The following remarks were delivered by UMAction Director John Lomperis at the Good News Dinner at the Illinois-Great Rivers Annual Conference earlier this summer.
What gets me up every day to do the ministry in which I believe God has placed me are my love for the Lord and my love for His bride, the church, especially that section of which I am a part, United Methodism.
And now we are at very tense time in our denomination’s history. People say we’re in “crisis.” Since the 2012 General Conference, people have heard more talk of a split than ever before. We have harsh words, covenant breaking, and angry protesters taking over meetings.
How did we get here?
The presenting issue, fiercely fought over since 1972, is if we believe that homosexual practice is inherently sinful. The question is not IF we should love and minister to members of the LGBTQ community, but rather HOW we do this. People on all sides admit that this always reflected bigger divisions. On sexuality, our website reports on leaders in the liberal United Methodist caucus groups embracing pre-marital cohabitation, “polyamory” (concurrent multiple sexual partners), and even teenage prostitution. Today even liberal biblical scholars admit that the Bible indeed condemns homosexual practice. So our divides on sexuality stem from divisions over such deeper questions as: is Scripture our final authority on doctrine and ethics, or not? Is Christian discipleship about feeling affirmed as we are, or about self-denial and submission in all things to Christ’s Lordship?
For over 100 years, the mainstream of American Methodism has seen the erosion of our standards for doctrinal and communal accountability. Especially in our seminaries, we became deeply infected with the false teachings of theological liberalism, which has an elevated view of humanity, a demoted view of God, and an often dismissive treatment of biblical authority. When I say “liberal” this evening, I’m referring to that sort of theology, not to political beliefs.
There was a lot of outrage about a decade ago when Bishop Joe Sprague was not really held accountable for publicly denying such core doctrines as the eternal divinity and physical resurrection of Christ, while espousing a sort of interfaith universalism. But these are the sorts of things that many United Methodist elders have long believed and taught in less high-profile ways. Which demonstrates the sad fact that our denomination does not have unity on even some of the most core beliefs of the Christian faith.
Meanwhile, one of the most defining features of our Methodist movement was lovingly holding each other accountable for our sins in classes and bands, but we let this fade away.
The current crisis is the fruit of our lack of doctrinal and moral accountability.
We need to address this bitter fruit, but that’s not enough.
I want to first briefly note some things that we as faithful United Methodists need to do to rebuild our churches at the roots.
First, United Methodism suffers from a famine of biblical illiteracy that affects all of our churches. So we need to be very systematic in equipping our people with a thorough knowledge of Scripture, to guide their faith and equip them to reject false teaching. We need to promote DAILY quiet times of personal prayer and Bible study. Our church seats need Bibles for people to leave open when we preach, so that they don’t get in the habit of just taking our word for it. We do “topical preaching,” but what about straight exegetical preaching – going completely through one book of the Bible for a sermon series? I have seen this done very well. Why not just try it and see what God does?
Secondly, we need to promote a church culture that is oriented for conversion. I am convinced that about the cruelest thing we can do is lull non-Christians into complacency by helping them think they are already Christians. This includes prematurely rushing people into church membership, or assuming that all members are necessarily already Christians. Jesus Himself warned that there will be “many” who call Him Lord but turn out to have never known him.
And, preachers, if your remember nothing else, please remember this:
Work into every single one of your sermons a clear presentation of the Gospel message that we are all sinners, that there is no hope for our own abilities to crawl out of the God-defying mess we’ve made, but that God loved us so much that He came down in Jesus Christ to experience all the sorts of challenges and temptations that we face in this fallen world, that He remained sinless, and that while we were still sinners, He chose to suffer a tortuous murder on the cross to pay the penalty we earned for our sins, so that through His blood we have the offer of new life in Him.
Any sermon might be a non-Christian visitor’s last chance to hear that.
Thirdly, we need to promote communal accountability. Kevin Watson and others have written some good stuff on bringing back the class meeting. These could take different forms, but why not make accountability part of all of your church’s small groups?
Fourthly, we need to be clear that being United Methodist means committing to seek the good of our whole global connection, not just our congregation. Where one part suffers, we all suffer. We have a duty to work to see that the agencies funded by our apportionments operate faithfully. The denomination will eventually affect us locally in so many ways, especially when we get a new pastor. At that point, we should all care what a typical graduate of a typical United Methodist seminary is like.
Maxie Dunnam, the former president of Asbury Seminary, says that we are only as holy as we want to be. I believe this applies not just to individuals but to the whole church.
In many ways, the UMC will only become renewed and reformed to the extent that we in this room are willing to work to make it happen.
So what’s going on now?
The 2012 General Conference affirmed our biblical Social Principles statement on sexual morality by a significantly LARGER majority than it had at the previous General Conference. With the portion of United Methodism in Sub-Saharan Africa now at 40 percent and growing, few expect the votes to be there to liberalize our standards anytime soon.
Some are eagerly promoting having a U.S.-only central conference to let us make key decisions without more orthodox overseas members. But that’s already been decisively defeated.
There has been a small but unprecedented amount of chatter among liberal United Methodists about them splitting off from the UMC.
But most of the liberal energy today seems to be pouring into the so-called “biblical disobedience” movement.
Our Discipline forbids the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of persons who are sexually active outside of man-woman marriage. But this covenant-breaking campaign seeks to besiege our church with an overwhelming number of publicity-stunt violations of our standards to make things as difficult as possible for us.
So this is pushing our divisions even deeper. We had had general agreement that we live together according to our disciplinary covenant, and that if anyone wants to try to change parts of the Discipline, there are proper procedures to follow.
But now we are adding to our disunity in faith and mission a growing lack of operative unifying standards.
And this is destroying any basis for trust. If I cannot trust a pastor to keep even his sacred vows to God and the church to uphold our standards, vows he chose to make at ordination, how can I trust him or her on anything else?
All over the country, clergy have blessed same-sex unions. In most cases, the accountability procedures are still in process, moving slowly. There was a homosexually active clergyman in Georgia who had a complaint filed against him, and chose to resign his clergy orders rather than face trial. In Southwest Texas, there was a young lesbian activist who was sent to her board of ordained ministry for a publicity stunt, but they refused to move her ordination forward. Frank Schaefer was defrocked in Eastern Pennsylvania, but is insisting on dragging the church through an appeal process.
Last October, retired Bishop Melvin Talbert of San Francisco became the first bishop to perform a same-sex union, arrogantly disregarding the protests of the resident bishop and the Council of Bishops executive committee. The Council of Bishops voted in November for formal complaints to be filed against Talbert. Complaints were finally filed in March, but the process remains shrouded in secrecy, and it could be nearly a year before we hear news. I don’t know anyone who expects there to be real accountability for Talbert, given how the complaints had to be filed in the Western Jurisdiction. This is the same jurisdiction which recently went on record denouncing biblical standards for sexual self-control and encouraging bishops to violate our relevant policies.
Then there’s the active bishops. In New York, Bishop Martin McLee protected two of his clergy from facing any penalties after complaints were filed against one for blessing a same-sex union and the other for being openly homosexually active. McLee also declared his commitment to not having trials for clergy who do same-sex blessings, shining a giant green light for them to go ahead and do them.
In the Pacific Northwest, Bishop Grant Hagiya basically let two clergy off with token “24-hour suspensions” for doing sin-blessing ceremonies, and even allowed one of his DS’s to perform a lesbian union service between two of his other clergy.
These two bishops have basically declared independence from the UMC, saying that they will still claim the name while declaring unilateral authority for their annual conferences to determine their own operative policies and theology.
Then there are the disruptions. At the last General Conference, radical outside protesters forcefully took over the floor. Previous General Conferences had similar protesters, but this time they basically bullied church officials into, among other things, preventing elected delegates from even considering several petitions, one of which would have required mandatory minimum one-year suspensions for clergy who do same-sex unions, and would have prevented a lot of the problems we are having now.
This capitulation further emboldened a subset of these protesters who call themselves “Love Prevails” and openly say they will not pray for parts of the church that disagree with them. They similarly took over last November’s meeting of the Connectional Table, which is the top United Methodist leadership gathering meeting between General Conferences. At last April’s Connectional Table meeting, I watched the leaders progressively bend over backwards to pander to the Love Prevails protesters there until the Table pushed aside the church’s business to vote to formally commit themselves to the Love Prevails agenda of liberalizing our church’s sexuality standards.
So why does all this matter?
Most importantly, because one day, we will all be held accountable for how faithful we were in upholding the standards that God clearly taught in Scripture and confirmed through two millennia of consistent church tradition.
Secondly, because people matter. All around us are neighbors who are dead in all sorts of sins, who need us to humbly, lovingly invite them into the repentance, wonderful new life, and holiness God wants for them, and upon which their eternal destiny depends. Here our Wesleyan theology, with its dual emphasis on both justification in our initial conversion and subsequent sanctification, is a helpful corrective to how some evangelicals act like we only need to worry about getting people converted.
And finally, this matters because our beloved church matters. We want it to become renewed in faithfulness and missional effectiveness. We don’t want it to become a dead sect where people will not be taught the biblical Gospel, and where they will be mistreated while our church sets its policies by pandering to whoever is the most forceful in bullying other members.
Adam Hamilton and others have a statement calling for the church to have same-sex blessings and ordain openly homosexually active individuals in any congregation or annual conference that wants this. This is hardly a compromise, but rather would reward the any-means-necessary tactics of the covenant-breakers, give us the same standards as Episcopalians, and have similarly disastrous results for us globally, ecumenically, and in terms of membership implosion.
A group of 80 pastors and theologians has a statement on the Good News website, from which I’ll read excerpts:
“It is time to recognize that traditionalists and progressives are pursuing divergent paths as we try to follow Christ and be faithful to what we understand to be the Gospel.”
“We need to recognize the reality that we … are divided and will remain divided.”
“Traditionalists will be unable to live with and support a denomination that allows same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing gay clergy. They believe these actions are incompatible with what Scripture reveals to be God’s will.”
“Are we not at a point where we can acknowledge, after years of dialogue and debate, the depth of our differences and together, progressives and traditionalists, give each other the freedom to pursue our understanding of God’s will?”
And they call for an amicable parting of ways.
There was a lot of negative reaction to such schism talk. Much of the blowback seems to be driven by ignorance of the depth of our irreconcilable differences in doctrine, mission, and covenant. Others are in denial. There’s a statement on our website today from a pastor friend who uses the analogy from family counseling about how “when someone names dysfunction in a family system and says that he or she will no longer live with that dysfunction other family members pressure that person to conform to the old patterns of behavior.” But some of the rhetoric about “unity” is dishonest political posturing by some of the same people who have done so much to erode any basis for unity.
We all need to accept the hard truth that no matter what happens next, it will be painful, and we will lose significant chunks of people. I’m not talking about wishes but about facts. If we continue as is, many will leave in frustration. If we insist on firm discipline, some progressives will leave. And if we liberalize, we will probably lose a lot more.
So what is the most faithful path forward?
First, we should repent for the sin of our church, and for how our sins of omission have too often allowed such problems to spread.
Secondly, we need to pray for God to do a powerful work of revival and renewal within the UMC.
Thirdly, we need to brace ourselves for a long, difficult journey ahead.
Fourthly, it is now more important than ever to connect with like-minded, biblically grounded United Methodists. I would encourage all of you to look online and consider joining the new Wesleyan Covenant Network for evangelical United Methodist pastors and congregations.
Fifthly, the renewal of our church cannot happen without the help of faithful United Methodists like you. Those of us strategically pushing and working for accountability and reform need your help. I have a sign-up sheet for getting our email updates. UM Action’s ministry depends on the donations of people like you. Y’all need to start organizing now for getting people with the right values elected to what is looking to be a momentous 2016 General Conference. We need to get past thinking that the administration of God’s church, which includes elections, is somehow dirty or unspiritual. God cares very much about His people diligently ensuring that churches are governed faithfully.
I understand how having to deal with such problems can be discouraging. But any careful review of the New Testament and church history makes clear that, in every age before our Lord’s return, the church’s mission is always to both spread the Gospel beyond its walls and, in the words of Jude 3, “to contend for the faith” against false teaching and moral impurity within the church’s walls.
We can be encouraged by many things:
How the majority of our global church is not with the covenant-breakers;
How God is already renewing our church in many ways;
How He has brought other parts of His church through some of their own struggles with unfaithfulness.
And above all, as biblical Christians, we have already read the end of the story, and know that ultimately, God’s purposes will be accomplished, and He will stay faithful to us if we stay faithful to Him!
I look forward to journeying further together in the renewal and reform of His church!
Comment by MatWeller on September 8, 2014 at 3:23 pm
It’s a shame so many radical things have come together at the same time, but it’s a little less surprising when you realize it comes after any significant discussion of these topics being quashed by Annual Conferences for decades. The Church and it’s doctrine are democratically decided, and when a significant percentage of the members feel as though their needs have been ignored out-of-hand, they’re going to act out. That’s true of any democracy, and it’s actually a good thing to have the topic up front and center so that it can be discussed and settled. If that discussion would have happened decades ago, it would not have required the level of acting out it has, but elders do tend to sway slowly.
The important thing is that we all proceed as Jesus would — with as much love and consideration of the other people’s feelings as possible. Some people won’t tolerate that. It’s just a fact. They can get in line, decide to stay silent, or move on to something else. The Church will endure all the stronger for it.
Comment by John S. on September 16, 2014 at 7:44 am
Doctrine is democraticaly decided? The authority and mind of God is the will of the people? Yes, we all need to proceed as Jesus would- “…not as I will but as you will”.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 8:08 am
Doctrine is absolutely democratically decided. Do we stone women for wearing pants? Have you had shrimp lately? What about pork? Those are Old Testament death penalty offenses that we now regard as barbaric and have collectively decided to reject or at least regard as figurative because we’re smart enough to know that a book written by men is going to be set in a temporal frame of reference and sometimes it’s just going to be flawed. That doesn’t negate it, it just means we need to absorb the Word from a higher, more thoughtful vantage point.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Try reading the New Testament which answers all of your arguments. For example, Acts 10 and Romans 14 indicate that we can eat all foods. So, our doctrine was not determined by a poll or a popularity contest — it was determined by the inspired New Testament Word of God.
And Romans 3:23 indicates that there remains a death penalty for sin…just that we can now avoid the penalty through faith in Christ. But for those that don’t repent, the punishment remains.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 3:06 pm
I’m pretty sure that only reinforces my position. As you say, even within the Bible itself, times changed and revisions had to be made. God has grown along with his creation — that much is plain to see in the differences between the Old and New Testaments. We, as Christians, model our lives and beliefs on the teachings of Christ who has taught us to love and accept and include rather than hate and turn away and ostracize. We have failed many times as we have tried to track our way through the wilderness in our walk toward His light, but we’re learning too — a blessing given to us by Him.
One of the tools He has given us is science. Like a great magician with a beloved apprentice, through science He revels to us many (but not all) of His mysteries so that we have the potential to be a great legacy to Him. Through it He has shown us how we can be the stewards of our planet like He has asked us to be. Through it He has revealed to us so much great knowledge about our universe and ourselves and how beautifully He has made it all work.
Among the things He has revealed to us is that homosexuality occurs in many other species in nature. He has shown us that there are workings within these creations of his that appear to trigger that kind of affinity. Personally, I have trouble reckoning the idea that God would be so sadistic as to give us a trait and then make it a sin. Can you imagine him giving us left arms and demanding that we cut them off at birth? Or that he would give us senses and make it a sin to taste or to smell or to touch? And when I have trouble reckoning something, I look to the possibilities of what may have caused the incongruity for answers. In this case I see God’s great love for us on one side, and a couple short statements in a book inspired by God, but translated and penned by fallible men who were influenced by events of there time just as you and I are today. I’ll not presume to think the incongruity was caused by error on God’s side, which leaves me to presume that it was the men that failed in this case.
Through it all, He has shown us that there is still so much we do not understand. He continues to reveal great wonders to us every day, and all He really asks us in return is devotion to Him and to love our brothers and sisters as we all need to be loved. Such an amazing gift!
The wonderful thing is that in the end, he absolves us of the responsibility of passing judgement — we don’t need to do a thing! Perhaps we change the Church’s position on how a marriage is defined, perhaps we don’t. What matters is that we show our brothers and sisters His love, and allow them to make mistakes as they learn to walk in His way, just like all of the rest of us have. What it’s easy to see is that we don’t win any hearts by trying to impose these thoughts on society in a way that denies some of our neighbors rights that we all consider so basic.
We can easily see and acknowledge that legal “marriage” as sanctioned by a government is not the same as the sacrament of marriage at all. We can easily see that life partners who have lived together for decades should not be kept from visiting each other in the hospital simply because they don’t have a government document. And we can easily see that their union affects our Church in no way whatsoever, and so we can focus our attention on constructive efforts rather than destructive ones and we can trust that God will have the final say for us all.
When you stand before him and he asks you about your greatest accomplishment, will it be that you successfully campaigned for loving people to not be able to marry or adopt? Or would you rather tell him about how you worked to build wonderful things for the good of all humanity to exalt his holy name?
I know which answer I’d rather give.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 3:45 pm
It does not reinforce your position. What you call “changes” (more accurately referred to as fulfillments through Christ), were not determined by the human democratic process as you assert, but were divinely given by GOD in the NT. Big difference!
And there is nowhere in the New Testament that God changes the standard with regards to homosexuality. Civil/Ceremonial/Ritual law is no longer binding, but the moral law remains in effect. And there is ONLY one definition of marriage ever given: Matt. 19:4-6 and 1 Cor. 7:2 “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” Moreover, when the Bible provides instruction on proper relations between spouses (Eph. 5), it always refers to husbands and wives — No exceptions. The only proper marital relationships described are heterosexual in nature. (Even for those that point to polygamy in the OT — which is an aberration of God’s perfect plan as found in Gen. 1:27, 2:24 — those relationships were still heterosexual in nature.)
I don’t want to base my behavior on what animals do. We are a higher species. We are not called to lower ourselves to the standards/behavior of animals (who also eat their young, kill their mates, eat manure, sniff crotches), but to raise ourselves to a higher standard as “imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1). Look up to God, not down to animals, when determining your morals.
True love tells people what they need to hear (truth), not what they want to hear. When I stand before God, I would much rather know that I loved people enough to steer them in accordance with God’s will … as opposed to patting them on the back on their way to hell. We are called to obstruct the path to sin and destruction. That’s what real love does!
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 3:56 pm
It’s our job to make sure as many of God’s people hear His word as possible. It is not our job to legislate based on it or judge his people. He does that. We share, we love, we build. All else is wasted effort and shames the one we would hope to serve. We all choose where we can be most productive. I choose not to spread anger and hate. They will know we are Christians by our love.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Yes, our job is to share HIS Word, but you want to share YOUR word.
If we “win” people to a lie, they are worse off than they were to begin with…not only are they still lost, but now they are deceived.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:23 pm
You misunderstand. I don’t have a “word.” I’m happy to share the Bible, the interpretation is in their hands, as it has been for every person that has ever read it. You seem to have trouble with the difference between “sharing” and “condemning,” though, and that’s a real shame. I’ll pray for your illumination as I do for my own.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:11 pm
The truth is hate ONLY to those that hate the truth.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:22 pm
Very pithy, but inaccurate. It assumes that your interpretation is Truth, and that’s an assumption dripping with so much greasy arrogance that I can’t hold on to it.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:29 pm
You think your interpretation is correct, regarding homosexuality, right? So, by your own definition you are “dripping with so much greasy arrogant.” By the way, I thought you don’t judge, but you just judged my as arrogant and wrong. HMMMMM!
I provided Scripture to back my point up. You provided psycho babble. You sound more like Oprah.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm
I do not think my interpretation is correct. It is my understanding of what I have learned so far. That’s why I wouldn’t try to force it on other people. I would not presume to be the teacher. I’m nowhere near done being the student. You seem to believe you are the master. Unless you are, that’s not a judgement so much as it’s the very definition of arrogance. If you are indeed Jesus, then I apologize.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:37 pm
I am not Jesus, but I share his word when I share Matt. 19:4-6. You are the arrogant one to dismiss Jesus’ words for your own.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Forgive me, I thought I had read somewhere that Jesus was into The Golden Rule. You are obviously correct. I yield to your grace.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:44 pm
Your sarcasm is duly noted.
I follow the Golden Rule: I want to be told the truth so I tell the truth (I do unto others what I want them to do to me). If I’m driving off a cliff, I want someone to love me enough to stop me.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:56 pm
You appear to want to hold them over the cliff and make them beg to be brought in.
I’d love to talk with you more about all of this, but this is really not the ideal forum to continue.
Do as you will Rhonda, and may God go with you.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 5:09 pm
No, I want to obstruct the way to the cliff. But your false teaching is leading them right over the cliff…and making them feel good about being on the path to the cliff.
Comment by MatWeller on September 17, 2014 at 8:11 am
Everything I’ve said in this discussion boils down to this: I want to welcome people into the Church. I want to give them the Bible and discuss it with them. I want to show them the love that Jesus has shown me. I trust God to take care of all the rest.
Please forgive me if I wait for someone of more authority to tell me that’s false teaching. If that happens, I will gladly go elsewhere and leave you to manage your business however you like.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:45 pm
And yet, you still refuse to respond with Scripture, just your opinions. That’s real arrogance.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:46 pm
If you don’t think your interpretation is correct, then you shouldn’t be sharing it as if it were correct. That’s called misleading people.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:33 pm
Some things in the Bible do not need “interpretation,” just plain common sense. Certain passages are very clear…such as: Honor your mother and father, forgive as Christ forgave you, “Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:37 pm
“Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”
Unmarried people are an offense to God! Does it say in your Bible when exactly we should stone them?
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Stone someone??? Have you not read John 8 where Jesus DID NOT stone the woman caught in the act of adultery. And I already answered the question about the death sentence (re-read my comment based upon Romans 3:23).
1 Cor. 7:2 is clearly talking about those that choose to marry. It is not condemning those that don’t. In fact, for those that choose to be single, Paul says, “It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry [which he already described in verse 2 as man and woman], for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:8-9)
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:52 pm
It’s good to see that you agree that context and interpretation are important.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Again, it didn’t take much interpretation (context, yes). It just took a plain reading of the passages in question.
No interpretation was needed to know that Jesus didn’t stone the woman. Or that Paul was emphasizing the single life of devotion to God and also describing true marriage as well. Plain old common sense, that’s all it took.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:16 pm
And remember Peter’s harsh rebuke of Simon the Sorcerer for his false belief (Acts 8:20-22). Or Paul rebuking Peter and Barnabas (Gal. 2:11-16). Or Jesus in the Temple (John 2). The point is this: false beliefs and bad behavior are to be confronted and defeated with the truth. And that’s not “wasted effort.” The truth matters.
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5)
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 4:27 pm
I’m neither Paul nor Peter. I’m certainly not Jesus.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:36 pm
But Paul said, “Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1)
Besides, the same rules apply to us as to Peter and Paul.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 1:40 pm
The Bible is more than just a book written by men. Our God is powerful enough to even work through people, which is what he did when he inspired the biblical authors.
Comment by MatWeller on September 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. I also agree with your choice of the word “inspired” rather than “dictated to”.
Comment by John S. on September 17, 2014 at 7:28 am
If Doctrine is democratically decided then you must agree with and accept as correct the decisions of the General Conference. Glad to know you stand with biblical standards on celibacy outside of marriage and marriage as between one man and one woman, as a start.
Comment by MatWeller on September 17, 2014 at 7:58 am
John, you and I both know that’s an overly simplistic view and a logic fallacy. It’s circular reasoning. If other thoughts were not open for discussion, nothing would ever change and Jesus loved debate as much as anybody.
I do stand with the Church. If I didn’t there would be no reason for me to attend. There are thousands of other places to be all of those nights of the week. But while I’m here, I’m happy to bring other thoughts up for debate. And while I love all of my brethren for their passion and zeal, I fear that many of them are misguided in putting their efforts in literal translations of laws in the Bible that is both living and changing (and has been ever since it was first penned and assembled), and which I believe is meant to be absorbed in the whole as a message of love, not in the minutae as a method of condemnation.
As I mentioned below, the nice thing is that in the end, none of it matters. The existence of homosexuality does not affect our Church or our beliefs. If government allowed a civil union, it would not affect Christian marriage in any way but it would allow our brothers and sisters to not be treated as second class citizens.
Jesus knew, and in our hearts we know, that you don’t win conversions when you lead the discussion with anger and fear. You bring them in with acts of kindness and love, then you can share the word, then it is up to them to figure how or if they fit into it. From there it only matters to you if they come to you for advice on a specific matter. The rest of the time, all you have to to is love your brothers and sisters and work with them to build great things. There are some people that seem to think God is too weak to handle his business from there, so they feel they must help. But Jesus didn’t form a group of religious policemen, he gathered a group of messengers. I trust God to handle judgement.
Comment by John S. on September 18, 2014 at 6:15 am
I knew it was a setup. I run into this all the time. The Bible is correct, when it agrees with me, otherwise its out of date. We need to listen to the people, when they agree with me, otherwise they are reactionaires living in the past. Just like the false dilemmas of civil and ceremonial law.
To clarify, in what ways has the Bible changed in the last 1900 years?
Comment by MatWeller on September 18, 2014 at 9:30 am
I’ll assume the breakdown in communication here is my failure to be eloquent enough. I apologize. Perhaps well have the fortune to meet in person some day and try discussion in a different way. God bless.
Comment by Walker Brault on September 8, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Would you mind providing a source for your statement about liberal theologians stating that the bible does condemn homosexuality? You sourced most of your other assertions so I think it would be good (as you put it) to keep you accountable for what you’re putting out there.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 15, 2014 at 7:29 pm
Good point. See “Liberal Scholars Agree: The Bible Forbids Homosexuality.” It lists 10 of the premier liberal scholars, complete with quotes. The article can be found on barbwire.com
Comment by Walker Brault on September 16, 2014 at 10:40 am
Apart from the strong bias from the author and the possible attempted dehumanization of his dialogue partner (at least from my reading of the article), the article is very good. Some of the quotes that he uses have some unclear logic, which may be resolved by reading the books in full. He never addresses anything other than a plain reading (which he asserts is traditional), many scholars, both modern and historical, don’t accept this style so it’s not really a true representation of the discussion/debate at this time. I, and most statisticians, would be hard pressed to say that 10 examples is qualificatory of “Liberal Scholars Agree(ing)” but it is a good start.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Biased, yes, but I didn’t find it dehumanizing…just strong disagreement with the liberal point of view.
I don’t think John Lomperis was implying that a majority of liberal scholars agree with him. We all know that most do not agree with him, but there are several of the most renowned liberal theologians that do agree.
Comment by Walker Brault on September 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm
The part that I felt was dehumanizing was the continual referral to his discussion partner as “the lesbian.”
I don’t think he was either, I was referring to the title of the article you linked to.
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 3:48 pm
But she was a lesbian. Not sure why liberals find the truth so offensive.
Comment by Walker Brault on September 16, 2014 at 4:40 pm
So you want me to refer to you as the heterosexual?
Comment by RhondaStar on September 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm
If you want to do that, then fine.
But it’s the homosexuals that go around trumpeting their orientation every June in their perverse parades, prancing around naked or nearly naked. They’re the ones arguing for Facebook to have 50 gender designations. They’re the ones always talking about being LGBT. Not me. I don’t define myself by my sexual preferences, it’s the homosexuals that do that…and then blame God for it. Just like Adam, “This woman YOU gave me,” except its, “This gene YOU me.”
Comment by Walker Brault on September 16, 2014 at 5:09 pm
And you can tell, simply by her being lesbian, that that is how she wants to be identified?
Most lgbt people don’t go to pride parades because they don’t identify with the people who do. The people who do go are no where close to being representative of the lgbt population as a whole. The sexual identity of most lgbt people is little more than that, it’s just a part of them the same way that being straight is to us, not the entirety of their being.
Comment by David on September 9, 2014 at 6:57 pm
John, something that happened probably before you were even born and is seldom discussed: A UM bishop in Texas (don’t recall which conference) died of AIDS, and though he was married with children and grandchildren, turned out he had a very active gay life going in his free time.
Comment by John S. on September 16, 2014 at 7:40 am
And???? Elders with hidden lifes of sin predates Methodism. Elders being excused for same, or quietly being eased out go back almost as far. Unaccountable leaders, ditto. Or is this simply old gossip, rumor and innuendo?
Comment by Katie Helms on September 19, 2014 at 9:54 pm
I became a Christian 41 years ago because I saw horrible stuff in life due to sin in peoples’ lives… People whom I loved… I wanted something different… Then I learned about how Jesus came to show God’s Love, and how sin is unhealthy and damaging and separates us from God’s Love…. If our church continues to condone sinful behavior, then where will the young folks turn for a better life in God’s Love…. So thus I like this article…….
Thank you Mr. Lomperis.