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 ...
Your words...
I suggest you take your 'shock' and agenda elsewhere...
You and I have had debate on this topic of homosexualty once before -it is clear to myself that you are a homosexual activist. The only question remaining is when will you be zotted...
"Millions of heterosexuals (including many married couples) also engage in sodomy. It's funny that I don't see equal condemnation of this "filthy and abhorrent" behavior. It seems like the condemnation is limited to homosexual sex acts."
You're right! I condemn a man sticking his penis in another man's "backside," regardless if he's homosexual or heterosexual.
Feel better now?
"I suggest you take your 'shock' and agenda elsewhere...
You and I have had debate on this topic of homosexualty once before -it is clear to myself that you are a homosexual activist. The only question remaining is when will you be zotted..."
I'll give your suggestion the consideration it deserves. Thanks for showing your true colors.
"You're right! I condemn a man sticking his penis in another man's "backside," regardless if he's homosexual or heterosexual.
I hate to break the news to you, but there are millions of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex. I'm sure you're including them in your comdemnation of "filthy and abhorrent" behavior.
You are quite welcome. My true colors as you call them on this issue are succinctly simple. Intolerance and opposition to homosexual activity being promoted as 'normal'. Intolerance and opposition to the homosexual disorder being presented as 'normal'. Intolerance and opposition to the homosexual agenda which comprises promotion of the two previous things opposed and which entails the homosexualization of society in general. Zero tolerance of and opposition to the homosexual agenda is objectively legitimate and in my opinion only illegitimately debated...
You said:
"I think very few of the other sinners that I mentioned "want to be well", but I haven't heard you or others calling for them to be kicked out of church."
Wow! Tens of thousands or even millions of church, synagogue, temple and other house of worship attendees, and you can actually see their hearts, and you know that they don't really want to change! Amazing, you can see in each and every heart of heart, and you can see (with your all-seeing gaze) that they are all - to a man - hypocrites who want to revel in their sin, actually proud of it, and yet pretend to be following God's words.
You still didn't address my point that there are no "Wankers' Pride Parades" or "Swingers' Pride Parades" with proud sinners who then demand entrance into houses of worship to be accepted as sincere members.
"Intolerance and opposition to the homosexual agenda which comprises promotion of the two previous things opposed and which entails the homosexualization of society in general. Zero tolerance of and opposition to the homosexual agenda is objectively legitimate and in my opinion only illegitimately debated."
What a diatribe! You can continue to babble about a "homosexual agenda", but the subject of this thread is a Methodist minister who applied a membership test based on sexual activity that apparently was not applied to other prospective church members. The minister's actions were so outrageous that he was terminated by an overwhelming vote of his fellow ministers. I'm on the side of the vast majority of Virginia Methodist ministers.
Clearly the subject of my posting to you was that you are a homosexual activist -the various topics you just happen to engage your activism in are incidental...
You said:
"How many of the people who masturbate "want to be well"? How many of the people who engage in sodomy "want to be well"? How many of the people who are living together outside of marriage "want to be well"? How many of the divorced people who have remarried "want to be well"? Why is it that all of the latter are not being kicked out of churches or denied membership?"
Your huge generalizations are transparently silly. As I noted above, how the heck can you claim that you know the iner minds and hearts of millions of people who attend houses of worship?
Are all people who worship God one way or another all sincere? Of course not. Are all pure, holy and sinless? LOL - of course not. Do many want to change, and pray for forgiveness with tears of repentence? Yes.
The man in question was not repentent, in fact made a big point of not being repentent, in fact made a big deal of being an "out", proud, non-celibate "gay" man.
If you can't see the difference between a struggling sinner who wants to let God into his heart, and become the surrendered soul God wants him to be and yet has his ups and downs, and a proud sinner who refuses to change and instead wants God to change to suit him, then I feel very sorry for you.
But - I don't think you really think this. I think that you want churches to admit openly homosexual members, for reasons known only to yourself.
Here's a comment from a retired Methodist minister on another thread, very relevant here:
Theology pair flips Bible upside-down on sexuality
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1511759/posts?page=19#19
To: wagglebee; little jeremiah
United Methodist Church, which permits gays to be members of its congregations
Our church rules declare that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."
Our membership vows require the person to "renounce sin..."
So, the above would be true for those who buy the "orientation" understanding. We would permit a repentant, non-practicing gay oriented person to be a member.
That said, we have no enforcement means of policing thousands of churches that are "connected" but relatively free. Pastors are on the honor system and we have many radical liberal pastors who violate our standards.
19 posted on 10/29/2005 5:49:23 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
"Wow! Tens of thousands or even millions of church, synagogue, temple and other house of worship attendees, and you can actually see their hearts, and you know that they don't really want to change! Amazing, you can see in each and every heart of heart, and you can see (with your all-seeing gaze) that they are all - to a man - hypocrites who want to revel in their sin, actually proud of it, and yet pretend to be following God's words."
I know people in my own church who have been divorced more than once and remarried. They are openly living in sin. Should we kick them out of the church? According to surveys, up to 90% of males and 50% of females engage in masturbation. Should we kick them out of the church? Based on the hundreds of billions of $ spent on porn, it's apparent that millions of heterosexuals engage in sodomy, should we kick them out of the church? Why focus (as this Methodist minister did) on only one form of sexual activity and not other sins of the flesh? Membership rules should be applied fairly and equally. That's my point.
"Are all people who worship God one way or another all sincere? Of course not. Are all pure, holy and sinless? LOL - of course not. Do many want to change, and pray for forgiveness with tears of repentence? Yes."
But this minister focused on only one form of sexual activity. Why didn't he apply the same standard to all the members of his church? He selectively and subjectively applied a test to one individual that was not applied to anyone eles. That's why he was canned.
"Clearly the subject of my posting to you was that you are a homosexual activist"
HAH! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day!
Thanks for the good word, LJ. Actually, I'm a retired Army (Methodist) Chaplain. I'm still pastoring a United Methodist congregation as a full time ordained elder.
You are absolutely correct, though, that it would be inappropriate to receive into membership any person who proudly affirmed a sinful lifestyle and refused to repent and change. That is the case with the man who wanted membership in Rev Johnson's church in Virginia. Johnson is correct in denying membership.
Calreagan is correct that singling out one sin for special rejection of membership would be wrong.
In fact, if anyone comes saying he is a proud, practicing, unrepentant thief/adulterer/murderer/etc., then that person, too, should be denied membership.
"Calreagan is correct that singling out one sin for special rejection of membership would be wrong."
Thank you. That's the point I've been trying to make. Membership rules should be applied fairly and equally.
While it is true that we are to reach out to sinners, it is not true that a person can be part of Christian fellowship while he refuses to follow the teachings of the Bible. The Bible is clear that one who professes to be a Chirstian but practices immorality and does not repent is to be excluded from fellowship. Paul teaches that in I Corinthians.
John Wesley would weep bitterly to see what has become of the Methodist church.
You miss the point completetely - LOL truth is not determined by considersation of what is fair or equitable. Just because it would be wroong to prefer one sin over another does not have anything to do with fairness... Wrong is always wrong and two wrongs equate to two wrongs... One who practices homosexuality is denying God and in essence denying membership in His Church. Just because someone else with whatever particul;ar flavor of sin may pretend to be a member or may be acceoted as a member by another really has no relevance as to the case of the homosexual. Fairness and equitey as is your 'tolerance' are moral relative constructs that are employed by secular humanists -a legitimate Church is premised in absolute truth rather than relative, derived, contrived or comparative truth...
To summarize -you miss the point...
"Just because it would be wroong to prefer one sin over another does not have anything to do with fairness"
So I guess you're now disagreeing with the retired chaplain in addition to virtually 100% of Virginia Methodist ministers (only 20 out of 601 voted no) who voted to fire the pastor in question. The argument is not about the "truth", it's about applying the truths that the Church teaches to ALL people. In this case, it was applied selectively to one prospective member based on his sexual activity. If you can't see the wrongness of the pastor's action, then perhaps you need to pray on it.
Nor do I compare and contrast in this case the ministers actions with the homosexuals actions as if they are in competion to determine what truth is. As I stated, if there are two wrongs there are two wrongs...
As to the 'selectivity' charge you keep positing -where is it stated that the minister gave preferance to one persistent and public sinner of a different 'flavor' over another? Objectively, the homosexual is in error -the minister however I do not know has done what you accuse him and premise your at best subjective argument upon regardless how the 'vote' resulted and why the vote resulted... If you have some source of information other than what I have seen that backs up your claim regarding just what the minister did 'wrong' feel free to post it.
"As to the 'selectivity' charge you keep positing -where is it stated that the minister gave preferance to one persistent and public sinner of a different 'flavor' over another?:
I can only rely on what I read in the story. There is absolutely no indication that the pastor applied the same membership test to any other prospective member. He apparently singled out one homosexual on which to apply the "truths" of church teaching. I would hope the 581 Virginia ministers who voted to fire him considered all the evidence before taking their action. The article indicates that the other Methodist ministers gave the pastor several chances to reverse his action, but he refused.
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.