Case of Gay Worshiper in Virginia Splits Methodists

Washington Post ^ | 10/28/5 | Alan Cooperman

[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.

[Texas_Jarhead]

And what of the wife beater or alcoholic or hooker? When they come into a congregation and openly acknowledge their wife beating, alcoholism, and sex life the church family would, in my estimation, attempt to put them on the "straight and narrow". But what should be done when those efforts fail and appear futile? Can the church then deny them membership? Should they not? After obtaining membership, would he have suspended or eliminated his homosexual lifestyle? Does his continued "membership" impart some measure of support by the church family for his lifestyle? I'm just asking.

[sasafras]

" but every person has the right to worship God in the church of their choice."

The right to worship is not what is being argued here. I can not find a single passage in the bible that commends or condones homo behavior. Should we allow open practicing Satanist as members of the choir. There is no repentence in these homos hearts and I blame that on the church which tolerates and therefore promotes evil and perverted behavior.

[madprof98]

. . . we ALL struggle with our human frailties . . .

We are not talking here about anyone "struggling" with anything. We are talking about people who have PRIDE festivals to celebrate their . . . uh . . . frailties.

[TXBubba]

"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Seems the church is actually doing the right thing here. Just because others with other sins are still in the church doesn't make it right. It just means the church hasn't done its' duty in getting them out either.

[muir_redwoods]

"Every sin is not the same as every other. You can't compare murder to gluttony, just as comparing gluttony to acting out sexual perversions is'nt correct"

When I was taught the seven deadly sins, lust was co-equal with gluttony, anger, envy, sloth etc.

[TXBubba]

Oops. That was I Corinthians 5:9-13

[sasafras]

Jesus reminded us to beware of evil and evil doers. He did not say for us to let satanists, homos and evil doers into our church but the exact opposite. People who are seeking the lord are welcome but must discard their evil ways. To attend a Church while you are a practicing child molester, homo, or satanist is against the teachings - we as Christians are to protect one another from this evil.

If you think this is the case then why did Paul make such a strong case against Christians marrying unbelievers?

[MaryFromMichigan]

I think it is the duty of the church to raise up it's members, to guide them, to forgive and teach.

[mollynme]

When I was taught the seven deadly sins, lust was co-equal with gluttony, anger, envy, sloth etc.

Just an FYI - there is no list of "7 Deadly Sins" in the Bible. It is a part of the Catholic catechism.

[No Longer Free State]

Turning away sinners is no way to rehabilitate them...

[sasafras]

"I submit that if the world were full of sin-less people, there would be no need for a church. Who needs the church more than the sinners?"

Sinners who are remorseful and repent - Satanists are sinners but if there is no repentance then the Church doesnt have to receive them. There is nothing in the bible which contradicts this.

Freerepublic is an open forum for discussion but we dont have to put up with liberals trashing the boards. If you allow deviant, perverted and unremorseful people into your Church then you have anarchy. I hope this is clear.

[Hodar]

The (few) churches I'm aware of do have conditions. Ex-communication is a tool the church has a right to use. It's one thing to be Gay, it's another thing to be 'practicing'. For example, I'm strongly inclined to be heterosexual; but if I want to be a member in good standing among many Christian churches, I must not be 'practicing' my heterosexuality; especially among the other member's family.

In this case, the author of the article left out a few key points.

[Non-Sequitur]

However, he also says that a member of the church who refuses to give up their sinful lifestyle is to be expelled if they have been given the chance to repent but still persist in their sinful ways.

Jesus said that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. What if the church decided to expel those people?

[Martin Tell]

AS I understand the story (and no surprise that the Wash Post does not give the whole story, at least in this excerpt), the gay man in question is living in an active "partnered" relationship. He loudly announced his status, that he has no intention of ever stopping his activities and that he does not consider them sinful. This is very different from someone admitting that he or she is a sinner, repents and wants to change. I'm sure if this fellow did that he would be welcomed with open arms.

I think this Methodist minister should be saluted, not fired.

In the Episcopal Church (which I recently washed my hands of) the situation was much the same. First gay lay members were welcomed, and once they were established and found to be "Holy", gay priests were next and now there is a gay bishop. And the official church teaching is now that gay sex, far from being a sin, is sacramental.

[Non-Sequitur]

AS I understand the story (and no surprise that the Wash Post does not give the whole story, at least in this excerpt), the gay man in question is living in an active "partnered" relationship.

I know a couple of hetereosexual couples living together without benefit of matrimony who attend my Methodist church. Should they be expelled, too?

[cripplecreek]

So what you're saying is that the Rabbi who attended my church should have been expelled because he had no interest in conversion.

[sasafras]

"Turning away sinners is no way to rehabilitate them..."

How do you know? For some this might be the answer. God speaks to everyones heart - not all will be saved. What about the Christians who dont believe in accepting this I guess its ok to turn them away huh? Oh they'll just find another church.

There is no requirement for the churches to accept sinners who are not remorseful for their perverted behavior. If you accept these types of individuals the you are condoning their behavior. If someone is a practicing satanist and comes to your church and screams "Satan is god" from the pew I would hope he would be removed. Homosexuals who do not turn away from their lifestyle are to be shunned by the church.

[cripplecreek]

"How do you know?"


Or you.

[Hodar]

Part of this decision, IMHO is to inform the person of the magnitude of his inequity. For example, if a fat person comes in; do we deny him the sacriment because of his Gluttony? Or do we encourage him by example.

I am aware of a few people I 'suspect' are Gay in my church. But, as they are not openly 'practicing'; they are merely older single adults. I see nothing wrong with this. However, if one insists upon 'practicing' a religously deplorable lifestyle; the church has no choice but to expell that member.

In this instance, it appears the person is being denied the opportuntiy to prove his worthiness. This is not "Man's" house, but he Lord's. We are merely the stewards of His house.

The awkward point in this article, is whether the Gay man is openly practicing, or whether he has merely acknowledged his preference; yet is living a chaste life.

[SaintDismas]

To what level of gluttony would you ever equate murder, rape, etc.? You can cite scripture all day long if you want to, but common sense of proportion tells me that you will more apt to go to hell for murder than for being obese