Posted on 10/28/2005 2:11:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
The man had been attending a Methodist church in South Hill, Va., for several months. He sang in the choir. He owned a business and was well known in the community. But when he asked to become a formal member of the church, the pastor turned him down, because he is gay.
Those are the bare facts of a case that has split a 650-member congregation in southern Virginia and that threatens to divide the 8 million-member United Methodist Church, the nation's second largest Protestant denomination.
Yesterday in Houston, the Methodists' highest court heard an appeal from the pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church, the Rev. Edward Johnson. He was placed on unpaid leave after he rejected entreaties from his immediate supervisor and his bishop to admit the gay man, who has not been named by church officials and has declined to talk about the case.
Nationally, the Methodist Church prohibits "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from serving as ordained ministers. But it has declared that gay men and lesbians are "persons of sacred worth" and has repeatedly said there are no bars to their participation as lay people.
"The theme of our church for five years now has been 'Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.' The issue here is, 'Are we really open or not?' " said the Rev. W. Anthony Layman, who was Johnson's district superintendent when the pastor was removed in June by a 581 to 20 vote of fellow ministers in the church's Virginia conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No one with the beam in his own eye would think it's fair.
"I don't understand this at all. The Methodist Church is now telling people they can't be part of a congregation if they're sinners? Excuse me, but I'm a sinner, and I'm a member of the Methodist Church, too. My understanding is that we all "fall short"."
And these people call themselves Christians. The amount of intolerance on this site sometimes shocks me. Fortunately, this is not the practice of the Methodist Church but a single Methodist minister in VA who has been since been removed from his position (by a 581-20 vote of fellow VA ministers).
Here's what I never understand...why would you want to be a member of an organization whose beliefs do not include you? Someone explain that to me.
I am absolutely accurate on this. There is no way an excess of weight can occur without an excess of calorie consumption. The laws of physics dictate without exception that the matter and energy equation is maintained. 3500 calories equal about a pound. If you consume 3500 calories more than you expend you will gain a pound, if you consume 3500 calories less than you expend you will lose a pound. No other formula works. That's the law.
The difference is, even if you commit one of the 7 deadly sins, you admit it's wrong. Does the gay guy think his lifestyle is wrong?
We have a gay man in our choir in our UMC. He is also a member and has join the church. We know he is gay and we do not discuss it but we do pray for him. He is welcome in our church. He will never hold a position of authority in the church and his life style will never be promoted in our church.
If they loudly make an issue of it ("Yes, we are fornicating; it's not a sin, but our right. Now shut up and give me communion!"), then yes, they should be denied full church membership, at least in a church that actually believes in something.
If, on the other hand, they admit that like everyone else they are broken sinners and want to be better, the church leader should be able to guide them into full membership.
The real issue, like always, is one of pride. Both the active homosexual in this story and your hypothetical fornicators demand that Christ take them on their terms. That's not what taking up the cross means.
As far as whether kicking out persistent fornicators would empty churches, I think you are over-estimating the numbers of the shacked-up in the pews. It's my experience that most of these folks (almost always young) have better things to do than go to church on Sunday mornings. I know I did. I had to first reach a decision to turn to Christ before I even wanted to go to church. I certainly did not demand a right to keep my sins. Why would I want to stay in slavery to sin when I was desperately trying to free myself (and I still am).
Maybe churches could do a better job evangelizing co-habitators (and sinners in general), but pretending sin does not exist is not the way to win souls for Christ. We should strive to actually stand for the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Christ came to set us free, if we will let Him. The Good Samaritan did not look at the beaten man, say "you're really not hurt" and then go on his way. We sinners are like that beaten man. Christ can heal us, but first we have to admit that we are broken.
"If they loudly make an issue of it ("Yes, we are fornicating; it's not a sin, but our right. Now shut up and give me communion!"), then yes, they should be denied full church membership, at least in a church that actually believes in something.
If, on the other hand, they admit that like everyone else they are broken sinners and want to be better, the church leader should be able to guide them into full membership."
So now it depends on how "loudly" one is proclaiming his/her sinfulness?!? I don't think there is any support in Church teaching/scripture for such a distinction. Most cohabitating couples make no secret of their relationship, but I don't see them being kicked out of churches or denied membership. Basically, it appears that this homosexual was singled out for a membership test that wasn't applied to anyone else. I guess that's why the minister was removed from his position.
"Here's what I never understand...why would you want to be a member of an organization whose beliefs do not include you? Someone explain that to me."
I don't think the issue of homosexuality is a central tenet in most Christian faiths. I think most Christian churches focus on the good news (gospel) of Jesus, His divinity, and on the importance of following the Golden Rule. I think that homosexuals, like most other people, are attracted to these aspects of the various Christian faiths.
Its kind of like unions in a "right to work" state. You don't have to join to work there, but if you want to you can.
And you do this by not allowing them in your Church?
Please read my post again. It's not a matter of volume, but of pride and claiming a "right." By claiming a "right" to sin, an individual removes himself from any hope of a real relationship with Christ. The essence of Christianity is that not our will, but the Father's be done. I suggest you read some basic Christian apologetics, perhaps Mere Christianity.
I wonder what these churches are you claim are filled to the brim with co-habitaing couples (a Unitarian church, perhaps?). I have never encountered such a church. You must live in a blue state. I question whether these "churches" are worthy of the name if the pastors are admitting open and notorious sinners to full communion. In every church I've been associated with the pastor insists that co-habitating couples separate before he will marry them, let alone admit them to full communion.
And you wrong about the gay being singled out in this case. He made an issue out of his sexuality, announced he was sexually active outside of marriage, and demanded full communion status. The pastor may very well have been willing to go a "don't ask, don't tell" route but the gay was only interested in making an issue.
"If we're going to frame this as an issue of "tolerance," than I might have to switch sides. I'm not suggesting that the Church "tolerate" homosexuality...I'm saying they need to minister to everyone, including homosexuals."
It's not just the intolerance but the meanspiritedness that so many "Christians" on this site engage in. In the issue at hand, it seems clear that this Methodist minister applied a selective membership test to a homosexual that was not applied to other prospective members of the church. That's why he was fired.
"Please read my post again. It's not a matter of volume, but of pride and claiming a 'right.'"
I read your previous post, and you're basically repeating yourself. There is no basis in Church teaching or scripture for the distinction you are making. All church members should be treated equally. If we're going to deny membership or expel "sinners", then ALL sinners should be expelled. You are also incorrect about this particular incident. The minister attempted to apply a selective membership test to a homosexual that was not applied to other prospective members. That's why he was terminated (by an overwhelming vote of ministers in a conservative "red" state).
" wonder what these churches are you claim are filled to the brim with co-habitating couples"
It's not just the millions of cohabitating heterosexuals. What about church members who engage in masturbation? I think most Christian churches consider masturbation to be a sin. I'm a Catholic, and masturbation is a sin according to official Catholic teaching. Should we remove all the masturbators from the church pews? If so, the pews will be empty!
Which do you choose?
Since you have no real knowledge of the theology of your own (professed) Church, let me point you to Ephesians Chapter 5:
"1Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not associate with them; 8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light."
Maybe you can explain what "do not associate with them" means, other than "do not associate with them." There are many similar passages in Paul's Epistles. Try them out!
Finally, I leave you with this from Titus, chapter 3:
"10As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."
"You are wrong on so many counts, your arguments are incoherent and seem to consist of a very poor opinion of the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. I have a hard time accepting that you are really a Catholic."
I have a hard time believing that you're even a Christian. You are way out of step with Christian thinking, and your theology is nonsensical. You may want to contemplate why 96.7% of the Virginia Methodist ministers voted to fire the minister that you are supporting.
P.S.: I notice that you didn't address my question about the sin of masturbation. You're very selective in the sinners that you want to expel.
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Jesus used the law when he was speaking to sinners. He shared God's Grace to those that were humbled. You see why would you want to receive the "Good News" of the Gospel if you don't think you are a sinner. It would be utter foolishness to tell someone that Jesus died for their sins if they don't think what they are doing is sinful. It would be offensive to share the Gospel with them, because they think they are good people. 1 Cor 2:14
Now on the other hand if you do what Jesus did and share the Law first, then it makes sense. Read Mark 10:17-22. He used the Law to shut people up. So that they could feel guilty. Romans 3:19.
He made people understand that they were sinners first and that they had angered God. What is sin? The Bible tells us in 1 John 3:4.
Paul said, that you can't know sin unless you know the law in Romans 7:7.
So you see I am not contradicting what the Bible says by using the law. We are not justified by the law, but by faith. BUT, the law is to be our teacher and our guide to salvation...Galatians 3:24.
It is the law FRiend...that breaks us down in true repentance and leads us to the cross.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.