UMC decision regarding LGBT+ marriage and clergy

[Mendalla]

This thread isn't really about slavery Redbaron. Please start a new thread to discuss it on.

He's drawing an analogy between the church's acceptance of slavery and the church's condemnation of homosexuality, arguing that the church will eventually repent and regret the latter as it did the former. That said, the point is made so you're probably right.

 

[Luce NDs]

He's drawing an analogy between the church's acceptance of slavery and the church's condemnation of homosexuality, arguing that the church will eventually repent and regret the latter as it did the former. That said, the point is made so you're probably right.

Tus the un-in formation?

 

[Redbaron]

This thread is about the church seriously misreading the will of God. In the most recent case, the issue was human sexuality. Slavery is a historical case that is very germane to the discussion. History shows, that, eventually, the church finally gets it right, even if it takes from the 1850's to the 1930's to do so. Hopefully it won't take the UMC another 80 years to discern what God is saying to the churches. If you don't like, or can't answer the question, that's not my problem, but yours. But the issue is relevant.

 

[Jae]

This thread is about the church seriously misreading the will of God. In the most recent case, the issue was human sexuality. Slavery is a historical case that is very germane to the discussion. History shows, that, eventually, the church finally gets it right, even if it takes from the 1850's to the 1930's to do so. Hopefully it won't take the UMC another 80 years to discern what God is saying to the churches. If you don't like, or can't answer the question, that's not my problem, but yours. But the issue is relevant.

The Church has faced various issues during its history, which is why I think that talking about one issue in comparison with others is fine. However, in a post earlier tonight (my time), you commented only on slavery. And that's post derailment.

 

[Mendalla]

And that's post derailment.

Not in this context, IMHO.

 

[Luce NDs]

Does some god have complex vision and thus behave as a fly on the wall or a wee thing looking multivalent-lye over your shoulder as a distressing gonad ... a medical description of the brain containing essences of hormones, etc.?

Some don't get nun ... that's sol in the mysterious context! Chi'z dune gone mun ... apparently our social order has lost it due to weepance and Wiki 'd leaks ... in the deeps demons collect ... nitrosamines, phospholipids, etc. unbeknownst!

Is what we don't know more dangerous than the little we do?

 

[Redbaron]

The Church has faced various issues during its history, which is why I think that talking about one issue in comparison with others is fine. However, in a post earlier tonight (my time), you commented only on slavery. And that's post derailment.

Not derailment. An example. A historical reality of how the church continues to reform. As it always is (ecclesia semper reformada) and always will. Eventually the wisdom of God will be discerned. Eventually the light that no darkness can overcome will shine.
The bits about slavery are extremely relevant. Not a derailment.

 

[Luce NDs]

Not derailment. An example. A historical reality of how the church continues to reform. As it always is (ecclesia semper reformada) and always will. Eventually the wisdom of God will be discerned. Eventually the light that no darkness can overcome will shine.
The bits about slavery are extremely relevant. Not a derailment.

Many individual minds set against putting things together ... find non-individualism ... distressingly integrative and cannot relate to vaster strings of intelligence ... thus the pilgrimage may be just beginning for some at mid-life critical stages ...

I have some relatives that still were adolescents well into ancient times ... hormones raged as they couldn't get it together ... grasp was denied and eliminated ... there is a parallel in the headman involving ganglions ...

 

[Redbaron]

Oh, and by the way @Jae, you still haven't addressed the issue of the references to slavery in the Pauline corpus. Why would God's mind be changed in one case, and not the other?

 

[Luce NDs]

Oh, and by the way @Jae, you still haven't addressed the issue of the references to slavery in the Pauline corpus. Why would God's mind be changed in one case, and not the other?

Because of the man falling off the horse and striking his head ... man that's tough!

Then there is the one about the power from Carthage falling off elephants whitened by the snow of the Appenine way ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Oh, and by the way @Jae, you still haven't addressed the issue of the references to slavery in the Pauline corpus. Why would God's mind be changed in one case, and not the other?

Because of the man falling off the horse and striking his head ... man that's tough!

Then there is the one about the power from Carthage falling off elephants whitened by the snow of the Appenine way ... Au Gusts ...

 

[Jae]

Oh, and by the way @Jae, you still haven't addressed the issue of the references to slavery in the Pauline corpus. Why would God's mind be changed in one case, and not the other?

Not going to address them here in this thread Redbaron. I may discuss them in a new thread should you start one.

Back to the UMC..

The denomination will now endure a schism. The conservatives will hold onto the UMC while the liberals will start a new denomination made in the imago sexualis rotundi.

When the delegates arrived at the GC, they faced three different proposals: the liberal option, the traditional option, and a middle option.

The middle option had the bishops' support. It put forward a local option, where churches and conferences could decide for themselves what to do. The middle option exchanged theological firmness for a weak church structure.

 

[Redbaron]

Still germane to the issue and to the thread, despite how many times you cry "Derailment! Derailment!" You probably would avoid the question in a new thread anyway.

There will likely be schism. Hopefully there will also be healing of the schism, at some point far down the line. It may not be like the UMC as it has been, but the message and the mission will go on. Sometimes what seems like the edge of a cliff turns out to be a pothole. Which this will be, I don't presume to guess. But there will be new life on the other side of it, I'm sure.

 

[Mendalla]

Still germane to the issue and to the thread, despite how many times you cry "Derailment! Derailment!"

I would point out that GianCarlo started the thread and liked at least one of your posts, so the thread starter clearly doesn't consider it a derail.

There will likely be schism. Hopefully there will also be healing of the schism, at some point far down the line. It may not be like the UMC as it has been, but the message and the mission will go on. Sometimes what seems like the edge of a cliff turns out to be a pothole. Which this will be, I don't presume to guess. But there will be new life on the other side of it, I'm sure.

This was largely my message in a sermon I preached after the infamous 1988 debate in the UCCan. Yes, a lay supply went there. Though I didn't actually endorse a side or talk about what should have happened (though I'm sure at least some of those listening knew I supported allowing ordination of LGBTQ as did my parents), just made the point that we need to find a way to still love each other when the dust has settled. Yes, one of the hymns was "They'll know we are Christians by our Love."

 

[GordW]

This thread isn't really about slavery Redbaron. Please start a new thread to discuss it on.

I would disagree. The topic may not directly be slavery but the historic examples of slavery and the role of women in the church (which is also still a current issue) are good exemplars for the discussion at hand.

 

[Jae]

I would point out that GianCarlo started the thread and liked at least one of your posts, so the thread starter clearly doesn't consider it a derail.

Neither do I consider it a derail - so long as a comparison's being made to the issue currently at hand. In one post made, there was no such comparison.

---
Many presidents of Methodist universities implored the GC to join the sexual revolution. These presidents demanded the liberal option. Thus, things were set for a battle.

Liberals and conservatives readied their forces and went to Missouri for a confrontation over the future of the UMC, America’s second-largest Protestant denomination.

The final vote rejected both the liberal option and the middle option. The GC upheld the denomination's teaching regarding sexuality and marriage. The vote was close: almost 50/50.

 

[GiancarloZ]

I don't think tracing parallels with slavery or, as GordW said, the role of women in the church are derailments.

 

[Mendalla]

Neither do I consider it a derail - so long as a comparison's being made to the issue currently at hand. In one post made, there was no such comparison.

If you're the only one seeing a problem in the discussion, then maybe the problem isn't the discussion. Please stop playing thread cop. We have mods for that.

 

[GiancarloZ]

What surprises me very much is that conservatives take such aggressive measures and speeches on LGBTQ+ matters but fail to condemn so quickly and eagerly a ton of other sins. Why, according to their scale, being gay is so much worse than rape, or than not to love your neighbor, or to any other sin - you name it?

 

[Mendalla]

Liberals and conservatives readied their forces and went to Missouri for a confrontation over the future of the UMC, America’s second-largest Protestant denomination.

Which, really, is what happened in the UCCan GC in Victoria in 1988 as well. Things split differently, of course.

What surprises me very much is that conservatives take such aggressive measures and speeches on LGBTQ+ matters but fail to condemn so quickly and eagerly a ton of other sins. Why, according to their scale, being gay is so much worse than rape, or than not to love your neighbor, or to any other sin - you name it?

Exactly. These are people who virulently condemn homosexuality and yet some of them actually argue a wife is required to submit to her husband's "needs" whether she wants to or not. There are some terrible things happening in our society and being gay is not one of them.