The United Methodist Church's Civil War: An Update

[DaShuckster]

First off, for those that didn't catch my update in a different thread:

Any idea which direction your church is going to go?

Money talks and we realized last fall that our individual churches had serious clout if we refused to be intimidated by last year's edict.

The congregation of our church -- along with the vast majority of American UMC congregations -- became rebels and voted to ignore the verdict that came out of last year's convention and dare the Powers-that-Be to do something about it. In addition to risking sanctions against our church, we chose to "put our money where our beliefs were." The belief was that a united rebellion of the wealthiest churches would create a situation of who would blink first.

The word that just came out this past weekend was -- surprise, surprise -- the anti-LGBT crowd blinked. A compromise has been worked out that, when approved at this year's convention, will allow UMC to be accepting of all of God's children moving forward while allowing the anti-LGBT churches to leave the United Methodist Church if they so desire and start their own denomination.

Since posting this, I've gotten a lot more information. The deal that was recently announced was secured through a series of mediation sessions. UMC was fortunate to secure the services of one of the World's most famous mediators, Kenneth Feinberg, to work with church leaders in an effort to work through their impasse. The wild thing about it was that Feinberg is: 1) Jewish; and 2) agreed to mediate a resolution for the church pro bono.

If you're interested, here's a link about Feinberg and his UMC mediation sessions:

https://www.umnews.org/en/news/feinberg-kept-church-negotiators-at-table
​

 

[Crazyhole]

First off, for those that didn't catch my update in a different thread:

Since posting this, I've gotten a lot more information. The deal that was recently announced was secured through a series of mediation sessions. UMC was fortunate to secure the services of one of the World's most famous mediators, Kenneth Feinberg, to work with church leaders in an effort to work through their impasse. The wild thing about it was that Feinberg is: 1) Jewish; and 2) agreed to mediate a resolution for the church pro bono.

If you're interested, here's a link about Feinberg and his UMC mediation sessions:

https://www.umnews.org/en/news/feinberg-kept-church-negotiators-at-table
​

This is probably the most high profile church split since Luther. In the end it really doesn't mean anything more than the church of christ and the United church of christ being separate ideologically, but its still a pretty big deal.

It's kind of funny, as Christians we are generally taught that churches splitting is a bad thing but I see it as a way to reach more people with the basis of our faith: grace through christ. One of the more contentious discussions that I've had with Monseigneur at the catholic church revolved around this. Is it better to allow an expansion of faith outside of a particular belief structure or hold fast to it, knowing that it might deter people from the most important aspect of Christian faith?

Personally, I go back to Paul on this. "Should we continue to sin so that grace may increase?" Is this an advocacy of sin, or in other words, is this something that stands between an individuals relationship with Christ? If not, go ahead and split. If so, it becomes a bastardization of Christian faith and it's nothing less than a false prophet.

I will say this: its curious that social acceptance of homosexuality came before church acceptance of it. Makes a person question whether the church is following or leading.

 

[DaShuckster]

I will say this: its curious that social acceptance of homosexuality came before church acceptance of it. Makes a person question whether the church is following or leading.

This is absolutely no surprise to me. Churches are among The Most Conservative institutions in our society.

I found it interesting that in the presentation that Mrs Shuckster and I attended this morning, it was noted that two-thirds of the world churches giving comes from progressive congregations. Of the churches where the majority favored the so-called 'traditional plan' (i.e. anti-LGBT), they were concentrated primarily in the US States of Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, as well as the old USSR block of
Eastern Europe, and Africa.

Frankly, I was impressed by the level of support for Gays in the Church from congregations in places like North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, and Texas.

Like the old days of slavery, major societal change doesn't happen overnight. But UMC's announcement signals that we're slowly, but surely, getting there.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is absolutely no surprise to me. Churches are among The Most Conservative institutions in our society.

I found it interesting that in the presentation that Mrs Shuckster and I attended this morning, it was noted that two-thirds of the world churches giving comes from progressive congregations. Of the churches where the majority favored the so-called 'traditional plan' (i.e. anti-LGBT), they were concentrated primarily in the US States of Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, as well as the old USSR block of
Eastern Europe, and Africa.

Frankly, I was impressed by the level of support for Gays in the Church from congregations in places like North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, and Texas.

Like the old days of slavery, major societal change doesn't happen overnight. But UMC's announcement signals that we're slowly, but surely, getting there.

I have to be honest, that last paragraph creeped me out more than a little. Do you really want the church to follow societal change? What's the point of being a member of a church that just says "hey, let's just go with the flow and whatever popular opinion is, we're there". The church is supposed to be a tether, keeping you from straying too far but even if you do they accept you back. Why would the shepherd bring the lost sheep back if wherever the sheep goes, it's totally cool? Just let him go do his thing and support it, even if it means falling off of a cliff or getting eaten by wolves.

I fear that the UMC and many churches have lost the importance of righteousness in favor of being all-inclusive. As much as I dont like how the catholic church is ultra-exclusive, this approach seems much more damaging and can lead to false prophets.

 

[DaShuckster]

I have to be honest, that last paragraph creeped me out more than a little.

Accepting openly Gay people in your church creeps you out? Really, Crazy?

To be honest, that surprises me.

 

[goodknightfl]

I never thought of splitting as bad, though it can be painful for those involved. When I went to Presbyterian church we would actually split individual churches in order to start new ones.

Now fortunately or unfortunately, Progressivism has entered may churches, and it is almost impossible for the 2 sides to reconcile.

 

[DaShuckster]

I never thought of splitting as bad, though it can be painful for those involved. When I went to Presbyterian church we would actually split individual churches in order to start new ones.

Now fortunately or unfortunately, Progressivism has entered may churches, and it is almost impossible for the 2 sides to reconcile.

UMC tried really, really hard to come up with a solution that kept everyone happy. But in the end, it was not to be. Given the stress, the drama, and the contentiousness that's been part of the church in recent years, this is probably for the best.

I'm still a bit taken aback by my friend, Crazyhole's post. If you look at the history of organized religion, the notion churches never change is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Crazyhole]

Accepting openly Gay people in your church creeps you out? Really, Crazy?

To be honest, that surprises me.

No, the idea that societal norms can change a belief structure creeps me out. To me, that seems like a form of worshipping man as opposed to worshiping god.

 

[DaShuckster]

No, the idea that societal norms can change a belief structure creeps me out. To me, that seems like a form of worshipping man as opposed to worshiping god.

Once upon a time many religious belief structures asserted that slavery was one of the necessary foundations of business and that women are naturally subservient to men (i.e. second-class citizens.)

Fortunately, as mankind evolved over the centuries, societal norms slowly, but surely, changed some of those ancient beliefs. Now the issue is the acceptance of GLBT people in the Church.

Why should we cling to the ancient belief that homosexuality is bad when there is mountains of evidence to the contrary? We've learned more about human sexuality in the last 50 years than all the previous years of human existence combined.

The notion that these fundamental changes in our religious beliefs were essentially 'fads' that 'worship man' instead of God is hard for me to wrap my head around. Seems to me that God expects us to continue to grow and evolve in our faith.

 

[Boosted87]

No, the idea that societal norms can change a belief structure creeps me out. To me, that seems like a form of worshipping man as opposed to worshiping god.

The Catholic Church has moved on many issues over the centuries, as have all institutionally driven faiths. Thus, rigidly tying yourself to a 500 year old construct is no different than tying yourself to a brand new construct. In either case, you could levy the argument you're making here that you're worshiping man as opposed to God - it's just a question of whether you're worshiping at the opinion of the people in charge 500 years ago or the opinions of those in charge today.

I get that fundamental moral beliefs shouldn't be easily morphed. At the same time, we can easily look back historically and see institutional beliefs that are deeply flawed by today's standards. That means we are naive to believe that today's "belief structure" won't also continue to evolve going forward. I also see that as an apt analogy of the Christian faith in general - humans are flawed and are on a perpetual journey to be more Christ-like.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

The Catholic Church has moved on many issues over the centuries, as have all institutionally driven faiths. Thus, rigidly tying yourself to a 500 year old construct is no different than tying yourself to a brand new construct. In either case, you could levy the argument you're making here that you're worshiping man as opposed to God - it's just a question of whether you're worshiping at the opinion of the people in charge 500 years ago or the opinions of those in charge today.

I get that fundamental moral beliefs shouldn't be easily morphed. At the same time, we can easily look back historically and see institutional beliefs that are deeply flawed by today's standards. That means we are naive to believe that today's "belief structure" won't also continue to evolve going forward. I also see that as an apt analogy of the Christian faith in general - humans are flawed and are on a perpetual journey to be more Christ-like.

I'm with this.

We're flawed today just as we were flawed yesterday and will be tomorrow and our institutions will always reflect that. Are we doing the best with the info we have at that time is what I care about really.

To me the question is what are the real fundamental pillars that are unwavering across all times? I guess the biblical purpose of sex is one of those? If so then I guess the LGBT debate is an important one.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I'm with this.

We're flawed today just as we were flawed yesterday and will be tomorrow and our institutions will always reflect that. Are we doing the best with the info we have at that time is what I care about really.

To me the question is what are the real fundamental pillars that are unwavering across all times? I guess the biblical purpose of sex is one of those? If so then I guess the LGBT debate is an important one.

Slavery for sure. The Bible is 100% pro owning people, gives you guidelines on how to do it "morally"

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Slavery for sure. The Bible is 100% pro owning people, gives you guidelines on how to do it "morally"

That's the shit that trips me out when people try and defend it based on the era and norms of the day. We're just admitting the church just goes with the flow and we defend it. I guess we can't be mad ab changing to society today then right?

Or better yet. Maybe the church needs to assess what actually matters and get back to the basics? Assuming there is a grand creator of this crazy fuking universe what is the message we're supposed to be getting and how do we best reach connection with him? When you think of it in those terms you realize incredibly stupid all the trivial bullshit is that people actually argue about. If the church actually cared they'd be promoting psychedelic usage as a real path lol

 

[DaShuckster]

The Catholic Church has moved on many issues over the centuries, as have all institutionally driven faiths. Thus, rigidly tying yourself to a 500 year old construct is no different than tying yourself to a brand new construct. In either case, you could levy the argument you're making here that you're worshiping man as opposed to God.

The basic assumption of fundamentalists is that God gave His message to ancient scholars 3000 years ago in the various writings that came together as The Bible and....(drumroll)...that's that.

Really?

It's no Earth-shattering revelation to say that Man is significantly more advanced today than our species was 3000 years ago when the various books of the Bible were written. So even though humans have evolved, God's message given to the writers of that era remains unchanged?​

If God's message remains rigidly fixed to those ancient times, why did God create creatures who would evolve and grow over the centuries?

Why create humans who would look different, live differently, speak different languages, and think in different ways and behave in different ways, thus creating natural conflicts?

Why would God create humans who would continue to develop a richer understanding of ourselves and His Universe that we live in?

Personally, I have a hard time with people who want to question my faith and label it 'man-made' simply because it doesn't jive with their "time-honored" Christian belief system.

 

[Crazyhole]

Once upon a time many religious belief structures asserted that slavery was one of the necessary foundations of business and that women are naturally subservient to men (i.e. second-class citizens.) Slavery was never something that the church advocated or considered doctrinal. Nowhere in the new testament can you find approval or disapproval of it, just directions to both slaves and slave owners on how to treat one another.

As far as women are concerned, the restriction on a womans role in worship comes from Paul but it wasn't because women are subservient. In ephesians he makes it clear that man and woman are equal.

Fortunately, as mankind evolved over the centuries, societal norms slowly, but surely, changed some of those ancient beliefs. Now the issue is the acceptance of GLBT people in the Church.

Why should we cling to the ancient belief that homosexuality is bad when there is mountains of evidence to the contrary? We've learned more about human sexuality in the last 50 years than all the previous years of human existence combined.
Again, its not about sexuality, it's about marriage and the church's role.
The notion that these fundamental changes in our religious beliefs were essentially 'fads' that 'worship man' instead of God is hard for me to wrap my head around. Seems to me that God expects us to continue to grow and evolve in our faith
Old heresies never die, they just change forms. It's hard to refute that god opposed the practices of Ba'al and Moloch worshippers, so did he change his mind or did we just decide to find justification for them?
.

 

[DaShuckster]

Slavery was never something that the church advocated or considered doctrinal. Nowhere in the new testament can you find approval or disapproval of it, just directions to both slaves and slave owners on how to treat one another.

Just directions to both slaves and slave owners on how to treat each other? Yeah, THAT's not taking a position on the subject.

Again, its not about sexuality, it's about marriage and the church.

If it was not about sexuality, why mention homosexuality at all?

Old heresies never die, they just change forms. It's hard to refute that god opposed the practices of Ba'al and Moloch worshippers

So accepting Gays in the Church is akin to accepting Ba'al and Moloch worshippers?

 

[Crazyhole]

Just directions to both slaves and slave owners on how to treat each other? Yeah, THAT's not taking a position on the subject.
If it was not about sexuality, why mention homosexuality at all?
So accepting Gays in the Church is akin to accepting Ba'al and Moloch worshippers?

Ba'al worship was basically worship of the planet. Moloch worship was a form of abortion and infanticide. I realize this thread is about homosexuality in general but those 2 examples are pretty good ones for humanity in general.

No offense, but you do tend to take positions that are on the extreme end of what the original church opposed based on God's word and justify it because of science or politics. It almost seems like you assume that there was no wisdom imparted on man before 1950.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Ba'al worship was basically worship of the planet. Moloch worship was a form of abortion and infanticide. I realize this thread is about homosexuality in general but those 2 examples are pretty good ones for humanity in general.

No offense, but you do tend to take positions that are on the extreme end of what the original church opposed based on God's word and justify it because of science or politics. It almost seems like you assume that there was no wisdom imparted on man before 1950.

Bible is pro abortion as well, the only time it is mentioned is to give instructions on how to perform one. That and it's pro slavery stance are two big reasons I'm not a fan.

 

[DaShuckster]

No offense, but you do tend to take positions that are on the extreme end of what the original church opposed based on God's word and justify it because of science or politics. It almost seems like you assume that there was no wisdom imparted on man before 1950.

My 'extreme' position is that God loves people regardless of their sexual orientation. I do assume that society has learned a considerable amount about homosexuality since the 1970s and that information strongly supports my position.

For what it's worth, it is much harder for me to believe Jesus Christ would have advocated banning open Gays from preaching the gospel than he would welcoming open Gays into the Church. This is the crux of the UMC issue.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I'm with this.

We're flawed today just as we were flawed yesterday and will be tomorrow and our institutions will always reflect that. Are we doing the best with the info we have at that time is what I care about really.

To me the question is what are the real fundamental pillars that are unwavering across all times? I guess the biblical purpose of sex is one of those? If so then I guess the LGBT debate is an important one.

I assume you've done so already, but if not, go listen to some of the debates between Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson and some of the atheist or agnostic "dark webbers". Or Peterson's podcast with Bishop Barron. All are well worth the time.

The reality is that the deeper questions that have existed for all of time are the things that demand more thought and attention, of which virtually none is being paid in modern shitty American society.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I assume you've done so already, but if not, go listen to some of the debates between Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson and some of the atheist or agnostic "dark webbers". Or Peterson's podcast with Bishop Barron. All are well worth the time.

The reality is that the deeper questions that have existed for all of time are the things that demand more thought and attention, of which virtually none is being paid in modern shitty American society.

"Atheistic dark webber's"


Hoooooly shit I've heard it all. Protect your kids from those atheists on the dark web, parents. They might teach them logic and reason.

This board is a legit comedy gold mine.

 

[Crazyhole]

My 'extreme' position is that God loves people regardless of their sexual orientation. I do assume that society has learned a considerable amount about homosexuality since the 1970s and that information strongly supports my position.

For what it's worth, it is much harder for me to believe Jesus Christ would have advocated banning open Gays from preaching the gospel than he would welcoming open Gays into the Church. This is the crux of the UMC issue.

Nobody is saying that god won't forgive sin and to my knowledge no church has turned anyone away because of their sexual lifestyle, so your statement is basically hyperbole. The question at hand for churches is how to reconcile preaching scripture that they believe is divinely inspired and also advocate against it in their doctrine. As an extension of that, I dont recall a situation where christ told anyone to continue what they are doing and go spread the gospel. Can you imagine him telling a pharisee to make no change in their own life or application of lifestyle but go spread the gospel?

The reason that Paul was so influential in the early church and stands to this day as the penultimate voice of worship practices is because he turned away from his prior life. What would be the value of righteousness if it is secondary to ones own earthly desires?

 

[DaShuckster]

Nobody is saying that god won't forgive sin and to my knowledge no church has turned anyone away because of their sexual lifestyle

Yeah, "don't ask and don't tell" and everything is hunky-dory.

But if you want your same-sex marriage to be performed in your United Methodist Church and you want your United Methodist minister to perform the service, you won't be turned away?

Until UMC's split is ratified, your home church can be sanctioned and your minister subject to dismissal. How is that hyperbole?

 

[Crazyhole]

Yeah, "don't ask and don't tell" and everything is hunky-dory.

But if you want your same-sex marriage to be performed in your United Methodist Church and you want your United Methodist minister to perform the service, you won't be turned away?

Until UMC's split is ratified, your home church can be sanctioned and your minister subject to dismissal. How is that hyperbole?

So are there a lot of Methodist ministers that just kick people out of the church because they are gay? Or do they just refuse to preside over a homosexual wedding because they feel that the scripture that the church has adopted isn't consistent with it?

This is a total exaggeration, but let's say the Methodist church down the street from yours decided that polygamy was cool and would marry a man to multiple women. Should the minister overseeing it be sanctioned? Realistically, there have been no scientific studies that show polygamy is a bad thing so why not do it?

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

Slavery for sure. The Bible is 100% pro owning people, gives you guidelines on how to do it "morally"

hahaha! LOL ......"morally" !!!

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

Religion in general has less and less people practicing each year in the U.S.

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

"Atheistic dark webber's"


Hoooooly shit I've heard it all. Protect your kids from those atheists on the dark web, parents. They might teach them logic and reason.

This board is a legit comedy gold mine.

Exactly.....all us Atheists are bad people!

 

[DaShuckster]

... do they just refuse to preside over a homosexual wedding because they feel that the scripture that the church has adopted isn't consistent with it?

No, just the opposite. Clergy are threatened if they do.

This is a total exaggeration, but let's say the Methodist church down the street from yours decided that polygamy was cool ...

Come on, Crazy. Is this the old slippery slope argument all over again? Same-Sex marriage is LEGAL in this country.

 

[Crazyhole]

No, just the opposite. Clergy are threatened if they do.
Come on, Crazy. Is this the old slippery slope argument all over again? Same-Sex marriage is LEGAL in this country.

I'm going to ignore your 2nd response because its lazy. Your 1st response is unclear. Are you saying that church doctrine in the UMC is to perform same sex weddings? If so, why does US legality have anything to do with that decision?


I really dont care what the Methodist church does. Marry gay couples, marry multiple partners, marry a woman and a cow for all I care. My point is that just because the federal government gives it the ok doesnt mean its consistent with scripture so that should have no impact on the decision to do so. If there is a scriptural basis for making a change, go for it. Dont wait for society to tell you it's ok, the church can do that on their own.

 

[DaShuckster]

Marry gay couples, marry multiple partners, marry a woman and a cow for all I care. My point is that just because the federal government gives it the ok doesn't mean its consistent with scripture.

Okay, you've made it crystal clear what you think of the United Methodist Church's decision to marry Gay couples in their churches by their clergy and to accept Gay clergy.

I really dont care what the Methodist church does.

Given I'm a United Methodist and you're not, that's understandable. What I truly don't understand is why you're choosing to attack my church's position with lines like "marry a woman and a cow."

 

[Nautiknight]

The beauty in America is this. The church, the UMC, can do what ever it wants and the people attending the church can chose to stay or go. It's that simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to attend, give or hold the exact beliefs.

After reading much of this thread I see both sides. One side, the church should stand for it's truth and the other side is grace and love. Western Civilization gas evolved in large part because of the church. It was the keeper of truth and helped guide behavior consistent with family success and thus child rearing. Truth is going out getting drunk daily is not good for your body or your relationships. Truth is respecting others works. Truth is hard work often pays off. Truth is cheating on your spouse is often not a good thing. The list goes on.

Without boundaries and guidelines on behavior how do we evolve ? Without love and charity for those in need how do we evolve? Our success at building functioning societies is based on our religious under pinnings. If you doubt it look at every communist nation ever. Look at their liberty, personal freedoms and such... Oh wait they had none and they ALL were run by atheists. Look at Iran, they are a theocracy. They have their version of truth and frankly it too sucks.

I guess my point is this. The old testament says doing gay sex acts is a sin. It doesn't say being gay is a sin. Do we as Christians get to pick which sins are acceptable and which ones aren't? I mean we do all the time in our own lives, so should our houses of worship hold a line , a bench mark as it were or should they evolve to meet low standards of the day ?

Now, me, I am a libertarian and I think matters of gay marriage or straight marriage for that matter are no business of government. I don't want or need the government to sanction my love. In fact government truly only got involved with marriage after the civil war because southern Democrats didn't want interracial marriage. Thus the marriage license was born.
The church on the other hand does have its books and teachings and if the church says, nope, we are not going to sanction a union which our teachings says is a no go, then at least here in America they should have the right to do that.

Going back to the argument of well, those teachings are 3,000 years old so they have no value to today. Some of that debate may be true. However, if you are a Christian and you believe the Bible is God's word and you believe God to be good, the same today, yesterday and tomorrow, then by default the truth and wisdom of word from 2,000 years ago would also be true today would it not? Funny how we have evolved with our technology yet the same sins committed 2,000 years ago are still with us today and with the same consequences. Infidelity, gossip , hate, jealousy, lust , greed and on and on still are within us all today. So, how much have we truly evolved? The truth of all those things, acts and such described in the good book hasn't gone away either.

It's good we don't stone gay people. It's good that gay people really don't have to live in the shadows. It's good to be kind to our fellow man. All those things are good. I don't know how to reconcile the teachings and morality of the issue as stated in the Bible versus how a church decides to marry gay people though. I don't know how the church can give a pass on this behavior while holding the lines on others? It's a tough nut to crack. Do we say, oh God got it wrong with homosexuality or the acts of it, but He was right every where else? I can see how UMC can wrestle with this.

In closing ...lol. I see my faith like a mariner sees a light house. The light house gets me home. It's a fixed position. It never changes while me, I am out there bobbing around in my 22 foot boat. My position is not fixed ever but when it's time to come home , come to safety of the inlet , the light house is there guiding my course. Having constant truths to guide us all in our journey coupled with love, grace and forgiveness is what faith and religion means for me. At the end of the day , the church really needs to be the lighthouse . The beacon of hope and it should remain close to the truth in which it's anchored upon.

 

[goodknightfl]

.

I'm still a bit taken aback by my friend, Crazyhole's post. If you look at the history of organized religion, the notion churches never change is not supported by the evidence.

The church has to change and evolve, the core principles shouldn't change, but there often is disagreement even there. I for one think if you are not happy with the church you are in you move, but if the hierarchy of the church disagree that is not an option.

 

[Crazyhole]

The beauty in America is this. The church, the UMC, can do what ever it wants and the people attending the church can chose to stay or go. It's that simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to attend, give or hold the exact beliefs.

After reading much of this thread I see both sides. One side, the church should stand for it's truth and the other side is grace and love. Western Civilization gas evolved in large part because of the church. It was the keeper of truth and helped guide behavior consistent with family success and thus child rearing. Truth is going out getting drunk daily is not good for your body or your relationships. Truth is respecting others works. Truth is hard work often pays off. Truth is cheating on your spouse is often not a good thing. The list goes on.

Without boundaries and guidelines on behavior how do we evolve ? Without love and charity for those in need how do we evolve? Our success at building functioning societies is based on our religious under pinnings. If you doubt it look at every communist nation ever. Look at their liberty, personal freedoms and such... Oh wait they had none and they ALL were run by atheists. Look at Iran, they are a theocracy. They have their version of truth and frankly it too sucks.

I guess my point is this. The old testament says doing gay sex acts is a sin. It doesn't say being gay is a sin. Do we as Christians get to pick which sins are acceptable and which ones aren't? I mean we do all the time in our own lives, so should our houses of worship hold a line , a bench mark as it were or should they evolve to meet low standards of the day ?

Now, me, I am a libertarian and I think matters of gay marriage or straight marriage for that matter are no business of government. I don't want or need the government to sanction my love. In fact government truly only got involved with marriage after the civil war because southern Democrats didn't want interracial marriage. Thus the marriage license was born.
The church on the other hand does have its books and teachings and if the church says, nope, we are not going to sanction a union which our teachings says is a no go, then at least here in America they should have the right to do that.

Going back to the argument of well, those teachings are 3,000 years old so they have no value to today. Some of that debate may be true. However, if you are a Christian and you believe the Bible is God's word and you believe God to be good, the same today, yesterday and tomorrow, then by default the truth and wisdom of word from 2,000 years ago would also be true today would it not? Funny how we have evolved with our technology yet the same sins committed 2,000 years ago are still with us today and with the same consequences. Infidelity, gossip , hate, jealousy, lust , greed and on and on still are within us all today. So, how much have we truly evolved? The truth of all those things, acts and such described in the good book hasn't gone away either.

It's good we don't stone gay people. It's good that gay people really don't have to live in the shadows. It's good to be kind to our fellow man. All those things are good. I don't know how to reconcile the teachings and morality of the issue as stated in the Bible versus how a church decides to marry gay people though. I don't know how the church can give a pass on this behavior while holding the lines on others? It's a tough nut to crack. Do we say, oh God got it wrong with homosexuality or the acts of it, but He was right every where else? I can see how UMC can wrestle with this.

In closing ...lol. I see my faith like a mariner sees a light house. The light house gets me home. It's a fixed position. It never changes while me, I am out there bobbing around in my 22 foot boat. My position is not fixed ever but when it's time to come home , come to safety of the inlet , the light house is there guiding my course. Having constant truths to guide us all in our journey coupled with love, grace and forgiveness is what faith and religion means for me. At the end of the day , the church really needs to be the lighthouse . The beacon of hope and it should remain close to the truth in which it's anchored upon.

Great post

 

[Crazyhole]

Okay, you've made it crystal clear what you think of the United Methodist Church's decision to marry Gay couples in their churches by their clergy and to accept Gay clergy.
Given I'm a United Methodist and you're not, that's understandable. What I truly don't understand is why you're choosing to attack my church's position with lines like "marry a woman and a cow."

I'm not attacking your church's position, I'm questioning how they can reconcile their position with scripture that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. You could actually make a better scriptural case for polygamy.

Just to reiterate my position, I'm in favor of gay marriage in regards to the government. To me, it isn't the same thing as a biblical marriage so I'm fine with it. On the flip side, I dont think Christian churches should participate in gay weddings. I'm not interested in forcing a church to do anything, it's their choice on how to interpret or ignore scripture, but just as you can be critical of something the catholic church does, I can be critical of something the UMC does.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I assume you've done so already, but if not, go listen to some of the debates between Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson and some of the atheist or agnostic "dark webbers". Or Peterson's podcast with Bishop Barron. All are well worth the time.

The reality is that the deeper questions that have existed for all of time are the things that demand more thought and attention, of which virtually none is being paid in modern shitty American society.

Can we revisit this comment for a second, and just admire the sheer brain dead inbred stupidity it embodies?


"Atheistic dark webber's" my sides

 

[Crazyhole]

https://www.rivertowns.net/lifestyl...Methodists-cry-foul-at-church-rebranding-plan

I guess since this is a thread about the UMC, it's as good of a place to put this as any. My opinion is that the holy spirit sells itself and a church shouldn't view demographics as a way to increase membership, just focus on the gospel.