Monday, October 31, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe in a reader
Got a tip?
Email John at zeraygazette at yahoo dot com
Geekery/Pop Culture
NeatoramaTopless Robot
Great White Snark
Popped Culture
Matthew Caverhill
Johnny Cat
Blogging Buddies
Jeff the BaptistIronic Catholic
Dan Trabue
John Meunier
Divers and Sundry
Bob's Brainstorms
Jockey Street
Operation Oxmyx
Humor Links
The OnionCracked
Questionable Content
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
xkcd
Abstruse Goose
Miscellaneous
PostSecretInstapundit
Ace of Spades HQ
Hell in a Handbasket
Brian J. Noggle
31 comments:
can moderates separate as well? :) What bout all these orthodox people and high church methodist like myself?
my little home church of dalewood umc took me in as a teenager and nurtured me and helped shape me. i had no experience of church prior to that. i owe a lot to the umc and feel that the umc is my home. i consider myself a postliberal trying to find a place of unity (though it's hard right now).
im going no where soon.
Good question John...if I were in their place, with what I believed and my vision for the church shot all to pieces, why stay? I would not feel at home if liberalism was the dominent ideology of the UMC, it would be intolerable to see what I held dear rejected by the majority legislatively and judicially. They have been at it for a generation and are still losing and the outlook does not get any better. Where would they go? Do you think financially a liberal Methodist Church would survive? Would liberals be able to sustain enough growth to support themselves as a denomination? Would their message capture the hearts and minds of the people in the Red States and draw them into their churches? I have always maintained that liberal and conservative Christianity are two distinct and different religions under the United Methodist name. Maybe the Emergent or post-modern church will bring these two factions together...who knows?
as moderate guy, i'm not pissed on the stroud decision, i expected that one. it's the decision to allow pastors to determine who is in and out, that is so contrary to methodism as i know it. i'm not sure why conservative or liberal are not up in arms about it
Frankly John, I am amazed at your poor taste and lack of pastoral concern in asking this question. For you, this about winning and losing, and being on the right side. But is that really our pastoral task? Would Jesus really respond in this way? Do we really want the body of Christ to be fractured?
Look, regardless of our personal opinions on this issue, the fact remains that there are people who will be hurt by these recent decisions. At what point do we have compassion (in our guts, as the scriptures tell us Jesus did) for those who are hurting and offer words of comfort even in the midst of supporting the official rulings of the church. Flippant comments that sneer "are you ready to leave yet?" fall far short of the love of God.
And frankly, theres not a dang thing you can do to chase me away. You're stuck with me, so figure out how we can live together in love.
Jay, aren't you tired of these endless doctrinal conflicts?
I sure am.
Is it Christian love to exclude people? Yes it is. Note that Paul and John wrote most of their epistles over heresies forming in the church, particularly the notion that personal holiness doesn't matter.
Well, it does. And I'm getting awfully tired of trying to resolve what are irreconcilable differences. We aren't going to reach agreement over homosexuality, among a host of other matters. Does it display Christian love to constantly fight each other.
I think amiacable separation between the two of us was achieved a long time ago. No need to formalize it.
This is probably going to come across a bit more cynically than it is intended, but: as conservative power grows with each General Conference, you'll change your mind.
Aren't you tired of this endless fighting? I am, and a lot of theological conservatives are as well.
The truth of the matter is that all this talk about unity is just that - talk. Because I know countless Methodist pastors who have very little to do with their Baptist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Catholic, Episcopal, and (insert name here) neighbors.
Can God *really* be that concerned with our little squabbless as Methodists when we have the Pope trying to reconcile with the Orthodox, Rick Warren is beginning to tackle the issue of AIDS and poverty in Africa, Promise Keepers is bringing together men of *all* backgrounds and tackling the issue of the racial divide, the Lutheran Church (ELCA) has been busy working out agreements with the Reformed folks, the Episcopalians, the Moravians, the UCC, and the Presbyterians? (And we are STILL just talking with our African-American Methodist brothers and sisters...)
It's a bigger world out there than what the folks on Riverside Drive, Nashville, or the folks on the corner of Capitol Hill tell us...
I don't recall saying that I want you out of "my" church. Or Christ's church. Or anybody's church.
john, i think your thoughts reflect a poor if any sense of ecclessiology.
to be a part of a community automatically supposes conflict. conflict does not presuppose dis-unity.
in my family i have family members with whom i disagree with, i even don't like very much, BUT THEY ARE STILL FAMILY. at family meals when we all gather together we still come to the same table. that doesn't mean we don't make a fool of ourselves when we get into an argument and say things we wish we handn't (or glad we did). BUT FAMILY IS FAMILY.
what kind of example do we set for the rest of the world when we say- oh its easier not to be unified among differences in OUR family (the church) so we'll be like the rest of the world and split when the going gets tough.
And in our family, as pastors (which you will be if you choose ordination) you will have folks of different theological persuasions. some of whom you will disagree with. will you as a pastor say to them, "maybe you should find a denomination that suits your ideas" or will you help them see that unity in the midst of conflict is opportunity for growth not to mention more healthy than a homogeneous congregation.
thinking out loud,
jonathon
Oh, yes, there's conflict in churches, and we have to learn to overlook the minor things.
This isn't one of those minor things. And the apostles Paul and John made it quite clear that heretics were to be cast out of the church. I'll take their model of ecclesiology over anyone elses.
Related: John Wesley had very strict standards for membership in Methodist societies. Yesterday's rulings were a very Wesleyan response.
Wow, name calling - lashing out - finger pointing. Let me ask the question here that I asked my congregation this past week. If you were to ask the world what's the difference in a Christian and a non-Christian, what would it say?
Quite possibly the answer would be "nothing". That's because we don't sound an different than the world.
In the immortal words of that great theologian Rodney King "Can't we just all get a long".
Now take a time out and come back and play nice.
As for the question, I am a liberal in many ways. I believe love and acceptance should be given out liberally. I am a conservative in the teachings of the church which means that we don't condone what the Church has always seen as sinful. So I guess I would be what stephen calls a moderate. I wonder if us moderates pulled out, how many would be left? Hmm??? The only problem is that moderates don't have as strong a voice or strong following. That's because we are MODERATE. Ha ha.
Gavin,
Methodist societies frequently kept folks out of society meetings if they neglected their class meetings or were clearly living contrary to the Bible. In fact, the leaders in the society issued tickets to meetings and folks who hadn't stayed in good standing didn't get in. Period. And the Wesley brothers made sure this was so.
If anything, this decision gets us back to the roots of Methodism. Methodists are supposed to take holiness and the high standards of Christian community very seriously. That is our history.
Heck, the very name Methodism started off a slur against the Wesley boys because they had such high expectations for themselves and for their followers.
The truth is that the United Methodist Church is niether United nor Methodist anymore. At least this decision opens a door to recover Methodism as it was intended to be.
Mike,
I'll leave the Quadrilateral issue be for a moment and take up your sacred worth idea.
The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death.
So if you believe that a person is of sacred worth, and you also believe that their practices are sinful and thus deadly to their soul, do you not best express their worth by telling them the truth and warning them against the sin which threatens them?
Imagine you are in a conversation with someone you bumped into while walking down a bury city street. You are on the curb and they are down on the roadway. Now, a city bus is coming along quickly right at them but they don't seem to notice- they aren't moving.
Would you keep chatting until the bus hit them, figuring that you have no right to judge them for standing where they stood?
No, you would shout at them to move. You might even grab them and pull them out of the way.
So why is someone a hero for saving the body from temporal harm but a bigot for warning the soul of eternal harm?
Would you keep chatting until the bus hit them, figuring that you have no right to judge them for standing where they stood?
No, you would shout at them to move. You might even grab them and pull them out of the way.
For many of us, that's exactly why we won't be leaving the UMC and why we are arguing in favor of grace and God's love in the face of judgement.
We are arguing against the sin of prejudice and judgement that is the source of danger. That is standing in the road waiting for the bus to hit you.
We are trying to pull the United Methodist Church out of the path of the oncoming bus by sharing grace and love. Instead of being silent on the issue (which some want us to be) while the bus comes down the road.
Judging others was condemned by Jesus on many occasions. That's the abomination that we should be fighting against.
Jim-
Does the Bible say anything about the sin of homosexual conduct?
Just wondering.
Sometimes I wonder why no one ever considers that they may be the bus that is heading directly for the person in the street...
It's never easy to see yourself in those terms, but is it really all that inconceivable?
Maybe the left is pulling the person out from in front of the oncoming right?
You have intriguing questions, Mike. I suppose that it would not be bad accepting practicing homosexuals as members if we made the elimination of that sinful behavior in the member's life a priority.
But the problem is that the Methodist Left doesn't see homosexual behavior as sinful. So I have zero confidence in their willingness to push for sanctification.
Phil and Wabi-Sabi-
Here we find the real issue- both sides disagree about what exactly defines sin and who exactly is in harm's way.
I don't think either side is evil in intent, though we often make it sound so when we debate. Most conservatives are not homophobes and bigots and most liberals are not hedonistic pagans.
Rather, most folks on both sides are simply trying to express and share the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ as the best they understand it.
The problem is that our views on Jesus and on the Scriptures and on the role and function of the Church and even on the basic concept of holiness are vastly different.
On the surface it may not seem so because we all use the same vocabulary, but in practice we are very nearly talking about two seperate but closely related religions here.
But instead of wrestling with our theological divide which is the root, we keep fighting over sexuality is merely grows out of the root.
To put it another way, we are arguing over one-another's smoke signals without realizing that each side is fueling seperate fires.
No wonder we don't make progress.
Mike,
One of the markings of Methodism is understanding how grace works within is where we are. That grace goes before faith, grace brings us to the moment of first faith, and grace leads us on to perfection.
I think the church needs to be graceful with one and all. And we need means of grace to reach out to one and all.
But is church membership really a good moment for previenent grace? Do we want the rights and responsibilities of church membership to precede a true confession and repentance?
I should think not!
We keep an open table so that all who are willing may feel the grace which comes in the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup. It is our most powerful moment of shared grace- and the decision which came down in no way changes the right of the unrepentant sinner from coming to the table. Our greatest avenue of grace is truly open.
So if our best and most dear form of grace is so open, I see no way to say that we alienate people by being a bit restrictive on membership.
Think about it: the grace of the table open is for all, even those who have not repented of their sins.
The grace of Baptism and membership is open to all who would seek justification through confession of sin and profession of faith.
And various forms of leadership and service (clergy and lay alike) are means of grace for those seeking to be sanctified.
And so we offer a grace for all points in the walk.
So why cheapen grace by diminishing the way grace leads to grace as we move from unrepentant to justified and then on to perfection.
May we never forget that while God loves where He finds us, He never intends to leave us there. Grace is a journey and must be experienced as such if it is to be experienced as true grace.
John Wilks,
I appreciate what you had to say. I agree that both sides are speaking with the same vocabulary but with different definitions and divergent perspectives. This, obviously, leads to more tension and I'm not sure either side is willing to go through a conversion of understanding to the point where a just resolution might be reached.
For example, when a conservative uses the "sin" arguement s/he is already off to a bad start because the liberal has a different definition of the word - or at least a different set of things s/he considers to be a sin. The same goes the other way, when a liberal says that homosexuality isn't a sin and shouldn't be treated as such, the conservative won't be convinced because the concept of sin does include homosexuality. The same can be said when talking about the authority of scripture.
Just coming together to share the varieties of perspectives, while valuable, will not solve the conflict because no one is willing to change their minds. A conversion experience would have to take place on the individual level - which is why things move so slowly - where the person (on either side) would be so convinced that the definitions of the words spoken by the other side are more true for him/herself than what s/he used to hold on to.
And when you talk about truth, you get into a very sticky situation. The concept of truth is actually more subjective than most would like to admit.
Also, back to the bus analogy - and the argument about definitions - who's to say what the bus really is and who the two people are?
It could easily be put in this way: The bus is a certain understanding about God/religion/etc. and the person in the street is trying to get on, viewing that this is the proper bus to take him/her to the desired destination. It's the right bus for them. The person on the curb is someone has to decide whether or not to allow that person to get on the proper bus or to interfere and try to force his/her own conception on the would-be passenger.
It's all in the definitions. And logic and reason lead to different truths when the definitions change. The problem with this, and similar conflicts, is that no one can agree on the definitions or who gets to decide on what those definitions are.
I think as long as we don't start telling people they aren't allowed to come to church because they are gay, the UMC is fully in its boundaries here. However, I think that this argument has gotten to political. It's not about right or left, but right or wrong. Enter the Bible:
I maybe a little out of my league, but doesn't Hebrews tell us to honor marriage, and the marriage bed to be kept pure? It goes on to condemn sexual immorality (Heb. 13:4).
So if we know that sexual immorality, such as homosexuality, is wrong, why should we let the sexually immoral lead a congregation? "If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit," (Mat. 15:14).
As for gay members of the congregation, the key to being saved is that you die to sin. "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Rom. 6:1-2) Being a member who has no intention to stop sinning doesn't exactly fit.
Having said that, if it is the Biblical aspect of the issue of homosexuality, then a split may be inevitable, and to some, welcome. However, if this is all politics, then don't we have our hearts in the wrong place?
Rock on.
Once again, questions of right and wrong can be quite subjective. I think the more conservative - I use the term for convenience only, not to make it political - are starting from a different perspective and sinfullness and what constitutes sin is very different from those who are liberal. This is why the debate has been going on for so long. Each "side" thinks they are talking about the same thing when they talk about sin, but they aren't.
Things aren't as clear cut and comfortable as one would prefer. And when you get down to it, why not just focus on God and not how you think God wants others to be.
Phil, I'd say that the debate is focused on one division: one side thinks that homosexual conduct is sinful. The other does not.
I'm not sure that it is a gap that can be closed.
Maybe I'm just a naive teenager, but doesn't that mean that a split is impending, just slow in coming?
I think it may be a healthy way for the UMC to move on to refocus on the work of God. Even if it means as two separate organizations.
Jim-
Does the Bible say anything about the sin of homosexual conduct?
Just wondering.
It's there. Right next to prohibitions against eating shell fish and touching pigskins.
I guess we should start inquiring about people's dietary choices and whether they repent for playing football.
I know that Jesus condemned judging others; however, I don't recall him mentioning homosexuality or sexual orientation.
Love the Lord and love one another.
Jim-
What about murder? Adultery? Stealing? Are those okay?
Joel-
I wouldn't be surprised that there are practicing homosexuals who are holier than I am. But I think that sanctifying grace will be slowed, if not stopped and reversed, if we decide to officially approve of sinful behavior.
Interesting. I don't see any prohibitions about shellfish or pigskin in Romans 1 and 2...
Oh, and truth is objective. We tend to make it subjective.
Post a Comment