Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Case of Gay Worshiper in Virginia Splits Methodists
Washington Post ^ | 10/28/5 | Alan Cooperman

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: christianity; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; pastor; pervertperverts; perverts; pervertspervert; religion; religiousleft; schism; southhill; umc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-342 next last
To: Crackingham

1Co 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


61 posted on 10/28/2005 3:45:48 PM PDT by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Wasn't the Rabbi who attended your Church an "unofficial" member? To actually "join" the Church he would've had to have been Baptised and Confess Jesus.


62 posted on 10/28/2005 3:46:56 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; DirtyHarryY2K
poing!

The Natural Laws Can Not Be Denied
- Resistance Is Futile!

63 posted on 10/28/2005 3:47:01 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

i am confused if he attends church is he not supposed to confess his sins and ask forgiveness-then how can one attend as a homo-is he asking for a blessing because he said he was a sinner but-does he think that it is alright to keep being what he practices-he cannot be a homo and accept CHRIST without getting rid of such evil ways he can live with thoughts but if he acts and says that this is what he is-he is not a CHRISTMAN


64 posted on 10/28/2005 3:51:16 PM PDT by catmanblack. (he is the great I AM-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Case of Gay Worshiper

Good Lord they're being shipped in bulk form now ? How many are in a case ?
65 posted on 10/28/2005 3:53:18 PM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456

What about couples who divorce and remarry? Jesus says that they're committing adultery. Do they go too?


66 posted on 10/28/2005 3:57:57 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If you want on/off the ping list let me and little jeremiah know.

67 posted on 10/28/2005 4:01:25 PM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K (http://soapboxharry.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

And it pre-dates the reformation so it was once commonly accepted by all Christians. I know of no Protestant reformers who have accepted these acts as anything other than sins

68 posted on 10/28/2005 4:12:01 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wequalswinner
"To what level of gluttony would you ever equate murder, rape, etc.?"

Unlike some, I don't speak for G-d so I can't comment but I believe the topic was lust. I see no difference between suicide by fork and lust in terms of sin.

69 posted on 10/28/2005 4:16:00 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

He also said that divorce because of infidelity is acceptable.

He also said that it is the one who causes another to sin who is the real culprit.

Therefore, "divorce + remarriage = adultery" is a description.


70 posted on 10/28/2005 4:36:01 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Who are proud of their sins? Nope.


71 posted on 10/28/2005 4:36:27 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Ninety-nine Republican Arlen Specters aren’t worth one Democratic Zell Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
has repeatedly said there are no bars to their participation as lay people.

I am a United Methodist pastor, elder, and retired chaplain.

The above is inaccurate.

Our denominational guidelines also say that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." Our membership vows require the participant to acknowledge that they have renounced sin.

The issue with this man who wanted to become a member is that he AFFIRMED homosexuality. Therefore, the pastor, who is the recognized leader of the congregation, was more than right in refusing membership at that time to the homosexual man.

The doors were not closed to him, and he was free to worship and participate. This pastor has been treated with grave injustice by his radical, liberal bishop.

72 posted on 10/28/2005 4:41:50 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

It is a matter of the homosexual wanted that church to acept him with his selected lifestyle as normal. He wanted to join that church with the condition that the Christian priest must convert to the politically correct though of "homosexuality is a normal sex practice."

Now the homosexual is trying to FORCE the priest to convert to the PC police theology.

The man was free to join IF he accepted the fact that this church teaches homosexuality is a deviance and wrong.

The homosexual did this to cause problems, he could have easily gone down the street to any number of "chinese menu" churches. (I will have a bit of religion from column 3 and 5 and 9 but nothing from the other parts of the menu)


73 posted on 10/28/2005 4:47:54 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Of course they are sins. They just weren't written in stone. I'm guessing that that means that there was an intended distinction between mortal and venal sins.


74 posted on 10/28/2005 4:48:08 PM PDT by mollynme (cogito, ergo freepum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
"Who are proud of their sins? Nope.

So one sinner is guilty of lust and pride and another gluttony and sloth. Two sins apiece by my count.

75 posted on 10/28/2005 4:49:41 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
'Are we really open or not?' " said the Rev. W. Anthony Layman,..

Their minds are so open, their brains fell out...

76 posted on 10/28/2005 5:12:19 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

So every sin is equivalent by your count?


77 posted on 10/28/2005 5:39:57 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Ninety-nine Republican Arlen Specters aren’t worth one Democratic Zell Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456
If he was worshipping the one true God (and we have to assume since he was a Rabbi that he was), then God could reach him with the truth of the Messiah. If your church kicked him out, you would be in danger of becoming a "stumbling block" to the Rabbi's conversion to the true Messiah (ie. Messanic Jews). Just my opinion....

That is a legitimate opinion. The issue is quite subjective and as such the greater good is weighed by the shepherd of the flock. Considerations of one soul that is persistently and or defiantly in error against those of the souls that may be led astray and or corrupted by exposure to the persistence and or defiance... The shephard made his call which God alone can judge...

78 posted on 10/28/2005 5:51:28 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: sasafras

Wow. Quite the tirade. Comparing a satanist coming into a church with the purpose of dishonoring it with a sinner who is trying to hear the word of God but who hasn't gotten the message, yet.


79 posted on 10/28/2005 6:22:46 PM PDT by No Longer Free State (No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, no action has just the intended effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sasafras

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. The bible is very clear on homosexuality and I am glad you are setting everyone straight. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev. 15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal
and unchanging.


80 posted on 10/28/2005 6:27:12 PM PDT by Larkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-342 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson