1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

United Methodist likely to defrock homosexual minister

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, Dec 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 2, 2004 #1 of 124
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
  2. Dec 2, 2004 #2 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    How awful. She is living in a committed relationship.
     
  3. Dec 2, 2004 #3 of 124
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    why, did she not blatently disregard the teachings of her own denomination? Are there not alternative denominations (apparently so) that would agree with her misguided philosophy?
     
  4. Dec 2, 2004 #4 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    If that is her choice. My assumption would be that this pastor was part of a continuing process of bringing about change in her denomination's practices. It doesn't seem that the church she was serving had any problems with her relationship, but others outside the local church did. In the United Church of Christ we leave these decisions up to the local congregation. Yes, we do give standing to gay and lesbian pastors, but only after a local congregation has issued them a call. That is the decision of the local congregation. No one can force a congregation to accept a homosexual pastor. On the other hand, we don't tell congregations they cannot call a pastor because of sexual orientation. The decision is made at their discretion. With some oversight we trust local congregations to be able to choose for themselves the pastor who best suits their needs.
     
  5. Dec 2, 2004 #5 of 124
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I think that's my point. The organization structure of UCC is different from the Methodist's. Obviously I would agree with the Methodist's action as being proper in regard to scripture - and I'm sure you would disagree. But that's not the point. She (recently, according to the article) revealed she was living in homosexual relationship, contrary to the church's teaching. She is unrepentant regarding that. The church did what was necessary. The only disturbing thing I see is that the vote was 12-1 instead of unanimous
     
  6. Dec 2, 2004 #6 of 124
    lastmanstanding

    lastmanstanding Godfather

    491
    0
    Mar 22, 2003
    Bogy,
    Our finger of the UMC won't allow a co-habitating church leader. We've lost some members because of it. This case is a Catch-22, because gays can't legally marry, more or less.

    Homosexuality is a real challenge. The Bible speaks against it pretty clearly, but my several gay friends are hardly evil, and a couple of them are actively religious. And what of the dilema of the Log Cabin Republicans? Since they are Republicans, that makes them gay homophobes. Is that possible?

    Love the sinner. . . ah well, you know.

    How do we resolve this?

    LMS
     
  7. Dec 2, 2004 #7 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Outside just a few denominations, like the root denominations of the UCC, female pastors were prohibited until recently, and still are in some denominations. Do you think no one broke that rule prior to the rules being changed? No, test cases were tried, and finally the rules were changed. The same thing is happening here.
     
  8. Dec 2, 2004 #8 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Well eventually the rest of you will catch up to the UCC. :lol: I have felt for some time that it has been hypocritical to complain about the promiscuous "homosexual lifestyle" while at the same time we have prohibited homosexuals from having a committed relationship.
     
  9. Dec 2, 2004 #9 of 124
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Unfortunately when you try and challenge the system from within, you do not always win.

    I wonder what her local church will do now. Will they stand by her and break away from the methodist church, or let her lose her job?
     
  10. Dec 2, 2004 #10 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The story and another news report I heard tonite stated that she could continue to do the same job she has been doing, but as a lay worker. She would not be able to give communion or baptize. More than likely she will also lose tax advantages given clergy by the IRS as well. I don't know about the UMC, the UCC has an option for lay pastors which gives the person that standing with the IRS, but it also allows them to provide the sacraments, limited to one particular church.
     
  11. Dec 3, 2004 #11 of 124
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I would not say homosexuals are "evil" - just promoting homosexality as a healthy, normal lifestyle is evil. As you said, love the sinner - hate the sin. Different denominations have different rules for those in church leadership. I don't think it an outrageous expectation for ordained ministers of that denomination to abide by its internal rules. After all, what kind of example does it set to disregard any rule which is inconvienent?
     
  12. Dec 3, 2004 #12 of 124
    lastmanstanding

    lastmanstanding Godfather

    491
    0
    Mar 22, 2003
    pj,

    Yeah, that is the crux of it. How can we as reasonable amicable people shun bright capable people just because of their sexual orientation? OK. But our church has a duty to maintain standards based on the Bible. So it is OK to be a gay Methodist, but as a gay, don't expect to be a Methodist leader.

    You know, I feel OK with that. Leaders have to hold themselves to higher standards, and cohabitating is an instant disqualifier. Gay may not be a choice, but a Gay leader is too close to promoting homosexuality within the church. Not evil maybe, but not appropriate either.

    And there are many religious outlets that do not object to cohabitation or homosexuality in the lay population or the clergy. Those who so choose can have it both ways. . . other there.

    Is that tolerant? Tell me. I have to know!

    Bogy, maybe she can come over and be the preacher at your church. Surely in the spirit of giving, you would step aside. Maybe live in the street to show your support. Man, the love is just flowing. . .

    LMS
     
  13. Dec 3, 2004 #13 of 124
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Odd - I always thought the Biblical verses referred to gay MEN - not mentioning anything about lesbianism.
     
  14. Dec 3, 2004 #14 of 124
    Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    We're regularly praying that this will never happen. :D
     
  15. Dec 3, 2004 #15 of 124
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    That tired old line doesn't cut it. Hate is hate, and too many "christians" have expressed their hatred in no uncertain terms. I do not accept their double standard any more, I do not accept the handshake with one hand and knife in the back with the other.

    Some "christians" are always complaining about being "offended" by something. They use their religion to offend me and others incessantly, but should we who they offend question their beliefs, they scream they are the ones now offended. Sorry, I don't care anymore. You trot out your tired and obsolete beliefs and offend ME and then expect me to simply cower in the corner and accept it? No more. Prepare to be offended, you deserve it.
     
  16. Dec 3, 2004 #16 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I guess you missed it. I won't be the preacher here after the end of the month anyway. They are talking about the possibligy of a female minister. Perhaps she should apply.
     
  17. Dec 3, 2004 #17 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Well, yeah, you probably never will catch up, but you will continue to follow our lead, just like you did on other issues, like slavery.
     
  18. Dec 3, 2004 #18 of 124
    lastmanstanding

    lastmanstanding Godfather

    491
    0
    Mar 22, 2003
    dj,

    That is a great point! Does the Bible discriminate against lesbians by not mentioning them? Maybe this silence is a tacit approval. Hmmm. Is the Bible giving its blessing to girl on girl romping?

    I don't think I will ask for clarification in Bible study this week.

    The Methodists have enough issues.

    Bogy, you are our Bible scholar. What do you think?

    LMS
     
  19. Dec 3, 2004 #19 of 124
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Off the top of my head, the only verse which might possibly apply is one of Paul's which talks about women in unnatural relationships. Otherwise, the prohibitions only refer to male relationships.
     
  20. Dec 3, 2004 #20 of 124
    Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    I'm sorry, I must not have been born yet when my congregation was discussing slavery. Of course my non-denominational Bible church which is 26 years old probably didn't have much to add to the conversation. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page