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 ...
Wait! should NOT allo whim to become a formal member. Whoops.
"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."
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If your above reference to "sinner" means homosexual, then contrary to your statement "that person wouldn't be accepted", the Methodist Church policy is exactly the OPPOSITE. That's why the pastor lost his job!!
In previous articles about this church situation, it was made clear that he was indeed welcome to keep attending services, just not as an official member.
"The "policy" is in apparent opposition to the fundamental teachings of this Church"
Then maybe you should set up your own church because virtually 100% of Methodist ministers (in a "red" state) disagree with you.
That's good. Perhaps, if the media does not succeed in stirring the pot and raising passions, this man will find the right answers.
Right. Sex is..eeeeeeevillll! (insert insane B-Horror Movie laughter here)
So, calsupposedreaganfan, you know more about who is qualified to be a member in the Methodist church than xzins, a retired Army Chaplain and current Methodist ordained elder. Care to restate your assertions and admit you are wrong?
To: little jeremiah; calreaganfan; I got the rope; wagglebee
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.
214 posted on 10/29/2005 6:54:54 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Listen, calsupposedreagan fan, you repeatedly accuse me of lying, of making claims I can't support, and so on.
What exactly are my lies and what claims have I not supported? You can bleat and spout but the fact is I am not lying, and an ordained elder in the Methodist Church supports my statements.
What is your foundation? Nothing except your own bias.
"Right. Sex is..eeeeeeevillll! "
That seems to be the thinking of most people on this thread.
Regarding masturbation, I believe most Christian churches consider it to be sinful conduct. I know that the Catholic Church teaches that masturbation is a sin. Knowing the logical consistency and fair-mindedness of the other people on this thread, I'm stunned that they haven't called for the expulsion of all masturbators from the church. I just don't understand it!
If so, that says a lot about the ministers.
Naturally the MSM's bias is always at play.
"So, calsupposedreaganfan, you know more about who is qualified to be a member in the Methodist church than xzins, a retired Army Chaplain and current Methodist ordained elder. Care to restate your assertions and admit you are wrong?"
According to the article that is the subject of this thread, the Methodist Church "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."
LOL. I'm sure if you were masturbating or told people you were a habitual masturbater in the church they would escort you out promptly.
LOL. You're a riot.
"What exactly are my lies and what claims have I not supported?"
I've already posted this twice. Regarding the prospective Methodist Church member, you stated that "He made a point of letting the minister know he was an open, proud, practicing homosexual." You have offered no evidence to support the above statement.
Go ahead and do a FR search on the topic. My time is valuable, and I remember this situation very clearly from previous articles that I pinged out.
You doubt me? Too bad, look it up.
"LOL. I'm sure if you were masturbating or told people you were a habitual masturbater in the church they would escort you out promptly.
LOL. You're a riot."
Let's hope that Christian churches don't start kicking out the masturbators. There won't be any men left in the pews!
Just so long as they don't wear "I'm a Wanker and I'm proud" tee shirts or sashes. Or "Wanker Rights" bumperstickers on their Subarus.
You're getting a little punchy, you know.
Maybe get some sleep and refresh your rapier wit.
LOL - as our President would say -that dog don't hunt!...
You keep missing one facet of this -objective public and defiant persistence in sin... Objective -not guesswork, not subjective, not requiring reading ones heart and mind... Yes there are many sinners; however, they tend to be ashamed and not objectively revealing much less openly reveling in their sin... The argument in this regard that keep floating is severely flawed -why don't you just drop it?
"Maybe get some sleep and refresh your rapier wit."
That's a good suggestion. Good-night. It's been real.
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.