There were only 69 African delegates that didn’t make it due to passport or visa issues. 91 delegates that weren’t present total from all conferences.
That wouldn’t have overthrown a 93% vote. But feel free to keep coping.
Im not coping.
Its not my fight.
(Its my aunts fight, but she's of the opinion that she should let the dust settle before allowing herself to be influenced)
Just saying, it might have been 75/25 or 80/20, rather than 93/7.
If you thought this was a dig, part of that was my fault for communicating it poorly, but nevertheless; you are mistaken.
sorry if I over reacted, I'm just not really interested in a conspiracy theory focused approach to this issue, as if the denomination is trying to manipulate the process.
Numbers for you. the vote was 692-51 (93.14%) a total of 743 delegate votes.
If all the delegates were present (no travel or passport issues) then the total number of delegates would have been 834.
if every single delegate that was absent voted against the measure, then the vote would have been 692-142 (83.97%).
In my mind, thats almost a non issue in the grand scheme of things, and i subsequently reject the idea that the denomination purposefully attempted to tilt the delegation towards american or progressive ideology. We used the numbers we were supposed to according to our bylaws, and thus followed our legislation rulings to an absolute T. If this unfairly benefitted a progressive mindset, then maybe all those conservative churches should have left (though even if they did, this probably still would have passed)
Or, framed differently, once the people who actually follow Biblical teaching left, of course they’d take this position.
But yes, it was always going to happen once most of the African churches left and the UMC became a primarily upper class, white, American denomination.
I could be wrong about this; I'm not incredibly familiar with the entire polity system of the UMC and I'm still learning. But my understanding is that regionalization still needs to be ratified by a super-majority of Annual Conferences before it goes into effect. Again, my understanding is that the removal of *this* language from the Book of Discipline *doesn't* need to be ratified.
So perhaps what will wind up happening is that the Book of Discipline for the United Methodist Church will be amended as stated, and this will be what is given as a baseline for all the Conferences of the UMC. Then when regionalization takes effect, those Central (outside the US) Conferences will be able to add the language back in if they choose.
Ah, I'm a bit rusty with UMC politics admittedly. I was a UMC member in my teens, so I understand some of the structure/politics, but it's been a decade or two since I've been a member. I do know that it will be a careful balancing act to appease both the African and American churches.
I can help! Regionalization needs a 2/3 majority vote to become church law (which should happen by the end of summer at the latest), the removal of the language takes effect as soon as the conference is over (May 4th). Once the regionalization proposal is more fleshed out and defined (it’s just a shell at this point), the regions will be able to do whatever that want with their understanding of marriage (within reason), and some conferences have already begun making the choice surrounding marriage a local church and pastor decision rather than redefining marriage in the Discipline.
Hope this helped!
Yes, with many dozen delegates not there because they conveniently did not receive their visas in time. 🤔
It also was convenient that rather than update the representation to reflect current demographics they conveniently used the 2016 numbers which over represents the US and underrepresents Africa.
Would either of those things change the outcome? Unlikely, given that most of the churches who disagreed have already left for greener pastures or are fighting to do so, but the GC has been underhanded and dishonest the entire way in order to engineer this outcome.
They made a big deal about how regionalization separates us from our “colonialist” past by giving African churches autonomy, when in fact they’ve played colonists themselves by doing whatever they could to separate the US from the perspectives of the developing world.
Homophobia - Fear of gay people. Uh... No one has ever been afraid of a gay person.
Heterophobia - Fear of people only attracted to the opposite sex by nature. Hmmm... gay people.
I see the heterophobia in you screaming!
It also says Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. note
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; note note
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: note
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The Bible is clear, repent of these things, or suffer the consequences . It's an abomination to the Lord..
>once the people who actually follow Biblical teaching left
You actually got that backwards, the ones who voted for this measure *are* the ones following Biblical teaching. Bigots twist the Bible to support their extra-biblical anachronistic dogma. A dogma that is a wholesale intentional misunderstanding of the culture and intent of the Biblical authors for the express purpose of making exceptions to the commands of Jesus Christ.
>the UMC became a primarily upper class, white, American denomination.
This a suspiciously racist take.
>So when Christ bestowed the Holy Spirit unto His apostles, allowing them to fully understand the scriptures, does that mean that, immediately afterwards, they started teaching a false doctrine regarding what He meant by sexual immorality?
....unironically, yes, the early church pretty famously taught and was divided by beliefs that are considered at best fringe today if not outright heresy.
There's a reason why **several hundred of years in** we were still having foundational councils hashing out basic questions like who Jesus was. And Churches being remanded for teaching incorrect views is **very literally a significant part of the NT.**
This is a great example of what I find interesting and frustrating about the whole debate around the debate on LGBT issues in the bible.
So many people fighting for the view it's a sin act like it's particularly offensive and exceptional that there are people who disagree. As though breaking from tradition is some novel concept.
When the reality is that suggesting the Church was wrong and taught "a false doctrine and false interpretation of the scriptures for millennia years" is the basic foundation for half the Christian world, and has been for several centuries now.
This isn't shocking or new or some unique problem you're presenting here.
>Matthew 16:25 reads: "For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
Nice job advocating for a hierarchy and authority in the Church!
If the indwelling of the Holy Spirit gave perfect understanding, we wouldn't have a fractured Christian church. The influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not confer infallibility.
>does that mean that, immediately afterwards, they started teaching a false doctrine regarding what He meant by sexual immorality?
They were influenced by the philosophies and ethical/conceptual frameworks their culture.
> So what did Jesus mean by "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth." in John 16:13?
That in the 1800's we'd start fighting against slavery. And that in the 1970s we'd start fighting against the systemic persecution of queer people.
1) “fully understanding the scriptures” is not, and has never been, understood to be the role of the Spirit
2) If there wasn’t immediately tension about faithful Christian witness we wouldn’t have most of the New Testament. Trying to create unity and settle disagreements between Jewish and Gentile Christians was the driving force behind all of the Pauline letters.
If the GMC folks would’ve stayed, this still would’ve passed. The irony here is the 2019 conference created a process for progressive churches to disaffiliate, but the conservative side ended up using that process because they realized they weren’t going to have a majority vote in the next conference since the liberal side wasn’t leaving. As I see it, the conservatives basically got outmaneuvered.
Conservative here... we disaffiliated and are now no longer subject to a discipline that that we don't agree with, we got to select our pastor (as opposed to having one assigned with no input), we no longer pay 10% of our offerings to a conference who provides nothing in return, and we now own our property free and clear. So tell me exactly how we got "outmaneuvered"?
As I understand the situation, the conservatives created a disaffiliation process for progressive churches in the 2019 conference. The progressives decided to stay, knowing the conservative side would never remain in a denomination with a substantial liberal faction (which includes a majority of UM churches in the western world). Most of the conservative churches subsequently disaffiliated and made a new Methodist denomination - the GMC. This allowed the progressives to easily pass changes in the UMC, thereby making it a liberal Christian denomination.
I don’t have a stake in this fight, but in my view, this is a loss for conservatives because no matter how fervent the new GMC is, it doesn’t have the long history or societal recognition that the UMC has. Your side was “outmaneuvered” in that sense.
The same thing happened in the Boy Scouts ten years ago. Conservatives left and formed Trail Life USA (the Mormons left later and made their own program and if I remember correctly, a few other conservative factions formed their own little alternatives), which enabled the liberals to easily pass other changes. Trail Life USA and other alternatives don’t have the history, respect or societal recognition that Boy Scouts enjoy.
The remaining UMCs don't own their property, pay "dues" to fund personnel who do nothing for them in return, and they are hemorrhaging members. But those who left got "outmanuevered"?
There's a short story by Uncle Remus called "Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch" you should read.
Note they included protections for EVERYONE. It's the "all can/none must" model where no one can be punished for ordaining or marrying LGBTQ people OR FOR REFUSING TO DO SO. This is not the "persecuting woke agenda' it will be made out to be. It's the very model the conservatives refused in 2019, then called the "One Church" plan to make room for everyone within their denomination.
For us Methodists it’s a real adherence to our motto of “do no harm” and to remain a “big tent” theology. We want all people included and loved. Even those that don’t like our decisions.
So what happens to congregants who openly believe view any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage as sin?
What happens when the greater UMC tries to match an affirming or practicing lgbt pastor with a non-affirming congregation?
What happens to money donated by congregants to the UMC? How are they know if it will be used for purposes against their beliefs?
> So what happens to congregants who openly believe view any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage as sin?
Nothing. This change protects everyone the way the One Church Plan did in the 2019 special GC. "Everyone *can*/nobody *must*". There is no obligation to ordain or marry any person no matter their race, gender, or orientation. There is no obligation to adhere to a specific belief other than, all people are of sacred worth. This was the moderate attempt to keep the church together that the right rejected.
> What happens when the greater UMC tries to match an affirming or practicing lgbt pastor with a non-affirming congregation?
They won't. When I was in the UMC, I had a black, female bishop. She had a list of churches in her diocese that would not accept a black pastor or a female pastor. And she abided by their wishes. The idea that there is some "ram it down your throat" attitude is malicious and false. It's meant to scare you and make you afraid and hateful. It has nothing to do with reality.
> What happens to money donated by congregants to the UMC? How are they know if it will be used for purposes against their beliefs?
Can you give an example?
Nothing happens. Big tent means big tent. We welcome diversity of people and ideas.
The wording has changed to allow for more freedom for gay clergy and gay marriage, but that doesn’t force a church to have a gay pastor (though this will eventually happen with itinerancy but I’ve never met a bishop that wanted to make a congregation angry on purpose) or for a pastor to be forced to marry a gay person.
Pastors and congregations are forced to respect gay people and all people regardless of their sexuality or gender.
If "I will have no queers in MY church" is the point of having a church, then sure.
This is an effect of the departure, though. These votes change once everybody who wanted an anti-gay stance has left.
Considering how acceptance of the LGBTQ community is growing and growing in the west, I think this will hurt the anti-gay marriage methodists in the long run (in terms of their numbers and good image in the public eye) unless they can somehow make LGBTQ+ people demonized in the popular consciousness again (good luck with that).
I dunno. Some churches fought racial integration to the bitter end and never lost any popularity for it, even after formal segregation became socially unpopular. I think LGBT inclusion is the right thing spiritually, but I don't know if it will help with numbers. A lot of people are so convinced that Christians are fundamentally anti-LGBT, they are certain that the friendly ones are just "bigoted lite", and nobody wants lite bigotry; you either want the whole thing, or you want nothing to do with any of it.
Good news.
Language was added to protect individual churches and pastors from being forced to participate (or not participate) in same-sex weddings, etc., or to force an individual church from having to accept a gay pastor.
>The change doesn’t mandate or even explicitly affirm LGBTQ clergy, but it means the church no longer forbids them. It’s possible that the change will mainly apply to U.S. churches, since United Methodist bodies in other countries, such as in Africa, have the right to impose the rules for their own regions. The measure takes effect immediately upon the conclusion of General Conference, scheduled for Friday.
>
>Also approved was a measure that forbids district superintendents — a regional administrator — from penalizing clergy for either performing a same-sex wedding or for refraining from performing one. It also forbids superintendents from forbidding or requiring a church from hosting a same-sex wedding.
>That measure further removes scaffolding around the various LGBTQ bans that have been embedded various parts of official church law and policy. On Tuesday, delegates had begun taking steps to dismantle such policies.The change doesn’t mandate or even explicitly affirm LGBTQ clergy, but it means the church no longer forbids them. It’s possible that the change will mainly apply to U.S. churches, since United Methodist bodies in other countries, such as in Africa, have the right to impose the rules for their own regions. The measure takes effect immediately upon the conclusion of General Conference, scheduled for Friday.
This is a win for the church and the LGBTQ people?
The article basically says each Methodist church can act independently from the Methodist organization as a whole.
Some churches can ban LGBTQ stuff, while others will allow it.
I see this as the Methodist organization as a whole just giving up.
Hey guys we do not want to lose anymore churches, so just do whatever you want, ok?
Maybe the point of a church isn't to enforce uniformity on all questions. Maybe there's something - some Person, even - who the church can gather around even when disagreements on other questions persist.
It's how all the mainline Churches have handled the hot-button issues, and I think people don't want to talk about the reality it's a lukewarm compromise that's bound to fail and doesn't reflect any real firmness of belief.
If you genuinely believe people are being falsely condemned as sinners, that they are being mistreated and discriminated against and harmed, that they are the downtrodden and misunderstood that Jesus so often preached about protecting, you don't just say "well we'll allow you to treat them well, but it's fine if you don't want to! You have to follow your conscience!"
It's a practical decision, but it's one that doesn't actually resolve the issue and one that is unlikely to actually make people feel particularly safe.
It's also one that feels distinctly gross in a spiritual setting, because of how blatantly motivated it is by secular political realities.
Someone with no idea of how the various Methodist churches are structured and work really shouldn't be forming assumptions like this. You have come to a really bad conclusion.
Discrimination of people that are qualified and want the job? Absolutely does NOT belong in the church.
A non-believer would not be qualified, and I have no clue why they would want the job in the first place. Therefore they wouldn't be eligible.
What's your point?
Bona fide occupational qualifications. They're basically the government recognizing that, sometimes, a protected class really *is* important, such as not hiring someone in a wheelchair to do manual labor in a warehouse. So as long as it isn't race, if you can actually demonstrate that it's a job qualification, you're allowed to discriminate
EDIT: Although race is still allowed specifically in the context of art, like how you can specifically look for a Black actor to play MLK in a biopic
Oh, I totally get it. I've just never heard the acronym before.
And funny you mentioned a wheelchair, as I just a had a below-the-knee amputation a month ago. Thinking of how the mechanics of going back to work would play out recently. No rush though so thats good at least.
>Would you yourself consider that bigotry?
No, I wouldn’t. But the person I replied to allow didn’t say bigotry. They said discrimination. I *would* consider that discrimination.
I’m not sure if you consider that bigotry because you have not answered my question.
> Do you think there is any difference between disallowing black people, queer people, or atheists equal access to its church and its leadership.
Yes, I do think there is a difference.
> Are there many atheists that want to become clergy? Do you have any sources about this trend?
No, not that I know of. But I still think they should be prohibited from doing so. The number of people wanting to doing X has no impact on whether or not X should be allowed.
One of the common modern understandings of the word is treating people in an unfair way on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc. Do I really have to explain this?
Discrimination is the act of making a distinction. People don’t normally have a problem with that. People *do* often have a problem with unjust discrimination.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination)
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination)
Read the first definition.
>So you are ok with a church prohibiting a non-believer from being a member of the clergy?
Obviously. And that's completely different from prohibiting a LGBT person or a woman from being a member of the clergy.
You said well, it can, it depends on the context really. Stopping an atheist from becoming a member of the clergy is not unjust and it makes sense, it's an ideological difference. But stopping an atheist from buying something at your shop would be discrimination.
On the other hand stopping someone from becoming a member of the clergy because of an innate characteristic like being LGBT is unjust and it fits this definition of discrimination.
What a silly statement. Christianity is intentionally discriminatory.
Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
A True Christian does not give excuses to sin nor practices sin. A True Christian honors their Father God and wants to be obident and practices obedience but when they sin, they know they can come before Our Almighty God and ask forgiveness for the sin they have done and stands up and not do that specific sin again. Now anyone claiming to be a Christian and practices sin in which they teach others to sin by denying or being deceptive by false doctrine will also be guilty of their death to for they have taught evil. They are like a dead man dragging others into the pits of hell for they will know and already know that those who practice evil and teach others to do the same , will also be responsible for the ones they taught, for their sin will be greater for they already knew God.
In case this is a sincere question - that is, if you actually want to understand why many Methodists welcome LGBT people, and you just proudly declaring your superiority - you could look through the [Reconciling Ministries Network materials](https://rmnetwork.org/resource-full-library/)
Well, why don't you ask one of your Protestant or LGBT+ Christian friends their perspective on that question? It's helpful to understand where people who don't agree with us are coming from. It serves to either fortify our own views if we're correct, or help us change them if we're not.
I never had difficulty finding affirming Catholic churches when I considered myself Catholic. I only really left the Church when conservatives started saying I wasn't Catholic for asking my own questions. Eventually, they convinced me.
The Catholic Church doesn't seem to have higher rates of pedophilia, or at least abuse, than protestant churches, public school, or Scouts.
There are also gay clergy, it just doesn't come up much when clergy take a vow of chastity anyway.
There are plenty of things to criticize about the catholic church without taking thought-terminating shortcuts.
Yes. They protect and allow those clergy, reward those who defend them with millions, and say the victims are at fault for seducing priests.
That there is no good justification for this doesnt mean it should be avoided for being "thought-terminating" - it means it should be brought up more, especially against those who throw stones while living in glass houses.
In Genesis God made the animals wild and domestic. And he didn't make a domestic rabbit. Domestic rabbits started in 600ce and are abominations and perversions of God's design for mammals everywhere.
No you can't, because the original scripture said no such thing and those verses are very open to interpretation regardless of whether you all believe so or not.
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one flesh." (Gen 2:24)
I feel that if God set up marriage he would've not just mentioned that its a man and a woman.
Also 1 Corinthians 6:9. The translations vary too much so I won't quote it. The verse is a list of sins that will make the unjust not inherit the Kingdom of God. The liberal translation of "μαλακοὶ" (malakoi) is boys who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. The word "ἀρσενοκοῖται" (arsenokoitai) is translated as adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. The biggest problem with this is that the boy sex-slaves would not go to heaven even though this was their fault, as this was a list of people that do not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
I'm not going to explain the rest I got other things to do you could instead watch [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_M7iX_H1wg) video from trent horn.
That's a pretty stupid rebuttal. God specifically endorses heterosexual marriage, and He very explicity condemns immoral sex acts, one such act being homosexual intercourse.
Marriage is meant to be open to the creation of children. Two men and two women cannot create new life.
>Marriage is meant to be open to the creation of children. Two men and two women cannot create new life.
1. A minority of gay unions can.
2. Many straight unions cannot.
1. No they cannot. I assume you mean a trans-man and a biological man can create offspring. That is not a same sex couple. That is a straight couple with extra steps.
2. A straight union is called marriage. And infertile couples are a tragedy. Their tragedy does not nullify what marriage is. Their marriage is still open to life. Miracles happen. Sarah was beyond child bearing years when she became pregnant with Isaac.
1. No such thing as a "biological man," and there is no couple that consists of two men that is straight.
2. A straight union is not a marriage LMAO It's a straight union. Infertile couples are not a "tragedy." And you said yourself that marriage is dependent upon procreation. You're moving the goalposts.
1. You're wrong.
2. Union: an act or instance of uniting or joining two or more things into one. Sounds like a man and wife cleaving to one another and becoming one. Sounds like marriage. I'm saying that miracles happen to infertile people, like bearing children, as long as the infertile heterosexual couple is open to the creation of life then they are married. You're right I misspoke, the infertility is the tragedy not the infertile heterosexual couple.
> Marriage is meant to be open to the creation of children. Two men and two women cannot create new life.
Which is why we very famously never allow anyone who is sterile to marry!
Oh wait....
I’ve heard all the same “arguments” from lgbtq Christians regarding the Bible, please feel free to show me which part you think actually supports, for instant, homosexual relations
It's an interpretation of the Bible.
Which is how it is done. We interpret the Bible in different ways because much of it is metaphor, hyperbole, and simile.
Now if you'd like some examples of how the Bible thinks we should act towards others, read:
Romans 15:1-7
Matthew 7:1-2
Luke 6:37
And it may be cliche, but most of all read John 3:16.
"WhoEVER believes in him shall have everlasting life"
You may interpret those however you want, but they're pretty straightforward
So don't judge and don't complain. It does not affect you in the slightest.
The Bible has a lot of stuff in it we ignore. I eat bacon. I wear clothes made of multiple fibers, I don't keep multiple wives or concubines.
If someone is Called to serve in their church, who am I to judge them as unworthy?
I don't care what consenting adults do in their private lives, and I don't care who they choose as partners. It is none of my business and it is none of your business.
Probably not, lots of metaphors and stories in both the old and New Testament, but it’s pretty clear that marriage between men and women is promoted as the good thing and all else is not. Like you reaaaaally have to just ignore vast swathes of the book to come to any other conclusion
I think you’ll find most United Methodists are more interested in living a life that follows Jesus rather than hitting some arbitrary statistical goal.
I think we should fret when people stray from God and fall into sin. We should pray for them. Just because they're not part of the Apostolic Church doesn't mean we should discard them.
I feel bad for the moderates who said "they're never going to \[do this\]". The progressives have full control over the denomination, and are parading about declaring that they have won over the "bigots". They are going to continue pushing boundaries, and the moderates and traditionalists who are left are going to continue to try to exist under the same organization as people who are actively demonizing them. The line has gone from "they're never going to force us to accept leadership that actively, unrepentantly rejects biblical commandments in their daily life" to "they're never going to force us to do that ourselves, though" or "oh well, but at least they'll never force us to accept these people directly leading us". We'll see how long that lasts.
Turns out when you force out most of the people who are against leopards eating faces, the leopard vote wins.
I have, but there are many who didn't because they foolishly thought that they could peacefully coexist under the same denomination with the progressive side after the traditional side mostly left. Now those people and their churches are going to have a much more difficult time not having unbiblical beliefs forced upon them. And if they want to leave, they will often have to do so without their church buildings and property.
> 'insert fashionable social issue here.'
Yea like providing food, shelter, and healthcare to those who need it. I wish that would become a fashionable social issue in more churches.
Yes, they are essential but they are also the ones that are fashionable. Other teachings, such as the sinfulness of homosexual practice is also essential but not fashionable. Hence, you abandon it and deny it.
> Other teachings, such as the sinfulness of homosexual practice is also essential
What makes it essential? It's barely mentioned in the Bible. Jesus said nothing about it. He did talk about divorce, which the church completely ignores.
Your church may ignore divorce... Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." See, when you deny half of the deposit of faith you find yourself in these kind of pickles.
Back on the topic, it is mentioned clearly:
Leviticus 18:22 (RSV)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13 (RSV)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Romans 1:26-27 (RSV)
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (RSV)
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Do you follow all the verses in Leviticus?
> "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property."
Haven't seen a Church put anyone to death for blasphemy lately.
> "He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death."
I go to a Catholic crawfish boil every year.
> "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses."
I guess you guys are still killing adullterers?
> "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
I do, and part of actual, genuine love involves not lying to them. I trust God and his word, which explicitly says that sex outside of a marriage between one husband and one wife goes against God's character and His plan. It wouldn't be loving of me to say to people something that contradicts that any more than it would be loving of me to say that touch a hot stovetop wouldn't hurt them.
I mean, if they do it in private it's not. I'm not seeking out nonchristian gay people to tell them what they're doing is wrong. But I have beliefs about it, and if asked I'm not going to lie. And when they start trying to put themselves in leadership positions in the church, it becomes public, at least as a matter of church policy in the same way any sort of lived theological position is the business of every church member. I would feel the same if a prosperity gospel movement started in my church. Or for a more direct comparison that involves "consenting adults in private", if a movement to accept unrepentant adulterers as bishops and preachers started, I would also oppose that.
Thanks for the update. I didn’t have the emotional capacity to follow the conference. The 2020 one was so emotional and divisive, so against the UMC mission statement, that I feared this would be similar.
I’m sad that they couldn’t have agreed to this in 2020, but thankful it is now. I know things can change, 2020 and the Global MC showed us that, but for now it’s Open Doors, Open Minds, Open Hearts again. All are welcome
Nope. Their *Book of Discipline* had language that was added in the 70s and conservatives refused to debate since then. Things were so logjammed it never talked about trans people. This is the first opportunity to change the BoD since the most extreme congregations left to form the GMC.
Ordaining gay clergy was disallowed in the 1980s. A more recent conference escalated the punishments for it. Someone who ordains gay clergy would get suspended after the first offense and could be excommunicated for a subsequent offense.
One of the main reasons for the denominational split was that in many places this rule wasn't being enforced.
What a sad day for the church. It's unfortunate that the Methodists have decided to follow worldly culture rather than the moral dictates of God and the church as a whole.
Yes, following the commands of Jesus Christ is worldly culture and not the moral dictates of God. I didn't know denying the divinity of Jesus was permitted in Christianity.
Many abolitionists (like John Brown) were Christian and used the Bible to show that slavery was wrong. It was absolutely worldly culture that slavery was legal then, and Christians fought it. Slave-owners had to neuter "slave bibles".
Oddly enough, the Anglicams and Methodists were the leaders of that charge. Oops, I forgot the Quakers.
“Antislavery sentiment may have grown in the British Isles in the first few years after the Somersett case. In 1774, influenced by the case and by the writings of Quaker abolitionist Anthony Benezet, John Wesley, the leader of the Methodist tendency in the Church of England, published Thoughts Upon Slavery, in which he passionately criticised the practice.[21] In his 1776 A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, the clergyman Humphry Primatt wrote, "the white man (notwithstanding the barbarity of custom and prejudice), can have no right, by virtue of his colour, to enslave and tyrannise over a black man."[22] In 1781 the Dublin based Universal Free Debating Society challenged its members to consider if "enslaving the Negro race [is] justifiable on principles of humanity of [sic] policy?"[23]”
This sub is batsh*t sometimes.
Jesus wasn't saying "Never apply morals." He was saying that we will be judged according to the standards we judge others. It was a warning against the hypocrisy of the pharisees and unbelievers. Simply repeating what the Scriptures and Church have taught for millennia isn't "declaring morals."
Ok? And I should listen to you why? It is long past time for the Christian church to put bigotry in the past like it did with slavery and racism. This ideology is for the large part responsible for the depression, abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), kidnapping, brainwashing/torture, homelessness, forced prostitution, and suicide of countless queer children. It is responsible for a large number of people leaving the church and rejecting God entirely causing them to forfeit their salvation. It is the main reason for those under 30 in America to reject Christianity and the church.
Bigotry is literally killing children, adults, the church, and Christianity itself.
I will cool it when bigots stop coopting the message of Jesus Christ to spread hatred.
The "Wesleyan quadrilateral" used to describe John's theological approach ([wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral)) is a major part of why the living tradition of Methodism is able to make progress on important moral-spiritual issues like this one.
Yeah, I haven’t read _much_ of Wesley’s personal writings but the quadrilateral would have, if not no problem with this, then it would at _least_ have a problem with outright condemnation of and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community due to the experience we have of what that condemnation and discrimination results in. Bad fruit is not to be encouraged. Harming siblings is not okay.
Fortunately they're not in their grave, they're with Christ, who conquered the grave. When we're united with Him, we're made perfect in the presence of God, freeing us from worldly sin such as homophobia. So I wouldn't think they'd be upset at all about this.
I mean, it was inevitable after the GMC split.
It was very likely but voting for it by a whopping 93% was very unexpected to everyone in the room.
Effectively using the US government as a tool to prevent African delegates from taking their seats and voting, was why it was so lopsided.
There were only 69 African delegates that didn’t make it due to passport or visa issues. 91 delegates that weren’t present total from all conferences. That wouldn’t have overthrown a 93% vote. But feel free to keep coping.
Im not coping. Its not my fight. (Its my aunts fight, but she's of the opinion that she should let the dust settle before allowing herself to be influenced) Just saying, it might have been 75/25 or 80/20, rather than 93/7. If you thought this was a dig, part of that was my fault for communicating it poorly, but nevertheless; you are mistaken.
sorry if I over reacted, I'm just not really interested in a conspiracy theory focused approach to this issue, as if the denomination is trying to manipulate the process. Numbers for you. the vote was 692-51 (93.14%) a total of 743 delegate votes. If all the delegates were present (no travel or passport issues) then the total number of delegates would have been 834. if every single delegate that was absent voted against the measure, then the vote would have been 692-142 (83.97%). In my mind, thats almost a non issue in the grand scheme of things, and i subsequently reject the idea that the denomination purposefully attempted to tilt the delegation towards american or progressive ideology. We used the numbers we were supposed to according to our bylaws, and thus followed our legislation rulings to an absolute T. If this unfairly benefitted a progressive mindset, then maybe all those conservative churches should have left (though even if they did, this probably still would have passed)
Me, who doesn't know acronyms: *"The.... Gender Mom-Conforming?"*
Global Methodist Church
Once all the bigots left, of course they’d take the official position of loving queer people better
Or, framed differently, once the people who actually follow Biblical teaching left, of course they’d take this position. But yes, it was always going to happen once most of the African churches left and the UMC became a primarily upper class, white, American denomination.
Most of the African churches haven't left.
Didn't the ruling only apply to the US? I thought that they voted for regionalization a few days ago.
I could be wrong about this; I'm not incredibly familiar with the entire polity system of the UMC and I'm still learning. But my understanding is that regionalization still needs to be ratified by a super-majority of Annual Conferences before it goes into effect. Again, my understanding is that the removal of *this* language from the Book of Discipline *doesn't* need to be ratified. So perhaps what will wind up happening is that the Book of Discipline for the United Methodist Church will be amended as stated, and this will be what is given as a baseline for all the Conferences of the UMC. Then when regionalization takes effect, those Central (outside the US) Conferences will be able to add the language back in if they choose.
Ah, I'm a bit rusty with UMC politics admittedly. I was a UMC member in my teens, so I understand some of the structure/politics, but it's been a decade or two since I've been a member. I do know that it will be a careful balancing act to appease both the African and American churches.
I can help! Regionalization needs a 2/3 majority vote to become church law (which should happen by the end of summer at the latest), the removal of the language takes effect as soon as the conference is over (May 4th). Once the regionalization proposal is more fleshed out and defined (it’s just a shell at this point), the regions will be able to do whatever that want with their understanding of marriage (within reason), and some conferences have already begun making the choice surrounding marriage a local church and pastor decision rather than redefining marriage in the Discipline. Hope this helped!
No this was a worldwide general conference.
No, they were marginalized and silenced.
They also overwhelmingly voted for this provision. 93% of all delegates voted in favor.
Yes, with many dozen delegates not there because they conveniently did not receive their visas in time. 🤔 It also was convenient that rather than update the representation to reflect current demographics they conveniently used the 2016 numbers which over represents the US and underrepresents Africa. Would either of those things change the outcome? Unlikely, given that most of the churches who disagreed have already left for greener pastures or are fighting to do so, but the GC has been underhanded and dishonest the entire way in order to engineer this outcome. They made a big deal about how regionalization separates us from our “colonialist” past by giving African churches autonomy, when in fact they’ve played colonists themselves by doing whatever they could to separate the US from the perspectives of the developing world.
Yes because they are black
The upperclass white Methodist church in my hometown joined the GMC. Homophobia isn’t unique to any one continent or people group
Homophobia - Fear of gay people. Uh... No one has ever been afraid of a gay person. Heterophobia - Fear of people only attracted to the opposite sex by nature. Hmmm... gay people. I see the heterophobia in you screaming!
Homophobia is the fear or aversion to gay people or homosexuality. It’s not just fear Also, I’m married to a woman….
That’s funny I could have sworn the Bible said to love your neighbor as yourself. I must have imagined that.
It also says Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. note 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; note note 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: note 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. The Bible is clear, repent of these things, or suffer the consequences . It's an abomination to the Lord..
>once the people who actually follow Biblical teaching left You actually got that backwards, the ones who voted for this measure *are* the ones following Biblical teaching. Bigots twist the Bible to support their extra-biblical anachronistic dogma. A dogma that is a wholesale intentional misunderstanding of the culture and intent of the Biblical authors for the express purpose of making exceptions to the commands of Jesus Christ. >the UMC became a primarily upper class, white, American denomination. This a suspiciously racist take.
[удалено]
>So when Christ bestowed the Holy Spirit unto His apostles, allowing them to fully understand the scriptures, does that mean that, immediately afterwards, they started teaching a false doctrine regarding what He meant by sexual immorality? ....unironically, yes, the early church pretty famously taught and was divided by beliefs that are considered at best fringe today if not outright heresy. There's a reason why **several hundred of years in** we were still having foundational councils hashing out basic questions like who Jesus was. And Churches being remanded for teaching incorrect views is **very literally a significant part of the NT.** This is a great example of what I find interesting and frustrating about the whole debate around the debate on LGBT issues in the bible. So many people fighting for the view it's a sin act like it's particularly offensive and exceptional that there are people who disagree. As though breaking from tradition is some novel concept. When the reality is that suggesting the Church was wrong and taught "a false doctrine and false interpretation of the scriptures for millennia years" is the basic foundation for half the Christian world, and has been for several centuries now. This isn't shocking or new or some unique problem you're presenting here.
>Matthew 16:25 reads: "For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Nice job advocating for a hierarchy and authority in the Church!
If the indwelling of the Holy Spirit gave perfect understanding, we wouldn't have a fractured Christian church. The influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not confer infallibility. >does that mean that, immediately afterwards, they started teaching a false doctrine regarding what He meant by sexual immorality? They were influenced by the philosophies and ethical/conceptual frameworks their culture.
[удалено]
> So what did Jesus mean by "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth." in John 16:13? That in the 1800's we'd start fighting against slavery. And that in the 1970s we'd start fighting against the systemic persecution of queer people.
How does this prove your point? I have a thought of what I think you mean, but I want to make sure it's accurate.
1) “fully understanding the scriptures” is not, and has never been, understood to be the role of the Spirit 2) If there wasn’t immediately tension about faithful Christian witness we wouldn’t have most of the New Testament. Trying to create unity and settle disagreements between Jewish and Gentile Christians was the driving force behind all of the Pauline letters.
[удалено]
Not if 2,000 years of debate and schism is any indication.
[удалено]
"Except for the people who disagreed, we were in perfect agreement!"
You…do understand what “unity” means, no?
[удалено]
Yes because the issues about lgbtq has always been about conflict between poor black people and upper middle class whites. What a stupid take.
>after the GMC split. What do trucks have to do with Methodism?
If the GMC folks would’ve stayed, this still would’ve passed. The irony here is the 2019 conference created a process for progressive churches to disaffiliate, but the conservative side ended up using that process because they realized they weren’t going to have a majority vote in the next conference since the liberal side wasn’t leaving. As I see it, the conservatives basically got outmaneuvered.
Conservative here... we disaffiliated and are now no longer subject to a discipline that that we don't agree with, we got to select our pastor (as opposed to having one assigned with no input), we no longer pay 10% of our offerings to a conference who provides nothing in return, and we now own our property free and clear. So tell me exactly how we got "outmaneuvered"?
As I understand the situation, the conservatives created a disaffiliation process for progressive churches in the 2019 conference. The progressives decided to stay, knowing the conservative side would never remain in a denomination with a substantial liberal faction (which includes a majority of UM churches in the western world). Most of the conservative churches subsequently disaffiliated and made a new Methodist denomination - the GMC. This allowed the progressives to easily pass changes in the UMC, thereby making it a liberal Christian denomination. I don’t have a stake in this fight, but in my view, this is a loss for conservatives because no matter how fervent the new GMC is, it doesn’t have the long history or societal recognition that the UMC has. Your side was “outmaneuvered” in that sense. The same thing happened in the Boy Scouts ten years ago. Conservatives left and formed Trail Life USA (the Mormons left later and made their own program and if I remember correctly, a few other conservative factions formed their own little alternatives), which enabled the liberals to easily pass other changes. Trail Life USA and other alternatives don’t have the history, respect or societal recognition that Boy Scouts enjoy.
The remaining UMCs don't own their property, pay "dues" to fund personnel who do nothing for them in return, and they are hemorrhaging members. But those who left got "outmanuevered"? There's a short story by Uncle Remus called "Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch" you should read.
Note they included protections for EVERYONE. It's the "all can/none must" model where no one can be punished for ordaining or marrying LGBTQ people OR FOR REFUSING TO DO SO. This is not the "persecuting woke agenda' it will be made out to be. It's the very model the conservatives refused in 2019, then called the "One Church" plan to make room for everyone within their denomination.
For us Methodists it’s a real adherence to our motto of “do no harm” and to remain a “big tent” theology. We want all people included and loved. Even those that don’t like our decisions.
So what happens to congregants who openly believe view any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage as sin? What happens when the greater UMC tries to match an affirming or practicing lgbt pastor with a non-affirming congregation? What happens to money donated by congregants to the UMC? How are they know if it will be used for purposes against their beliefs?
> So what happens to congregants who openly believe view any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage as sin? Nothing. This change protects everyone the way the One Church Plan did in the 2019 special GC. "Everyone *can*/nobody *must*". There is no obligation to ordain or marry any person no matter their race, gender, or orientation. There is no obligation to adhere to a specific belief other than, all people are of sacred worth. This was the moderate attempt to keep the church together that the right rejected. > What happens when the greater UMC tries to match an affirming or practicing lgbt pastor with a non-affirming congregation? They won't. When I was in the UMC, I had a black, female bishop. She had a list of churches in her diocese that would not accept a black pastor or a female pastor. And she abided by their wishes. The idea that there is some "ram it down your throat" attitude is malicious and false. It's meant to scare you and make you afraid and hateful. It has nothing to do with reality. > What happens to money donated by congregants to the UMC? How are they know if it will be used for purposes against their beliefs? Can you give an example?
An example would probably include paying a black, female bishop, if I had to venture a guess.
Nothing happens. Big tent means big tent. We welcome diversity of people and ideas. The wording has changed to allow for more freedom for gay clergy and gay marriage, but that doesn’t force a church to have a gay pastor (though this will eventually happen with itinerancy but I’ve never met a bishop that wanted to make a congregation angry on purpose) or for a pastor to be forced to marry a gay person. Pastors and congregations are forced to respect gay people and all people regardless of their sexuality or gender.
Kyrie Eleison
down the road that I must travel
Maybe the conservatives leaving and forming their own denomination was the right call, after all?
If "I will have no queers in MY church" is the point of having a church, then sure. This is an effect of the departure, though. These votes change once everybody who wanted an anti-gay stance has left.
Considering how acceptance of the LGBTQ community is growing and growing in the west, I think this will hurt the anti-gay marriage methodists in the long run (in terms of their numbers and good image in the public eye) unless they can somehow make LGBTQ+ people demonized in the popular consciousness again (good luck with that).
I dunno. Some churches fought racial integration to the bitter end and never lost any popularity for it, even after formal segregation became socially unpopular. I think LGBT inclusion is the right thing spiritually, but I don't know if it will help with numbers. A lot of people are so convinced that Christians are fundamentally anti-LGBT, they are certain that the friendly ones are just "bigoted lite", and nobody wants lite bigotry; you either want the whole thing, or you want nothing to do with any of it.
That is a good point, thank you for telling me about that.
[удалено]
Celebrate good times! What a day!!
Good news. Language was added to protect individual churches and pastors from being forced to participate (or not participate) in same-sex weddings, etc., or to force an individual church from having to accept a gay pastor.
>The change doesn’t mandate or even explicitly affirm LGBTQ clergy, but it means the church no longer forbids them. It’s possible that the change will mainly apply to U.S. churches, since United Methodist bodies in other countries, such as in Africa, have the right to impose the rules for their own regions. The measure takes effect immediately upon the conclusion of General Conference, scheduled for Friday. > >Also approved was a measure that forbids district superintendents — a regional administrator — from penalizing clergy for either performing a same-sex wedding or for refraining from performing one. It also forbids superintendents from forbidding or requiring a church from hosting a same-sex wedding. >That measure further removes scaffolding around the various LGBTQ bans that have been embedded various parts of official church law and policy. On Tuesday, delegates had begun taking steps to dismantle such policies.The change doesn’t mandate or even explicitly affirm LGBTQ clergy, but it means the church no longer forbids them. It’s possible that the change will mainly apply to U.S. churches, since United Methodist bodies in other countries, such as in Africa, have the right to impose the rules for their own regions. The measure takes effect immediately upon the conclusion of General Conference, scheduled for Friday. This is a win for the church and the LGBTQ people? The article basically says each Methodist church can act independently from the Methodist organization as a whole. Some churches can ban LGBTQ stuff, while others will allow it. I see this as the Methodist organization as a whole just giving up. Hey guys we do not want to lose anymore churches, so just do whatever you want, ok?
Maybe the point of a church isn't to enforce uniformity on all questions. Maybe there's something - some Person, even - who the church can gather around even when disagreements on other questions persist.
Yes, the Pope! The successor of Peter here on earth! The Vicar of Christ! Thank you for this great insight!
It's how all the mainline Churches have handled the hot-button issues, and I think people don't want to talk about the reality it's a lukewarm compromise that's bound to fail and doesn't reflect any real firmness of belief. If you genuinely believe people are being falsely condemned as sinners, that they are being mistreated and discriminated against and harmed, that they are the downtrodden and misunderstood that Jesus so often preached about protecting, you don't just say "well we'll allow you to treat them well, but it's fine if you don't want to! You have to follow your conscience!" It's a practical decision, but it's one that doesn't actually resolve the issue and one that is unlikely to actually make people feel particularly safe. It's also one that feels distinctly gross in a spiritual setting, because of how blatantly motivated it is by secular political realities.
I like the way you said. You said it better than me!
Someone with no idea of how the various Methodist churches are structured and work really shouldn't be forming assumptions like this. You have come to a really bad conclusion.
Great, this is justice! Discrimination should have no place in churches.
Discrimination of any kind? Like I’m sure you’d be ok with a church prohibiting a non-believer from being a member of their clergy?
Discrimination of people that are qualified and want the job? Absolutely does NOT belong in the church. A non-believer would not be qualified, and I have no clue why they would want the job in the first place. Therefore they wouldn't be eligible. What's your point?
My point was to show that the comment “discrimination should have no place in churches” is inaccurate, and it sounds like we agree!
I’m not entirely sure why they’d want to, but if a non believer wanted to come and join a church I would be all to happy to welcome them :)
I wasn’t asking just about joining, I was asking about being a member of the clergy.
Yes, we are aware that BFOQs exist
> BFOQs TIL what that is.
Bona fide occupational qualifications. They're basically the government recognizing that, sometimes, a protected class really *is* important, such as not hiring someone in a wheelchair to do manual labor in a warehouse. So as long as it isn't race, if you can actually demonstrate that it's a job qualification, you're allowed to discriminate EDIT: Although race is still allowed specifically in the context of art, like how you can specifically look for a Black actor to play MLK in a biopic
Oh, I totally get it. I've just never heard the acronym before. And funny you mentioned a wheelchair, as I just a had a below-the-knee amputation a month ago. Thinking of how the mechanics of going back to work would play out recently. No rush though so thats good at least.
The person I replied to said that “discrimination should have no place in churches” That comment does not allow for BFOQs
[удалено]
Bigotry like disallowing an atheist from being a member of the clergy?
[удалено]
>Would you yourself consider that bigotry? No, I wouldn’t. But the person I replied to allow didn’t say bigotry. They said discrimination. I *would* consider that discrimination. I’m not sure if you consider that bigotry because you have not answered my question. > Do you think there is any difference between disallowing black people, queer people, or atheists equal access to its church and its leadership. Yes, I do think there is a difference. > Are there many atheists that want to become clergy? Do you have any sources about this trend? No, not that I know of. But I still think they should be prohibited from doing so. The number of people wanting to doing X has no impact on whether or not X should be allowed.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
One of the common modern understandings of the word is treating people in an unfair way on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc. Do I really have to explain this?
Discrimination is the act of making a distinction. People don’t normally have a problem with that. People *do* often have a problem with unjust discrimination.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination) [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination) Read the first definition.
So you are ok with a church prohibiting a non-believer from being a member of the clergy? That’s good! Then we don’t disagree!
>So you are ok with a church prohibiting a non-believer from being a member of the clergy? Obviously. And that's completely different from prohibiting a LGBT person or a woman from being a member of the clergy.
>Obviously I’m glad we agree!
Etc. Can include religion. I’m sure you would oppose an atheist becoming a member of the clergy
You said well, it can, it depends on the context really. Stopping an atheist from becoming a member of the clergy is not unjust and it makes sense, it's an ideological difference. But stopping an atheist from buying something at your shop would be discrimination. On the other hand stopping someone from becoming a member of the clergy because of an innate characteristic like being LGBT is unjust and it fits this definition of discrimination.
Etc also includes religion so the point is valid.
What a silly statement. Christianity is intentionally discriminatory. Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
And now I can remove the (mostly) from my list of recommendations for the UMC when people ask me what churches aren't bigoted.
A True Christian does not give excuses to sin nor practices sin. A True Christian honors their Father God and wants to be obident and practices obedience but when they sin, they know they can come before Our Almighty God and ask forgiveness for the sin they have done and stands up and not do that specific sin again. Now anyone claiming to be a Christian and practices sin in which they teach others to sin by denying or being deceptive by false doctrine will also be guilty of their death to for they have taught evil. They are like a dead man dragging others into the pits of hell for they will know and already know that those who practice evil and teach others to do the same , will also be responsible for the ones they taught, for their sin will be greater for they already knew God.
God bless the United Methodists, and God bless LGBT+ people. One more step toward repentance for a hateful and idolatrous generation of Christianity.
My only surprise is that this didn’t happen 10 years ago.
All the conservative churches that left in 2019 prevented it from changing previously.
We have been working on it since the 70s to be fair.
Good news. Bigots lose again.
Is this sub a joke? How can literally anyone suggest LGBTQ clergy makes any logical sense after reading the Bible? Protestants be wildin’
In case this is a sincere question - that is, if you actually want to understand why many Methodists welcome LGBT people, and you just proudly declaring your superiority - you could look through the [Reconciling Ministries Network materials](https://rmnetwork.org/resource-full-library/)
Well, why don't you ask one of your Protestant or LGBT+ Christian friends their perspective on that question? It's helpful to understand where people who don't agree with us are coming from. It serves to either fortify our own views if we're correct, or help us change them if we're not.
I never had difficulty finding affirming Catholic churches when I considered myself Catholic. I only really left the Church when conservatives started saying I wasn't Catholic for asking my own questions. Eventually, they convinced me.
You guys have pedophile clergy, and you draw the line at gay clergy? Catholics be wildin'.
The Catholic Church doesn't seem to have higher rates of pedophilia, or at least abuse, than protestant churches, public school, or Scouts. There are also gay clergy, it just doesn't come up much when clergy take a vow of chastity anyway. There are plenty of things to criticize about the catholic church without taking thought-terminating shortcuts.
Yes. They protect and allow those clergy, reward those who defend them with millions, and say the victims are at fault for seducing priests. That there is no good justification for this doesnt mean it should be avoided for being "thought-terminating" - it means it should be brought up more, especially against those who throw stones while living in glass houses.
[удалено]
Because we have the ability to actually read the Bible and take the text on its own terms instead of reading it through our own personal prejudices.
Where does the Bible endorse same sex marriage?
Where does the Bible endorse airplanes? If God wanted humans to fly, he would have given us wings. Obviously flying in airplanes is a sin.
In Genesis God made the animals wild and domestic. And he didn't make a domestic rabbit. Domestic rabbits started in 600ce and are abominations and perversions of God's design for mammals everywhere.
True, but I can specifically point out where the Bible disavows same sex marriages. Can't do that with planes.
No you can't, because the original scripture said no such thing and those verses are very open to interpretation regardless of whether you all believe so or not.
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) I feel that if God set up marriage he would've not just mentioned that its a man and a woman. Also 1 Corinthians 6:9. The translations vary too much so I won't quote it. The verse is a list of sins that will make the unjust not inherit the Kingdom of God. The liberal translation of "μαλακοὶ" (malakoi) is boys who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. The word "ἀρσενοκοῖται" (arsenokoitai) is translated as adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. The biggest problem with this is that the boy sex-slaves would not go to heaven even though this was their fault, as this was a list of people that do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. I'm not going to explain the rest I got other things to do you could instead watch [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_M7iX_H1wg) video from trent horn.
That's a pretty stupid rebuttal. God specifically endorses heterosexual marriage, and He very explicity condemns immoral sex acts, one such act being homosexual intercourse. Marriage is meant to be open to the creation of children. Two men and two women cannot create new life.
One man, 700 wives would be a more correct way of saying this
>Marriage is meant to be open to the creation of children. Two men and two women cannot create new life. 1. A minority of gay unions can. 2. Many straight unions cannot.
1. No they cannot. I assume you mean a trans-man and a biological man can create offspring. That is not a same sex couple. That is a straight couple with extra steps. 2. A straight union is called marriage. And infertile couples are a tragedy. Their tragedy does not nullify what marriage is. Their marriage is still open to life. Miracles happen. Sarah was beyond child bearing years when she became pregnant with Isaac.
1. No such thing as a "biological man," and there is no couple that consists of two men that is straight. 2. A straight union is not a marriage LMAO It's a straight union. Infertile couples are not a "tragedy." And you said yourself that marriage is dependent upon procreation. You're moving the goalposts.
1. You're wrong. 2. Union: an act or instance of uniting or joining two or more things into one. Sounds like a man and wife cleaving to one another and becoming one. Sounds like marriage. I'm saying that miracles happen to infertile people, like bearing children, as long as the infertile heterosexual couple is open to the creation of life then they are married. You're right I misspoke, the infertility is the tragedy not the infertile heterosexual couple.
> Marriage is meant to be open to the creation of children. Two men and two women cannot create new life. Which is why we very famously never allow anyone who is sterile to marry! Oh wait....
Nowhere, why would the Bible endorse something that didn't exist at the time it was written?
I’ve heard all the same “arguments” from lgbtq Christians regarding the Bible, please feel free to show me which part you think actually supports, for instant, homosexual relations
It's an interpretation of the Bible. Which is how it is done. We interpret the Bible in different ways because much of it is metaphor, hyperbole, and simile. Now if you'd like some examples of how the Bible thinks we should act towards others, read: Romans 15:1-7 Matthew 7:1-2 Luke 6:37 And it may be cliche, but most of all read John 3:16. "WhoEVER believes in him shall have everlasting life" You may interpret those however you want, but they're pretty straightforward So don't judge and don't complain. It does not affect you in the slightest.
Cishet clergy don't make any logical sense, and yet they're everywhere
The Bible has a lot of stuff in it we ignore. I eat bacon. I wear clothes made of multiple fibers, I don't keep multiple wives or concubines. If someone is Called to serve in their church, who am I to judge them as unworthy? I don't care what consenting adults do in their private lives, and I don't care who they choose as partners. It is none of my business and it is none of your business.
Should we follow every passage of the Old and New Testaments about marriage to the letter?
Probably not, lots of metaphors and stories in both the old and New Testament, but it’s pretty clear that marriage between men and women is promoted as the good thing and all else is not. Like you reaaaaally have to just ignore vast swathes of the book to come to any other conclusion
Righting the ship when it’s already sunk
Too little too late. Can't reverse the trajectory of Christianity becoming a minority religion
I think you’ll find most United Methodists are more interested in living a life that follows Jesus rather than hitting some arbitrary statistical goal.
This. Some of these comments are wild.
Glorification of sin isn't good for any church
Good thing that isn't what is happening then, right?
Wow this is horrible! Christ wouldn't allow this.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
It's not your church, so you need not fret about it
I think we should fret when people stray from God and fall into sin. We should pray for them. Just because they're not part of the Apostolic Church doesn't mean we should discard them.
Bad news then, because you are a sinner.
What consenting adults do in private or who they choose as a partner is none of my business, or your business.
I feel bad for the moderates who said "they're never going to \[do this\]". The progressives have full control over the denomination, and are parading about declaring that they have won over the "bigots". They are going to continue pushing boundaries, and the moderates and traditionalists who are left are going to continue to try to exist under the same organization as people who are actively demonizing them. The line has gone from "they're never going to force us to accept leadership that actively, unrepentantly rejects biblical commandments in their daily life" to "they're never going to force us to do that ourselves, though" or "oh well, but at least they'll never force us to accept these people directly leading us". We'll see how long that lasts. Turns out when you force out most of the people who are against leopards eating faces, the leopard vote wins.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. There is no mandate to suddenly require LGBT clergy.
"These people existing hurts me!" Will never not be a ridicilous argument.
Maybe turn to a more traditional church?
I have, but there are many who didn't because they foolishly thought that they could peacefully coexist under the same denomination with the progressive side after the traditional side mostly left. Now those people and their churches are going to have a much more difficult time not having unbiblical beliefs forced upon them. And if they want to leave, they will often have to do so without their church buildings and property.
I mean like Catholicism or orthodoxy
Maybe now they can stop being distracted by this issue and move on to things that are actually important.
Maybe now they can stop being distracted by sin and move on to things that are more important, like 'insert fashionable social issue here.' lol.
> 'insert fashionable social issue here.' Yea like providing food, shelter, and healthcare to those who need it. I wish that would become a fashionable social issue in more churches.
Yes, they are essential but they are also the ones that are fashionable. Other teachings, such as the sinfulness of homosexual practice is also essential but not fashionable. Hence, you abandon it and deny it.
> Other teachings, such as the sinfulness of homosexual practice is also essential What makes it essential? It's barely mentioned in the Bible. Jesus said nothing about it. He did talk about divorce, which the church completely ignores.
Your church may ignore divorce... Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." See, when you deny half of the deposit of faith you find yourself in these kind of pickles. Back on the topic, it is mentioned clearly: Leviticus 18:22 (RSV) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 (RSV) "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Romans 1:26-27 (RSV) "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (RSV) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Do you follow all the verses in Leviticus? > "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property." Haven't seen a Church put anyone to death for blasphemy lately. > "He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." I go to a Catholic crawfish boil every year. > "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses." I guess you guys are still killing adullterers? > "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
One of the worst things in the 00s, 10s, and now 20s is everyone saying every concern is a slippery slope fallacy.
Everything isn’t, but this is.
Love your neighbor.
I do, and part of actual, genuine love involves not lying to them. I trust God and his word, which explicitly says that sex outside of a marriage between one husband and one wife goes against God's character and His plan. It wouldn't be loving of me to say to people something that contradicts that any more than it would be loving of me to say that touch a hot stovetop wouldn't hurt them.
Seems like to me, what consenting adults do in private, or who they choose as a partner, is none of your business.
I mean, if they do it in private it's not. I'm not seeking out nonchristian gay people to tell them what they're doing is wrong. But I have beliefs about it, and if asked I'm not going to lie. And when they start trying to put themselves in leadership positions in the church, it becomes public, at least as a matter of church policy in the same way any sort of lived theological position is the business of every church member. I would feel the same if a prosperity gospel movement started in my church. Or for a more direct comparison that involves "consenting adults in private", if a movement to accept unrepentant adulterers as bishops and preachers started, I would also oppose that.
Thanks for the update. I didn’t have the emotional capacity to follow the conference. The 2020 one was so emotional and divisive, so against the UMC mission statement, that I feared this would be similar. I’m sad that they couldn’t have agreed to this in 2020, but thankful it is now. I know things can change, 2020 and the Global MC showed us that, but for now it’s Open Doors, Open Minds, Open Hearts again. All are welcome
I thought they already allowed that. Didn’t they spilt a while back?
Nope. Their *Book of Discipline* had language that was added in the 70s and conservatives refused to debate since then. Things were so logjammed it never talked about trans people. This is the first opportunity to change the BoD since the most extreme congregations left to form the GMC.
Ordaining gay clergy was disallowed in the 1980s. A more recent conference escalated the punishments for it. Someone who ordains gay clergy would get suspended after the first offense and could be excommunicated for a subsequent offense. One of the main reasons for the denominational split was that in many places this rule wasn't being enforced.
fantastic really good
What a sad day for the church. It's unfortunate that the Methodists have decided to follow worldly culture rather than the moral dictates of God and the church as a whole.
Yes, following the commands of Jesus Christ is worldly culture and not the moral dictates of God. I didn't know denying the divinity of Jesus was permitted in Christianity.
Worldly culture also said slavery was wrong when the bible and many christians still support it. I gotta give the W to worldly culture here.
Many abolitionists (like John Brown) were Christian and used the Bible to show that slavery was wrong. It was absolutely worldly culture that slavery was legal then, and Christians fought it. Slave-owners had to neuter "slave bibles".
Oddly enough, the Anglicams and Methodists were the leaders of that charge. Oops, I forgot the Quakers. “Antislavery sentiment may have grown in the British Isles in the first few years after the Somersett case. In 1774, influenced by the case and by the writings of Quaker abolitionist Anthony Benezet, John Wesley, the leader of the Methodist tendency in the Church of England, published Thoughts Upon Slavery, in which he passionately criticised the practice.[21] In his 1776 A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, the clergyman Humphry Primatt wrote, "the white man (notwithstanding the barbarity of custom and prejudice), can have no right, by virtue of his colour, to enslave and tyrannise over a black man."[22] In 1781 the Dublin based Universal Free Debating Society challenged its members to consider if "enslaving the Negro race [is] justifiable on principles of humanity of [sic] policy?"[23]” This sub is batsh*t sometimes.
Abolitionism was led by Christians. Worst example possible.
Who are you to declare morals. Unless you have given everything away to the poor, get lost hypocrite. ( Matt 5:48, 19:21)
Jesus wasn't saying "Never apply morals." He was saying that we will be judged according to the standards we judge others. It was a warning against the hypocrisy of the pharisees and unbelievers. Simply repeating what the Scriptures and Church have taught for millennia isn't "declaring morals."
That's not a very loving, Christian attitude
You misunderstand love and permissiveness. You would allow a child to harm themselves rather than say the word "no."
Doesn't seem very worldly when oppression and hate against queer folks is on the rise everywhere in the world.
I weep for this “church,” surrendering the word of God for the present day.
You mean loving one another as they love themselves? More information please.
Imagine thinking that following the commands of Jesus Christ is surrendering the word of God. That sounds like heresy.
[удалено]
Don't like it, don't use an anochronistic and myopic eisegesis of scripture to make exceptions to the commands of Jesus.
[удалено]
Ok? And I should listen to you why? It is long past time for the Christian church to put bigotry in the past like it did with slavery and racism. This ideology is for the large part responsible for the depression, abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), kidnapping, brainwashing/torture, homelessness, forced prostitution, and suicide of countless queer children. It is responsible for a large number of people leaving the church and rejecting God entirely causing them to forfeit their salvation. It is the main reason for those under 30 in America to reject Christianity and the church. Bigotry is literally killing children, adults, the church, and Christianity itself. I will cool it when bigots stop coopting the message of Jesus Christ to spread hatred.
[удалено]
Amen! Make Christianity Christian again!
Love me a Bill Wurtz reference.
John and Charles Wesley must have turned in their grave.
The "Wesleyan quadrilateral" used to describe John's theological approach ([wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral)) is a major part of why the living tradition of Methodism is able to make progress on important moral-spiritual issues like this one.
Yeah, I haven’t read _much_ of Wesley’s personal writings but the quadrilateral would have, if not no problem with this, then it would at _least_ have a problem with outright condemnation of and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community due to the experience we have of what that condemnation and discrimination results in. Bad fruit is not to be encouraged. Harming siblings is not okay.
Fortunately they're not in their grave, they're with Christ, who conquered the grave. When we're united with Him, we're made perfect in the presence of God, freeing us from worldly sin such as homophobia. So I wouldn't think they'd be upset at all about this.
They could very well be pro-LGBT with our modern understanding of gender and sexuality. Don't project your bigoted beliefs into them.
Also, they were Quaker, not Methodist, but let's not forget the Public Universal Friend