive movement. Finally after thousands of years, you have discovered a new morality that was hidden from the greatest minds in Christendom. Thank you. You have freed the church from it’s bondage to archaic thought and unfair rules. What would we have done if you had not discovered these new truths? How liberating to know that we no longer need to trouble ourselves with silly things like the original languages or trying to interpret Scripture based on what the writers actually said. We can actually create theology to suit our behavior. And how novel to be able to accept a behavior on the basis of what Jesus didn’t say! Awesome. I see he never said a word about having sex with children (or German Shepherds for that matter.) He said absolutely ZERO about those behaviors. He never addressed the use of drugs or many of our favorite addictions. My, this is wonderful. You have uncovered a powerful new tool that will serve our generation well.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 23, 2012 at 6:16 pm

Brother Wesley, there is not great reason to resort to sarcasm. To respond to your comments, though…

1. No doubt the pro-slave Christians in the South would have responded to the Christian abolitionists with similar words. The church is not infallible, it just isn’t.

2. If you will look at my actual words, you will no where find that I made the suggestion that, “If Jesus didn’t say it’s bad, it must be good.” That is not my argument. Understood?

3. What my argument is, is that some behaviors are obviously moral. It would preclude any obviously immoral actions (like your child/dog rape comparisons, which are offensive and just plain ridiculous…). If you have any evidence of obvious immorality that is part and parcel of a loving marriage relationship, by all means, make you care.

Lacking that, though, you are making a case that seems, on the face of it, to be immoral, irrational and unjust. You just can’t ask people to believe that you and your “tribe” have a lock on understanding God and goodness based on nothing more than “because I think so and have said so.”

That would not be rational, moral, bibliical or just and, increasingly, most of us just don’t believe you are on the right path.

I will note, as evidence, that you have chosen to engage in an ad hom attack rather than dealing with the points I actually made.
Comment by Pam on July 21, 2012 at 2:51 pm

Dan, in saying, “my point would be that this is a human interpretation of these passages, not what God says and not what the Bible literally says.”
Literally? If we take it literally, it clearly speaks out about the sin of homosexuality. It’s those who don’t take it literally who say that the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was their lack of hospitality!! Besides, Dan, to say it’s not what God says bothers me a bit. I really thought the Bible IS what God says…’God’s Word for God’s people’.

It is tough reading anything extra into Romans 1. Literally, our holy God demands holy behavior whether it is homosexuality, greed, gossip, envy, murder, deceit, etc. See below….
Rom 1:26-32 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 22, 2012 at 8:45 am

Pam…

If we take it literally, it clearly speaks out about the sin of homosexuality. It’s those who don’t take it literally who say that the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was their lack of hospitality!

1. The Bible in ZERO places mentions the notion of homosexuality, in general. That is, in ZERO places does it speak of a homosexual orientation.

2. The Bible in ZERO places condemns a homosexual orientation.

3. The Bible in ZERO places condemns the notion (or even mentions the notion) of a faithful loving marriage relationship. It’s just not in the Bible at all, not once.

4. There are roughly 5 passages in all of the Bible that even seem to be speaking of ANY sort of gay behavior. (That’s setting aside attempted rape or rape, which are obviously harmful and wrong and not a condemnation of homosexuality any more than a straight rape is a condemnation of heterosexuality).

5. Of those five passages, two are in the OT: The two Holiness Code rules that were directed specifically for ancient Israel. Those rules (right next to rules condemning “menstrual sex,” polyester, and cutting the hair on the side of your head) are in the context of God speaking to Israel, telling them not to be like their pagan neighbors – nations where they had ritual sex orgies – including straight and gay orgies and temple prostitution. But the condemnation of those orgies is neither a condemnation of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Additionally, the rule in one of those passages says “men shall not lie with men, if they do, kill them…”

5a. Obviously, those ancient rules are not for all people and all times. We don’t observe the command to kill “men who lay with men” any more than we observe the command against certain haircuts. To lift these two verses out of context and try to say, “These two rules still apply because they were real back then” is bad exegesis. And, as already noted, it seems obvious at least to some of us that it’s not speaking of all gay behavior, just a certain subset: Temple orgies/temple prostitution.

6. Of the ~three NT passages, two translate words “homosexual” (in some translations) that translators aren’t sure what the words mean. The literal meaning of the words sometimes translated “homosexual” are “man bed” and “soft.” We could GUESS that MAYBE Paul was referring to all gay behavior, but that is a guess, not from a position of authority.

7. This leaves us with the Romans 1 passage in which Paul says that people abandoned their natural desires to sleep with those of the same gender. You will notice, though, that the condemnation is of abandoning natural desires. That would be if a STRAIGHT guy abandoned his heterosexuality in favor of homosexuality, contrary to his natural desires. But, to suggest a gay guy ought to abandon HIS natural desires to sleep with women instead, well that is actually contrary to the teaching in Romans 1.

7a. Additionally, in context (and just as with the earlier Leviticus passages), Paul is speaking to people who are engaging in some type of religious sex rituals. In each case, it is not a condemnation of all gay behavior, it just isn’t.

8. Now, given that there is a paucity of condemnation of all gay behavior, AND given the obvious good, moral, righteousness of two people uniting in love and living married lives together (and given Paul’s teaching that we ought to honor/respect those things which are good, noble, pure, loving, etc), on what possible biblical or rational basis would we conclude that all gay behavior is wrong? I just don’t find it plausible either from a biblical viewpoint or from a rational/moral viewpoint.

I fully understand that you all don’t agree with me (any more than I agree with you), but I’m just showing how the Bible doesn’t say literally what you think it says. At best, it might SUGGEST your conclusion and I can see how some people might INFER that conclusion, but it’s not there literally. It just isn’t. Not even one time.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 22, 2012 at 9:04 am

Oh and as to this…

It’s those who don’t take it literally who say that the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was their lack of hospitality!

The only place where the Bible has God specifically saying why S/G were destroyed is Ezekiel 16. There, the passage says literally Sodom was destroyed because…

She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and
did detestable things before me.

So, clearly, failing to help the poor and needy is part of why they were destroyed, but not “homosexuality.” The closest you could find to that is if you wanted to guess that when the author wrote, “They did detestable things” that this means “they were gay,” or “they engaged in gay sex, and I condemn all of that…”

But that would be eisegesis, or reading into the text what isn’t literally there.

My point in all of this is not to say that, “Therefore, I’m right and you’re wrong and there’s no other way to look at it.” Rather, my point is that this is a non-essential question about a behavior and that Christians of good faith can and do disagree about it, NOT because either group deliberately wants to be wrong, but because they sincerely believe that this is the most right, most moral position to hold, one that is pleasing to God.

And in saying that, I’m not saying that neither of us are right. Obviously, I think you’re mistaken and that there are consequences to that mistake. But that is only my opinion. I’m not God and I’m not conflating my opinion with God’s Word (ie, I’m not saying, “I think this is what the text means, therefore this is what God wants…”). That would be a wrong approach to Bible study (seriously wrong – that conflation of our opinions with God’s will is exactly part of what got the Pharisees in so much trouble with Jesus) – it would be a mistake of arrogance and presumption, possibly even blasphemy, to say “our opinions = God’s will,” and I’m striving to avoid that and encouraging others to do so, as well.
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm

Dan, I apologies for the sarcasm, but beneath it is some truth. 1. The Church had held a consistent view on these matters of sexuality for thousands of years. 2. The content of Scripture in every place homosexual behavior is spoken of, condemns it as against Gods will. 3. The argument from silence is truly laughable.
4. The acceptance of homosexual behavior was just as unthinkable and repulsive a few years ago as pedophilia an beastality are to us today. Yet, here we are.
You are a man on a mission, but your cause is unrighteous. May God have mercy on you and any who might be convinced by these lies.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 23, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Wesley…

1. The Church had held a consistent view on these matters of sexuality for thousands of years.

And, again, as noted over and over, the church is not an infallible entity and to lift it up as perfect comes dangerously close to idolatry (self-idolatry, at that) which comes much closer to blasphemy and heresy than anything I’ve said thus far…

Wesley…

2. The content of Scripture in every place homosexual behavior is spoken of, condemns it as against Gods will.

Or, stated another, more accurate and specific way: SOME SORT of homosexual behavior is spoken of five or less times in all of the Bible, and in those five times, that form of homosexuality is condemned.

But homosexuality, the orientation, is never spoken of, not one time. And marriage between two gay folk is not spoken of one time.

On the other hand, the bible is clear that we are to support and nurture those things that are good, pure, loving, etc.

Wesley…

3. The argument from silence is truly laughable.

It’s a good thing that I’m not making that argument. As I’ve already pointed out and I guess you missed? No problem, now I’ve pointed it out for you.

Wesley…

4. The acceptance of homosexual behavior was just as unthinkable and repulsive a few years ago as pedophilia an beastality are to us today.

Calling upon tradition is a logical fallacy. Tradition has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future.

Again, Wesley, you’re welcome to your opinion about this matter, but Christians of good faith disagree with you. What now? Can we all admit this is a difference of opinion on a non-essential matter and love and respect one another or do we bite, scratch, gossip and misrepresent (all clearly condemned in the Bible and by plain logic) in our efforts to defend our opinion?
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 23, 2012 at 11:22 pm

Dan,

“Can we all admit this is a difference of opinion on a non-essential matter and love and respect one another or do we bite, scratch, gossip and misrepresent (all clearly condemned in the Bible and by plain logic) in our efforts to defend our opinion?”

Not as long as there is breath in my body. There is nothing non-essential about the authority of Scripture. I am just very relieved you are not a part of the UMC. I will never call evil – good. I can not and will not compromise the truth or God’s Word. I will continue to offer the hope of the forgiveness and transforming power of the Holy Spirit to those who are involved in sexual bondage. I contend that you are preaching a false gospel and I pray that it will fall on deaf ears.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 24, 2012 at 12:09 am

Wesley…

There is nothing non-essential about the authority of Scripture.

But I don’t deny the authority of Scripture. I love God’s holy Word and take it very seriously.

I DO deny, though, the authority of Wesley’s interpretation. Tell me, Wesley, do you truly think that your interpretation is the one and only acceptable interpretation and that those who fail to agree with you fail to agree with God?

Do you consider yourself infallible?

Tell me this: Do you think that people MUST have a right interpretation of Scripture in order to be saved? That seems to be what you’re implying and, if so, do you not see how that is a salvation by works heresy?

Myself, I am not relying upon my perfect knowledge for salvation, but God’s sweet grace. You?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 27, 2012 at 9:28 am

I had asked several days ago…

Do you think that people MUST have a right interpretation of Scripture in order to be saved?

Specifically to Wesley, but also to others. If I’m not mistaken, I’ve also asked that question earlier on this blog to others and it remains unaddressed.

May I point out an observation?

It seems like, to this outsider, that you all WANT to say, “Yes, you must agree with the church’s (ie, MY church’s, or perhaps, the traditional church) INTERPRETATION of the Bible on certain passages/topics. If you want to be saved, you CAN NOT be mistaken on these issues – one of the big ones being marriage between gay folk. If you honestly disagree with the traditional view (not the Biblical view, because we’re talking interpretations, but the traditional view, to be sure), then you can’t be saved.”

That’s what it sounds like to me on this topic that you all believe in your heart of hearts. BUT, at the same time, you don’t want to say that out loud because you recognize that this is making your view of salvation into a works-based/human-based salvation, and you recognize that as being what has traditionally been considered a heresy.

“For it is by GRACE we are saved… BUT, if you honestly think THAT on THAT point, well, then you can’t really be saved until you change your mind and agree with us…”

That’s what it sounds like you’re wanting to say. And so, WANTING to say, “Yes, you MUST agree with us and you CAN’T be mistaken on this point,” but recognizing the heresy that implies, you all remain silent. Am I mistaken?

Any chance that any of you all will affirm, with me, that we are NOT saved by our perfect knowledge and agreement with some segment of the church on any behavior, but that we are saved by God’s sweet grace, through faith in Jesus, the Christ? And any chance that you can respectfully agree with me that, “While I disagree with your interpretation, I love and accept you as my family in Christ…”?
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 27, 2012 at 10:03 am

Dan, this is not about “interpretation”, but about rewriting. Throughout history there has been no debate about what the Bible actually teaches regarding homosexual practice. The new efforts are coming from an attempt to align the church with the culture. The use of psuedo scholarship to reach a predetermined end is not going to change the Truth.

One of the foundations of our faith is the authority of Scripture. We don’t approach Scripture from a vacuum. There are centuries of careful scholarship to draw from. I would be very cautious about throwing out that scholarship in favor of a faith based upon the changing whims of our generation.

As to your question regarding whether or not a wrong ‘interpretation” can keep one from salvation, I would say that is very possible. If you base your faith on a lie, it could end you up in a position where you are favoring what God opposes. The most grievous aspect of this is where the lie leads. If my historical interpretation is wrong, what is the result? I make a few people angry or uncomfortable because of my exclusive views. But, if you are wrong, you are condemning them to an eternity of separation from God. Those are pretty huge consequences. Jesus said that to cause one of His children to stumble could get you the death sentence.

You stand with about 20 years of cultural theological faddism. I stand with centuries of Christian scholarship, the teachings of the vast majority of Christians world wide today, the settled doctrine of the Church.

The fact that there are many in our culture who have bought the lie, does not mean the church must go there. I am reminded that in Hitler’s Germany, the Christians who built the gas chambers were worshiping in church on Sunday. A culture can be wrong. God’s Truth will not change to suit our whims or sexual proclivities.

I know that God’s power can transform. I am personal friends with many who have walked away from the lure of homosexual practice and are free. One of those friends has been married now to a person of the opposite sex and they have 10 children together. Looks like he has broken free.

God forgives and heals. The danger of telling people they are fine in their sin is that it puts them in the position of believing they don’t need to seek that forgiveness or to confess their sins because they’ve been told it’s “God’s good gift.”

Now, that’s all I’m saying about this because I know it will not change your mind and I promise, you will not change mine. We can just agree to pray for one another and seek Him and HIs Kingdom.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 27, 2012 at 10:29 am

Wesley…

If my historical interpretation is wrong, what is the result? I make a few people angry or uncomfortable because of my exclusive views. But, if you are wrong, you are condemning them to an eternity of separation from God.

Thank you very much for your answer, Wesley. And I certainly appreciate your warnings about letting go of traditional teachings. Indeed, it should only be done so for good reason. I feel I have it. IF I thought that cultural tradition was infallible, I would not do so. But clearly, the suggestion that cultural tradition is infallible would be a mistake, both logically and biblically.

Could I get you to consider something about your answer, though?

How are you, in your above response, not making your salvation claims based on human works? You appear to be clearly saying,

IF a gay guy honestly thinks his gay sexual behavior in the context of marriage is good in God’s eyes, AND

IF he is mistaken on that point

THEN he is lost and doomed to hell.

How is that not basing salvation on perfect knowledge of all sin?

Are you saying it is your opinion that you have perfect knowledge of all sinful behavior and that there is no possibility that you could be mistaken on some behaviors?

Do you not see how that sounds presumptive on your part? How it seems clearly contradictory to reason and sound biblical teaching?

“Now, we see as through a glass, darkly.”

We are not perfect and do not have/will not have perfect knowledge on all human behavior. To make such a claim would be an incredible arrogance.

Let me presume that you are not making that claim. You probably are only claiming that ON CERTAIN BEHAVIORS can we not afford to be mistaken. ON CERTAIN behaviors, IF we are honestly mistaken, then we are doomed to hell.

If that is the case, then can I get you to provide a list of those behaviors on which we CAN’T be mistaken and still saved? And if you give me that list (even a partial list), could you provide any rational or biblical support to say, “On THESE behaviors, if we are honestly mistaken, then we are lost…”?

For it is by grace that we are saved, Wesley, NOT BY OUR WORKS, NOT BY OUR PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. The demand for perfect knowledge for human salvation is a heretical position, surel you aren’t going to make that claim, are you?

Thanks for your careful, prayerful answers.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 27, 2012 at 10:37 am

Wesley…

If my historical interpretation is wrong, what is the result? I make a few people angry or uncomfortable because of my exclusive views. But, if you are wrong, you are condemning them to an eternity of separation from God.

Oh, also, I might point out that some might say that IF your position is wrong, you have quite possibly chased people away from God/the church. I have heard as much from many people. Of course, they are responsible for themselves, but it is no small thing to play a role in that. Consider Jesus’ warning to the Pharisees…

They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them….

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

I’m sure the Pharisees were oftentimes sincere, but Jesus certainly had some pretty strong rebukes for them.
Comment by Wesley Putnam on July 27, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Sorry Dan. I’m done. You are misinterpreting what I am writing and implying motive that does not exist. This is an exercise in futility. You will need to continue it with another.
Comment by David M. on July 28, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Wesley, I feel your frustration. This reply is not directed to you as much as it is a general expression of consternation about the positions of some others.

Claim and counterclaim—appeals to Scripture do not change minds as witnessed in this thread.

Why bother with this topic? What difference does it make how marriage is defined and upheld?

Is it a matter of salvation? Does it have any relevance to society—to social health?

Does God (for theists) condone all loving, committed relationships, is He neutral, or does He tell us that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

My formative years preceded the various “revolutions of the 1960, and 70s, which I think is when much of the current anti-traditional thinking began. Maybe the pot and drugs consumed in those “enlightened years” are now messing up the thought processes of that generation and their progeny. Well, only maybe. I cite no study to back this idea—it is speculation. Of course, the plethora of liberal thinkers in academia indoctrinated (and continues to indoctrinate) young minds who take to the “ideas” of justice, fairness, equality, etc. without giving these concepts any deep scrutiny. Weren’t some of the slogans of those wild and fuzzy-headed past decades, “Love not war,” “If it feels good do it!” “Do your own thing!” and “Free Love.”

Why has contemporary society jettisoned tradition so blithely? Is it possible that we are “privileged” to live at a time in which a leap in species awareness to new truth and new reality has trumped our ancestor’s awareness? An arrogance is afoot among much of the intelligentsia, and ignorance seems not to bother others.

So, the story is that principles that justify same-sex marriage seem to consist pretty much of love, justice, equality, and minus the prohibition of God. God and society smile on loving, committed relationships.

Ok, so using these principles, a guy I know, Frank N. Fictitious, wants to marry two identical twin sisters because he loves them both and doesn’t want to marry just one of them and hurt the other. But, he can’t.

Then, maybe there’s a couple of guys that I know that love to “frolic.” Another guy recently joined them, and now they live together—just a big happy family. They’d like to express their family, a loving and committed unit, as a marriage. But, they can’t.

So, what principles of love, justice and equality would exclude “marriages” in these cases? Is there exploitation, or abuse inherent in threesomes or “moresomes?”

Maybe there’s not much call for these expanded “marriages,” at least not at the moment. But, tomorrow…..?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Wesley, if you look at what I actually wrote, I asked questions. When one is asking questions, one is not “misinterpreting” or implying any motives. Your allegation simply does not hold up to my line of questions.

When I ask the obvious question: Are you saying that one must hold perfect knowledge to be saved? That is a question, not a statement, not an implication, not a misinterpretation.

I fully understand that, IF you hold to a heretical position (again IF, it’s a question, not a statement), then you may not want to say so out loud. But do you understand how your collective ignoring of the question makes it look as if that might be the case?

You are free to answer or not answer, of course. I just hope you’d consider these questions for yourself.
Comment by Marilyn on July 21, 2012 at 6:18 pm

Have any of you read this article? Be sure to read the comments that follow:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html?_r=1
Comment by Pam on July 21, 2012 at 10:23 pm

Very interesting article for the NY Times and even more interesting comments.
Comment by David M. on July 22, 2012 at 4:32 pm

Has anyone read Robert Gagnon’s “The Bible and Homosexual Practice”? Not that it would change hardened positions. Nothing seems to, let alone scholarship.

I don’t recall ever reading a blog thread that has changed anyone’s mind. We believe what suits us.

From a purely secular point of view, same-sex relationships are barren which seems to be a pointless Darwinian strategy, that is, if you believe in any brand of Darwinianism.

From a societal point of view, I side with the evidence that indicates the best environment for procreating and raising children is in a traditional family where mommy is female and daddy is male. It’s just that simple!

Don’t distort the meaning of the word marriage by applying to same sex couples or any other arrangement that I am sure can be thought up.
Comment by Marilyn on July 22, 2012 at 8:37 pm

David, you wrote ” We believe what suits us. ” Maybe that is true. I’d like to think that we believe what our Christian church and Christian upbringing has taught us. It is a shame to see how young people are being confused about their sexuality at an early age. Sometimes, it seems that people believe what their lower impulses lead them to want to believe. It’s that old carnal thing. Nothing new. Same old, same old.
Comment by Marilyn on July 22, 2012 at 8:44 pm

This morning our new preacher stood up in the pulpit and praised our old worn-out bishop, Susan Morrison, for standing up for what she believes to be right. I thought that I was hearing things! She is still at it in spite of being chastised by letters of complaint signed by members of UM churches within her jurisdiction. Of course, nothing was done. They were almost ignored. Morrison is still at it, trying to change the Discipline to suit her ideas of sexuality. These leftovers from the “60’s are still at it. They don’t give up. It is almost sad to see these women on youtube still promoting lesbianism and same-sex marriage and ordination. They belong to a club all their own and should be pitied not venerated.
Comment by Carl on July 25, 2012 at 11:12 am

I wish I knew who your pastor was. I would like to shake his/her hand. Susan Morrison was my bishop at one time. To call her old and worn out is insulting and says more about you than her. I supported Bishop Morrison then and I support her now.
Comment by Marilyn on July 22, 2012 at 8:46 pm

Maybe I should add that this new preacher is a man, three-times divorced. I have no idea where this church is going. Probably the way of others in our area. Vacant.
Comment by Carl on July 25, 2012 at 11:14 am

Your new pastor was appointed to your church after advice from the SPPR committee as to what kind of person the church wanted. If you are unhappy with the appointment which it seems you are, why not look for a churchmore in line with your thinking?
Comment by Sharon Wozencraft on July 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm

Regarding the history of the church in its understanding of homosexuality, we could make the same argument that for the majority of church history, church teaching has advocated both the Divine Right of monarchs and some form of slavery as Biblical concepts. There is stronger evidence supporting those views from the Bible than there is regarding homosexuality.

Like Dan, I come to my views through similar scholarship and also from a Southern Baptist childhood. Let me also acknowledge that I really do not have a dog in this fight as I am not UMC — I am a Congregationalist (NACCC) retired minister — though I worship now with a UMC congregation.
Comment by David M. on July 24, 2012 at 9:27 pm

People find reasons do what they want to do.

I defer to scholars such as Robert Gagnon to inform me about the biblical stance on matters sexual, but same-sex marriage to me seems simply wrong. I have recently had an exchange with Dan Trabue under a different topic and it changed neither his nor my mind. So, I shall not support my position since it doesn’t seem to make a bit of difference. We tend to cling to our beliefs no matter what.

Liberal churches are shrinking. Looks like they may not have a very good message.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 25, 2012 at 9:31 am

David, surely we can agree that popular messages don’t necessarily equate to Christian messages? That is, we can’t gauge a church’s faithfulness to the Gospel message merely by numbers, can we?

It’s a Christian Church, not a glee club.

Beyond that, nearly all church types are seeing their numbers decline, so by that rather graceless measure, the Southern Baptists and other conservative denominations don’t have “a very good message,” right?

As to “people finding reasons” to hold their views, yes, they do. For me, the reason is striving to be faithful to my God.

The purpose of these sorts of conversations, it seems to me, is not to change anyone’s mind/heart – that’s God’s purview – but rather, to glofiy God in a respectful Christian conversation where we may not agree.
Comment by Carl on July 25, 2012 at 11:08 am

Conservative churches are also shrinking. Religion of every Judeo-Christian type is dying.
Comment by David M. on July 25, 2012 at 4:47 pm

And Carl, do you think that this is a good thing?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 25, 2012 at 4:53 pm

I could be mistaken, but I believe Carl is responding to the oft-repeated fallacy of pointing to declining numbers as “evidence” of infidelity to Christian ideals.

You said (and others echoed), “Liberal churches are shrinking. Looks like they may not have a very good message.” as if shrinking church numbers are an indication that liberal churches are not good or Godly. You can’t have it both ways, can you? (ie, when liberal numbers decline, that’s evidence of ungodliness, but not when conservative numbers decline)?
Comment by pastormack on July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am

All these groups calling themselves “evangelical” should just be more honest and say “baptist.”
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 25, 2012 at 10:27 am

May I ask, Pastor Mack, how are you defining “evangelical” that would somehow not include Baptists?

Merriam Webster:
Evangelical: 1. of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian Gospel, especially as it is presented in the four Gospels.
2. Protestant
3. emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authoirty of Scripture and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.

I would say that most baptists would meet any of those definitions.

Or was that more of just a little joke?
Comment by pastormack on July 25, 2012 at 5:41 pm

It was a joke, but also making the larger point of how fluid a concept ‘evangelical’ is. I speak particularly of United Methodists who identify as ‘evangelical’; they tend in my experience to talk and act more as baptists than as Wesleyans (emphasizing personal holiness in exclusion to social holiness, strict biblicism instead of a more generous interpretative methodology like the Quadrilateral, and tending to emphasize instantaneous conversion rather than lifelong sanctification leading to perfection in love). There is nothing evangelical about the obsession over sexuality issues, though I share their concerns about proposed changes. Evangelical has become too synonymous with right-wing politics, which robs the gospel of its power and perverts evangelicalism into a mere expression of party politics in the church.
Comment by Carl on July 25, 2012 at 11:06 am

in a 2004 survey, the Barna group found that young adults who are outside of church hold an intensely view of Christianity; a whopping 91% think the church is anti-homosexual, 87% say Christians are judgmental, 85% accuse churchgoers of being hypocrites and 85% say Christianity is out of touch with reality. Methodism has declinde almost 5% in the last five years. Adam Hamilton has stated that if we don’t change the Methodist Church will disappear in the next 50 years. .The church needs to wake up to reality. We are dying and we seem hellbent on killing it.
.
Pingback by Good News Magazine » Blog Archive » Northeast United Methodists Vow Pro-LGBT Defiance; Evangelicals Pledge Fidelity to Church on July 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm

[…] read the rest of this report from the Institute on Religion and Democracy, click HERE. AKPC_IDS += "3312,";Popularity: unranked [?] Front Page […]
Comment by Inigo de Ona on July 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm

It seems that the liberal among would want Christianity to be in the spirit of the age and not the Holy Spirit.

If you had done a survey of Romans of the third century, I am sure they would have commented negatively on the Crhistians refusal to sacrifice to the Romans gods and the Emperor, and maybe even on their opposition to homosexuality. Had the early Christians altered their beliefs to conform to the spirit of the age, there never would have been any martyrs just another kind of pagan. I doubt that the Romans woulds have converted and that Christianity would ever have become a wourld-wide religion. If we do as the early Christians did and offer a viable alternative to htis corrupt, amoral culture, the Church will grow. If we become exactly as the culture, the CHurch will die with the culture.
Comment by Pam on July 27, 2012 at 10:50 am

Amen!
Comment by Paul on August 12, 2012 at 6:25 pm

I am one of those christians who bletats with the command GO. I have so many ideas that would help my church grow tremendously, but my church is very small and there are not many youth advocates that would help bring my ideas to fruition. So, I choose to stay where I am due to the lack of help and motivaiton within my church. I am just stuck between a rock and a hard place and I don’t know what to do.
Comment by Dean on August 13, 2012 at 6:11 am

I am guessing bsucaee of the economy a lot of people are turning to their faith in god for answers and help. So, these people are trying to get their church out there to let people know they are here for them. To sum it all up they could probably use more congregation for financial support as well.
Comment by tazdadguam on July 27, 2012 at 3:03 pm

I’ve read nothing here that addresses the root of the issue: We are a fallen and sinful people. The world is broken. We all have sexual sins. We have relationship sins. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. As God’s children, should we celebrate those sins?

Folks can throw out this verse and that verse and counter with Jesus never addressed that or the Greek usage was this or what if you can’t have kids and so forth in a series of disjointed attempts to justify sin – our willfulness to place ourselves at the center of creation rather than God.

The questions ought to ask are what ideal image of marriage has been given to us by God and what does it say about the character of God (Genesis 24 for example as we see the God’s provision and covenant promise take shape with Issac and Rebekah). Then look at the consequences when we stray from that ideal (David).

God’s covenantal design promotes human flourishing: one man – one woman raising children to love and honor God. Living together doesn’t do that, unfaithfulness to the marriage bed doesn’t do that, same sex marriage doesn’t do that.

I highly recommend watching/listening Matt Chandler discuss this highly charged issue.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/06/23/matt-chandler-seminary-on-homosexuality/
Pingback by (Still Just) Four Options for General Conference 2016 | People Need Jesus on November 20, 2015 at 7:24 pm

[…] held accountable in their jurisdictions and two of these (the Western Jurisdiction and the Northeastern Jurisdiction) have voted official defiance to the BOD’s stance on human sexuality. Openly gay clergy are […]

Northeast United Methodists Vow Pro-LGBT Defiance; Evangelicals Pledge Fidelity to Church

United Methodism’s Last Meaningful General Conference

Christian Nationalism and Interpretation of The Westminster Confession

United Methodism’s New Social Principles: Whatever Happened to the Home?

Africa Initiative Speaks on United Methodist General Conference Priorities