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 ...
You have consistently ignored this point, and if you want to keep tiptoeing around it you are only "outing" yourself more and more as an apologist for the gay agenda:
The man who was denied membership in the church (but NOT denied the opportunity to come and worship!) was an openly practicing homosexual. He made a point of letting the minister know he was an open, proud, practicing homosexual.
I think I am safe in assuming that if a proud, openly practicing adulterer told the minister that he wanted to become a member of the church, and planned on continuing to be a practicing adulterer, he would also be denied membership.
The fact that you are straining every muscle trying to equate the proud proclaiming of intending to continue sinful practice with those who are not perfect, but may be struggling with sin as being exactly similar must be getting to you.
I reccomend Ben Gay or perhaps one of the excellent Chinese linaments. The mental contortions must be painful.
And Oh My Gosh, a whole bunch of Methodist ministers couldn't possibly be wrong! I guess the New Testament needs to be changed to suit the Modern Methodist Ministers.
"The man who was denied membership in the church (but NOT denied the opportunity to come and worship!) was an openly practicing homosexual. He made a point of letting the minister know he was an open, proud, practicing homosexual."
The above is a bunch of BS. I just re-read the story, and there is nothing to indicate that the prospective member "made a point of letting the minister know he was an open, proud, practicing homosexual." I guess when you're losing an argument, you have to resort to lies.
According to the article, the Methodist Church "has declared that gay men and lesbians are 'persons of worth' and has repeatedly said there are no bars to their participation as lay people". So not only did the pastor unfairly single out one homosexual for a selective membership test, he violated the policy of his own church!! I guess that's why he was kicked out on his ass.
And who says they haven't been applied fairly? Got a list of all the "out and proud" adulterers etc who were not denied membership?
Thanks, xzins! Glad you're still actively helping people in the church, and thanks for your input.
"And who says they haven't been applied fairly? Got a list of all the "out and proud" adulterers etc who were not denied membership?"
See post #223. I think 581 Methodist ministers said so. You're free to disagree with them in your own warped view of Christianity.
You're really overstepping yourself in your effort to promote the "gay" agenda.
There have been other articles on FR about this very incident, which I remember rather clearly. And in previous articles, the homosexual man in question did indeed present himself as a practicing homosexual. And if you actually read xzins' comment above, any avowed practitioner of sin is NOT qualified to become a member of the church.
Regarding the Methodist church policy and homosexuals, the man was still allowed to attend services as a lay person. The church doors weren't closed or barred to him.
You're accusing me of lying. Prove it.
"You're accusing me of lying. Prove it."
I just proved you're a liar. Go read the article. There's nothing to support your claim that the prospective member "made a point of letting the minister know he was an open, proud, practicing homosexual".
"Regarding the Methodist church policy and homosexuals, the man was still allowed to attend services as a lay person".
You don't even know what you're talking about. A "lay person" means a non-ordained member of the church. The pastor singled out this one homosexual in refusing him membership. By doing so, he violated the policy of his own church. Even the Catholic Church, which is the most anti-homosexual in its official teaching, does NOT deny membership to homosexuals.
The burden is on you to prove that "out and proud" practicing adulterers are allowed to join the Methodist church as members.
I've got a warped view of Christianity because I agree with the Bible teachings about sexual behavior?
Odd, odd.
BTW, what do you think about "Gay Straight Alliance" clubs in public schools?
"The burden is on you to prove that "out and proud" practicing adulterers are allowed to join the Methodist church as members."
I see that you're backing away from your statement. I never used such terminology. As I posted in a previous reply, there is no indication that the pastor applied this selective test to any other prospective member, be they adulturers, fornicators, masturbators, sodomites, remarried divorcees, etc.
I've been doing some research on this and all I can say is
Wow!
Read this:
Lake Junaluska to Host Pro-Homosexuality Rally.
Bishop Charlene Kammerer is the one who suspended the minister.
Read this too:
Pastor denies membership to homosexual, placed on leave
The placement of Johnson on involuntary leave stemmed from him being charged with violating church polity and being "unwilling to take direction from his district superintendent and his bishop," according to the minutes of the clergy session. The action was confirmed by a two-thirds vote of those at the clergy session - 418-114, with 8 abstentions.
LJ is correct. They were out and proud. They have been holding rallies.
No proof there. I've read other articles about this situation, you apparently haven't. The homosexual did indeed make a point that he was a practicing homosexual when he applied for membership.
And where in the Catholic Church teachings are "out and proud" practicing homosexuals allowed to be members of the Church? For instance, they should not partake of communion.
DBeers - what's the standards with church membership here? I'm not familiar with membership rules, or even if that's similar to Methodists.
"LJ is correct. They were out and proud. They have been holding rallies"
Who is "they"? I'm talking about the prospective Methodist Church member who was unjustly denied membership by his pastor (in violation of church policy). LJ made a claim about this person that he cannot support.
I am not backing away from any statement I've made! Can you read and comprehend simple English sentences?
Obviously any member of the church, if doing whatever sinful act they want in secret, and no one (except God, of course) knows, then obviously that person will be accepted as a member, although it would not be honest or right.
But if said applicant announces to the minister or others in the church that he/she is a practicing sinner (of whatever proclivity) and fully intends to continue the sin, then obviously that person wouldn't be accepted.
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think that the Methodist Church should send spies to everyones' homes to see if people are sinning secretly? Or have people fill out questionnaires every fortnight?
Let's get to the point. You want homosexuals, "out and proud", fully accepted in the church. Well, the Bible and church teaching say "no".
Maybe you should start your own "gay accepting" church. Oh, right, there already is one - the Metropolitcan Community Church. Check it out. They host interesting classes and seminars, too.
"No proof there. I've read other articles about this situation, you apparently haven't."
If you've read other articles, then please provide documentation for your claim that "he made a point of letting the minister know he was an open, proud, practicing homosexual." There is no such information in the article that is the subject of this thread.
I don't think anyone is telling the homosexual man that he can't come. If he had truly repented of it and was working hard to get a handle on his sexuality I would happily support him for membership in my church. But if he remained unrepentant of his homosexual behavior, the church has its witness to the world to think about and they should allow him to become a formal member.
Though of course no one should stop him from coming as long as doesn't come to divide the church and make a scene.
The "policy" is in apparent opposition to the fundamental teachings of this Church. Methodists may be Calvinist or Arminian, but not antinomian.
Wow - I remember that article about Lake Junaluska.
But, hundreds of apostate Methodist ministers can't be wrong! Just toss or twist the offending verses, like in that other thread.
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.