Will the LGBTQ Progressive Agenda Capture the UMC in February 2019?

on January 9, 2019

By Lee Cary and Philip McLarty

Rev. Dr. Lee D. Cary served 25 years as a United Methodist pastor in Northern Illinois and North Texas. He holds a Masters in Theology (’74) and a Doctor of Sacred Theology (’79) from the UMC’s Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois.

Rev. Dr. Philip W. McLarty has served 24 years as a UMC pastor, and 22 years as a pastor in the Presbyterian Church (USA). He holds a Masters in Theology (’74) and a Doctor of Ministry (’81) from the UMC’s Perkins School of Theology in Dallas, Texas. Today, as a retired Presbyterian minister, he pastors two United Methodist congregations in rural Arkansas.      

UM Voices contributors represent only themselves and not IRD/UMAction.


The LGBTQ agenda driving the United Methodist Church (UMC) debate concerning human sexuality is based on political religion and stems from identity politics. Human sexuality is not a theological debate.

The Church reacts to political pressure, just like other venues of American culture. When a politically-driven ideology defines Church doctrine, the result can assume the patina of a state religion. And, if that happens next February at a special UMC meeting in St. Louis, it could implode the denomination.

The history of Protestant denominations is full of theological debates that led to schisms. One such debate, that came to a head in the early 20th Century, led to the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936), and, later, the Bible Presbyterian Church (1938). Here’s a brief review of that saga.  


Early 20th Century Debate of Modernism vs. Confessional Calvinism

The strife back then within the Presbyterian Church was mainly between Modernism and Confessional Calvinism.

Writing as a Modernist, Shailer Mathews, Dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School, wrote this in his 1924 book entitled The Faith of Modernism:

The issue between Modernism and Confessionalism is not one of mere theology. It is rather a struggle between two types of mind, two attitudes toward culture, and, in consequence, two conceptions as to how Christianity can help us live…[T]he use of scientific, historical, social method in understanding and applying evangelical Christianity to the needs of living persons is Modernism.” (pp. 18-19)

Who were the Modernists? In his book of over a thousand pages chronicling the decline of the Presbyterian Church, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church, Gary North wrote:

The reason why the term ‘modernist’ has been applied by historians to religious figures as well as to contemporary political activists and cultural innovators is that theological modernists shared Progressivism’s faith…It was faith in Darwinian evolution, historical relativism, progress through science, the benevolent State, and the benefits of getting one’s hands on other people’s money–through political force, deception, or both.” (Preface, xxxv)

Writing for the Presbyterian Confessional Traditionalists, Princeton Seminary’s New Testament Professor J. Gresham Machen referred to Modernism as theological “Liberalism” in his 1923 book Christianity and Liberalism:    

“There is a profound difference, then, in the attitude assumed by modern liberalism and by Christianity toward Jesus the Lord. Liberalism regards Him as an Example and Guide; Christianity, as a Savior: liberalism makes Him an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith…If Jesus was only what the liberal historians suppose that He was, then trust in Him would be out of place…liberalism regards Jesus as the fairest flower of humanity; Christianity regards Him as a supernatural Person.” (p. 82)

The debate from 1900-1936 pitted an established orthodoxy, based on the authority of the Scripture, against the Modernist understanding of mankind’s evolving word as authority. It was a well-documented and clearly-articulated theological debate.


The Early 21st Century Human Sexuality Debate in Today’s UMC

The LBGTQ movement’s push to change the UMC’s position on homosexuality and same sex marriage escalated at recent General Conferences. Feeling that they were at an impasse, a narrow majority of delegates approved formation of a 32-member, church-wide Commission on the Way Forward tasked to find a solution to the disagreement. (In the mid-1920’s, the Presbyterians appointed “The Commission of Fifteen” to address their own internal unrest.)

This led to the showdown scheduled for February 23-26, 2019, in St. Louis, Missouri.

Advocates of the One Church Plan are labeled “Progressives.”  Those opposing the Progressives are “Traditionalists.”  Those favoring The Connectional Church Plan are unlabeled.

When questioned by email as to what it means to be “Progressive” in the context of this debate, a spokesperson for United Methodist Communications wrote:

“[W]ithin American Protestantism…the term ‘progressive’ or ‘progressives’ describe those who work for change to improve the lives of persons who have been oppressed or excluded within church structures and in the wider world—often joining with others who share similar political, economic, or social views, even when religious views may vary dramatically. Progressives within various religious groups have ‘kept up the fight’ for women’s rights, for civil rights for all people, for the environment, for the rights of indigenous peoples, and for LGBTQIA+ rights.” 

This explanation takes a page out of the LGBTQ Playbook, and suggests that the official communication outlet of the UMC has assigned the moral high ground to the One Church Plan and its advocates. That position mirrors the stated opinion of a majority of the Council of Bishops.

In 2013, the LGBTQ agenda influenced the Boy Scouts of America to lift its restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation. The organization subsequently permitted gay adults to be Scout leaders.

In 2015, the LGBTQ agenda influenced the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

Since the late 19th Century, the American Progressive Movement has captured, or made significant inroads into, the academy, media, civil government, entertainment, advertising, professional sports, and organized religion. The current crisis in the UMC is among several, recent, Progressive inroads into the Church.

In June 2015, the Presbyterian Church (USA) amended its Book of Order to open the door to same-sex marriages, stating:

“Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the wellbeing of the entire human family. Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. The sacrificial love that unites the couple sustains them as faithful and responsible members of the church and the wider community.” 

(Note the shift away from normatively teaching that marriage IS between a man and a woman.)

As of 2018, the Episcopal Church stripped its bishops of the authority to prohibit any priest in their respective dioceses from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. In response, the Rt. Rev. Bishop William Love of the Albany Diocese, wrote a long Pastoral Letter explaining why he refused to abide by the new provision. In “To the People of God in the Diocese of Albany and throughout the World” he wrote this:

“The Episcopal Church and Western Society have been hijacked by the ‘Gay Rights Agenda’ which is very well organized, very strategic, very well financed, and very powerful.”

The question is: Will the United Methodist Church be next?


  1. Comment by Tim on January 9, 2019 at 8:30 am

    “And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.”

  2. Comment by Dan on January 9, 2019 at 10:19 am

    Does anybody besides me find it strange that a retired Presbyterian minister would be pastoring two UMC churches? The theological differences are significant; e.g., see the series of letters between John Wesley and Augustus Toplady back in the day.

  3. Comment by Chris Downey on January 9, 2019 at 10:46 am

    The UMC can’t fill its pulpits for lack of candidates. I’ve known of several smaller UM churches served by other than Methodist ministers. Anyone with any integrity is not going to let a UM bishop to lay hands on him.

  4. Comment by Loren Golden on January 9, 2019 at 1:55 pm

    As significant as the difference between traditional Methodists (Arminians) and Presbyterians (Calvinists) is, the difference between either a traditional Methodist or Presbyterian—who believes the Bible—and a Theological Liberal of the same denomination—who, frankly, does not—is far, far greater.

  5. Comment by Karen on January 9, 2019 at 5:52 pm

    Yes, exactly. 🙂

  6. Comment by David on January 9, 2019 at 11:19 am

    The UMC has already been “captured” by conservatives at the last GC when resolutions supportive of women’s reproductive rights were overturned. The outcome of the February meeting is hardly in doubt. This article is silly and alarmist. Religious marriage was not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition until around 1100 CE. Evolution is the unquestioned basis of modern biology regardless of what people what to believe. Human morality today has risen above that of the Bible with its provisions for slavery and genocide.

  7. Comment by diaphone64 on January 9, 2019 at 12:08 pm

    So you’re claiming Jesus lives in 1100 CE?


  8. Comment by David on January 9, 2019 at 2:57 pm

    “One flesh” can have several meanings in Hebrew, but the more likely one is to have sex. Biblical Jews had no marriage ceremonies, though a feast might be held. Early Christianity was not so keen on marriage and being single was the preferred state. People should not assume that what exists today was always the case.

    All mammals, including humans, start as female with those with a Y chromosome having their female traits reversed and male ones formed at around 2-3 months in humans. Indeed, there is a fish where all start as female, but become male in middle age.

  9. Comment by John Smith on January 10, 2019 at 7:02 am

    If religious ceremonies for instituting a marriage are irrelevant why is the LGBTQ community pushing so hard to have them?

  10. Comment by John Young on January 10, 2019 at 1:28 pm

    Biologically, you are incorrect. At conception, 1 egg (ovum) unites with one sperm. The egg has only the X chromosome. The sperm has either an X or a Y chromosome. If the X sperm combines with the egg, a female results. If a Y sperm chromosome unites with the egg, a male results.

  11. Comment by David on January 16, 2019 at 3:36 pm

    Just because one has a chromosome or gene does not mean these are active. As I previously mentioned, the Y chromosome does not work its wonders immediately. Likewise, one of a female’s two X chromosomes is inactivated.

  12. Comment by betsy on January 10, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    When humans start spontaneously changing genders in middle age without any human intervention, then I will rethink my position re same gender sexual relationships. In the meantime, when it comes to humans, there is still a natural law in play that has yet to evolve: it takes one male and one female to create a child and perpetuate the species.

  13. Comment by John Smith on January 10, 2019 at 7:00 am

    Good for you, finally changing strategy, pushing for conservatives to become complacent and thus easy prey in Feb.

  14. Comment by Loren Golden on January 12, 2019 at 12:21 am

    “Human morality today has risen above that of the Bible with its provisions for slavery and genocide.”
    Which, of course, is why human trafficking and genocide have been completely eliminated by human beings in the 21st Century, right?

  15. Comment by Bruce on January 14, 2019 at 10:39 am

    CE? Anyone that uses that term is already lost. It was not a “Common Event”! In fact, It was a very Uncommon Event.
    Let’s stick with BC and AD!

  16. Comment by John Smith on January 16, 2019 at 6:29 am

    CE stands for Common Era, not Common Event. Thus it is a logical name for multiple religions, cultures and countries. Since 1 AD was not a particularly memorable year, it actually being 2-4 years after anno domini, CE makes more sense than A.D. or B.C.

  17. Comment by Loren Golden on March 27, 2019 at 12:08 am

    The Lord Jesus was actually born sometime between 7 BC-4 BC, as Herod the Great, the child butcher whose death occurred while the Lord Jesus and His mother and adoptive father were in Egypt (Mt. 2.19), is known to have died in 4 BC.  Despite this inaccuracy, the world’s system of numbering years is intended to honor His birth, in the same manner in which ancient cultures would number years in accordance with the accession of a new ruler (e.g., the fifth year of Caesar Augustus).  The postmodern drive to change “BC/AD” to “BCE/CE” has little to do with wanting to avoid the inaccuracy of saying that the Lord Jesus was actually born several years before our calendar says He was, and much to do with wanting to strip the King of kings and Lord of lords of the honor of having our calendars dated from the time of His birth.

  18. Comment by William on January 9, 2019 at 2:34 pm

    The end game of the ‘one’ church plan of deception is a carbon copy of the Episcopal Church — to strip all its bishops of the authority to prohibit any pastors in their respective conferences from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. Following that, the next step would be to make it a mandatory chargeable offense for any pastor who refuses to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies.

    To the 864 UMC delegates — this ‘one’ church plan of deception is a classic case of what Jesus warned us about:


  19. Comment by Richard S Bell on January 9, 2019 at 8:44 pm

    I agree with the authors that UMC’s debate about human sexuality, especially homosexuality, is not a theological debate. It ought to be, but proponents of the LGB agenda have failed to adduce plausible interpretations of scripture that support their program.
    Let us make UMC’s debate about homosexuality a theological debate. For proof from scripture, in accordance with traditional methods of interpretation, that God wills the UMC marry homosexuals just as it marries heterosexuals, ask for a copy of my essay by email: rsbell@ameritech.net

  20. Comment by LaVerne Valdez on January 10, 2019 at 1:52 am

    Richard Bell, They Can Not. But We Can Romans 1:18-28

  21. Comment by LaVerne Valdez on January 10, 2019 at 12:58 am

    The wrath of God is being revealed in Heaven against all the godlessness & wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain. For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities, his eternal power& divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave him thanks, but their thinking became futile & their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claim to be wise they became fools. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity, for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the Truth for a Lie, because of this God gave them over to the shameful lust. Even their women exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones. In the same way the men abandoned natural relations with women & were inflamed with lust for one another. 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. Romans 1:18-28

  22. Comment by LaVerne Valdez on January 10, 2019 at 9:35 am

    Posted Scripture last night to back up Gods Word on this subject. Romans 1:18-28. Where is it?? Are you Really working to Protect Truth?? Or just another organization to bring down Christianity?

  23. Comment by Pam Bartosh on January 11, 2019 at 4:44 pm

    Amen! Preach, LaVerne. Truth is what is being attacked. But then, nothing is new under the sun; in Genesis Satan asked the woman, “hath God really said…” Not much has changed regarding what God has said is TRUTH.

  24. Comment by Richard S Bell on January 15, 2019 at 9:53 pm

    In Romans 1, Paul calls homosexual relations unnatural, not sinful. Ask me for a copy of my essay, which corrects not only misunderstandings of Romans 1 but also misunderstandings of all other “clobber texts” used by conservatives.

  25. Comment by Richard S Bell on January 15, 2019 at 10:45 pm

    Paul calls homosexual acts unnatural. That is a far cry from calling them contrary to God’s will. Speaking metaphorically of the gentiles’ entering into the new covenant, Paul called their grafting on to the domesticated olive tree of faithful Israel “contrary to nature” — just what Paul called homosexual acts. But Paul did not think that the grafting on of gentiles was contrary to God’s will. Paul thought just the opposite. Paul did not use “contrary to nature” or “unnatural” as terms of condemnation under God’s moral law.

  26. Comment by anna hoffman on January 13, 2019 at 5:11 pm

    God would have created the human race to be an asexual race if who you partnered (loved) did not matter in his eyes. As someone else who quoted genesis said – he made them male and female…….‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?”

  27. Comment by Richard S Bell on January 15, 2019 at 10:37 pm

    God’s creation of male and female and God’s joining them in marriage proves that God is in favor of heterosexual marriage. But it is a fallacy to infer from God’s favoring heterosexual marriage that God forbids – or even that God disfavors – homosexual marriage. Ask me for a copy of my essay, which corrects not only misunderstandings of Genesis 1 and 2 but also misunderstandings of all other “clobber texts” used by conservatives.

  28. Comment by Norman Ramsey on January 22, 2019 at 10:22 am

    In the context of Romans 1, the behavior is a sign of the wrath of God being revealed. Whether it’s natural such as not being thankful or exchanging the truth for a lie or unnatural such as exchanging the shape of relationships God designed to take place between a man and a woman and transferring that to a same sex relationship. A plain or nuanced reading of the text still leads to the statement of the Apostle that those who engage in such behavior cannot avoid the penalty associated with it. (Romans 1: 27)

  29. Comment by Roger on January 18, 2019 at 5:10 pm

    The real clobber text comes from Leviticus 20: 13. The word is abomination. There is no way around that word. To God, an abomination is always going to be an abomination. Faith is taking God at his word. Trying to finesse words will not work with God.

  30. Comment by Richard S Bell on January 26, 2019 at 12:30 am

    My dear brother Roger,
    Leviticus 20:13 states one of many propositions now called Purity Law. Purity Law, like Ceremonial Law and Agricultural Law, played an important role in making the savage, superstitious, and ignorant Egyptian slaves into a nation that would be vessel of the prophets and Messiah. Having achieved its purpose, Purity Law is obsolete.
    Ask for a copy of my essay, which proves from scripture, never finessing words, that God wills celebration of homosexual marriages just as he wills celebration of heterosexual marriages. Is your mind the least bit open? Do you fervently seek to know the truth about God’s moral will? Ask me: rsbell@ameritech.net

  31. Comment by Loren Golden on January 27, 2019 at 11:09 pm

    As we Presbyterians confess, there is a threefold division in the Old Testament Law, but it is not Purity/Ceremonial/Agricultural, as you here claim; rather, it is Ceremonial/Judicial/Moral.  To quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX:
    “3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
    “4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
    “5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.”
    Leviticus 20.13, with its penalty of death for the practice of male homosexuality, is part of the Judicial Law, which is passed away with the state of Ancient Israel (WCF §19.4).  Leviticus 18.22, which proscribes male homosexuality, is part of the Moral Law, which unlike the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, never passes away (WCF §19.5).  This same proscription is further reiterated in the New Testament under Apostolic Authority (Rom. 1.24-27, I Cor. 6.9-11, I Tim. 1.8-11, Jude 7).
    God’s preceptive will—His “moral will”, as you put it—is clear: Homosexuality is a sin, being a species of sexual immorality; the proscription of male homosexuality in the context of Leviticus 18 makes this clear.  In the first five verses, the Lord through Moses commands the Israelites, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you.” (v. 3)  Then He proscribes twelve forms of incest (vv. 6-18), knowingly and deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 19; compare Ezek. 18.6, 22.10; this is distinct from a man who happens to be engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife when her menstrual period begins [Lev. 15.24], which is part of the Ceremonial Law), adultery (v. 20), child sacrifice (v. 21; this is the only proscription in this list that is not a species sexual immorality), male homosexuality (v. 22), and bestiality (v. 23).  Finally at the end of the chapter, He reiterates, “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” (vv. 24-25)  And again for emphasis, “for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean.” (v. 27)  God did not evict the Canaanites and the Amorites for having violated proscriptions of the Ceremonial Law (e.g., eating pork or shellfish [Lev. 11], or getting a tattoo [Lev. 19.28]—non-moral proscriptions intended to outwardly distinguish the Israelites from the nations around them; WCF §19.3), but for having violated proscriptions of the Moral Law, including the proscription against male homosexuality.
    Scripture uniformly presents marriage as the covenantal union, established by God at Creation, of one man with one woman.  Polygamy, in the form of one man in marriage with multiple women, was permitted and regulated under the Judicial Law governing Ancient Israel, despite its obvious violation of the “one flesh” principle of Genesis 2.24 at the heart of the covenant, probably for the same reason divorce was permitted and regulated under the Judicial Law, namely, because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts (Mt. 19.7-8).  However, that allowance is abolished under the New Covenant in the Lord Jesus’ blood, in that officers in His Church “must be…the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3.2,12, Tit. 1.6).
    The postmodern notion that God’s covenant of marriage ought to be open to two members of the same gender finds no support in Scripture—there is, frankly, no allowance for it under either the Old Covenant or the New.  Homosexuality is a sin against God, because it utterly divorces sexual intercourse from His intent for it in procreation.  God created the first two members of our race as male and female, brought them together in covenantal marriage, and commanded them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” (Gen. 1.27-28)  “Did he not make them one with a portion of the Spirit in their union?  And what was the one God seeking?  Godly offspring.” (Mal. 2.15)  To dress homosexuality in a veneer of “marriage” does not thereby make it holy and acceptable in the sight of God, because it is plainly obvious that the production of Godly offspring is impossible for two people of the same gender.
    Furthermore, marriage in the Bible is used by the Prophets and Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to point to the union of God with His People, of Christ with His Church, wherein the husband represents God or Christ, and the wife represents the Church or the Old Testament People of God (Is. 54.5-8, Hos. 1-3, II Cor. 11.2, Eph. 5.22-33, Rev. 19.7-9, 21.2,9-11), and this economy is nowhere in Scripture reversed.  This is not a mere metaphor that may be disregarded or gender neutralized by the world—or by members of the Church who are in love with the world—to better accommodate the Church for the world’s pleasure.  Rather, marriage (i.e., heterosexual marriage) is a shadow and symbol invested with meaning by the Creator that points to a reality in the heavenly places (Heb. 8.5, 10.1) that will be realized when Christ returns.  And when that happens, marriage, as it was established by God at Creation, will be abolished (Mt. 22.30), for “when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” (I Cor. 13.10, Heb. 12.27)
    Conversely, there is no revelatory or redeeming significance in same-gender “marriage”.  It was not established by God but by man; it points not to God and His kingdom, but to man and his, for it is of man’s device and is intended for his own pleasure.  It is a perversion of the covenant that God established at Creation, and it cannot fulfill the temporal purposes for which God established marriage in the beginning.
    Your arguments in your posts above, sir, are without merit.  You twist and misuse the Scriptures in a vain attempt to justify sexual sin and sexual relationships that God has condemned.  You claim, for instance, that when Paul referred to sexual intercourse between two (or more) women as “contrary to nature”, he did not intend for this to be equated with calling them sinful.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In the context of Romans 1.18-32, Paul begins by stating, “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.”  Man is without excuse, “for although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him.”  Therefore, their understanding was diminished, and they fell into idolatry.  And because they fell into idolatry, “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves … to dishonorable passions … to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”  These “dishonorable passions”, which “ought not to be done,” included male and female homosexuality.  This is the language of curse; God curses—or judges—idolatry, according to Paul, by withdrawing His staying power, which “is able to keep you from stumbling” (Jude 24), thus allowing the idolaters to fall into still more iniquity that merits His judgment.  “Though they know God’s degree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
    Thus, when Paul writes of idolatrous “women (who) exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” he means it in a very different sense from Gentiles, as branches cut from “a wild olive tree,” being “grafted, contrary to nature, into“ the heritage of the Jews, as “a cultivated olive tree,” from which the Jews (as branches) had been cut off as a result of their unbelief (Rom. 11.24).  In both cases, “contrary to nature” has at its basic meaning, contrary to God’s design; but in the case of the Romans 11 passage, it is God working to the benefit of the Gentiles to graft them into the heritage of the Jews, contrary to His design of that heritage, whereas in the case of the Romans 1 passage, it is idolatrous men and women engaging in sexual activities contrary to—and in spite of—His design and purposes for sexual intercourse.  There is in the “contrary to nature” reference in the Romans 1 passage a moral element missing from the same reference in the Romans 11 passage, and your mishandling of the texts, sir, fails to do justice to that crucial difference.
    P.S.—A word to the wise: Do not presume to set yourself up as an arbiter of “the truth about God’s moral will” to those who “fervently seek to know” it.  Neither Scripture nor two thousand years of Church history support your spurious claim that “God wills celebration of homosexual marriages just as he wills celebration of heterosexual marriages.”  To thus present yourself as such an arbiter is the height of hubris.
    P.P.S.—If you really want people to read your essay, then I suggest getting a blog, posting said essay on it, and then linking to it.  Few readers on this site (if any) want to give you their contact information.  And besides, it is most unwise, in this age of identity theft and programs that troll the web looking for personal e-mail addresses, to post yours in such an insecure manner.

  32. Comment by Lee D. Cary on February 27, 2019 at 7:10 am

    Post General Conference Comment:
    If you think the debate over LGBTQ marriage and ordination issues is over and done – think again.

    One thing is certain and consistent in the history of the Progressive (AKA “liberal” in the 20th Cen. use of the word) Movement in America: They collectively suffer from the hubris of knowing they alone are always right and righteous, hence they never, ever, give up, (except when confronted with the 21st Amendment and Prohibition.)

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.