The following commentary is by Wesley Putnam, a full-time evangelist in the UMC and former president of the National Association of United Methodist Evangelists.
Wesley Putnam
Below, Mr. Putnam provides an eyewitness account of a Feb. 27 church conference at University United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, at which the church voted to affiliate with the pro-homosexuality Reconciling Ministries Network.
RMN seeks to change the United Methodist Church’s position on same-sex relations, which is rooted in the historic Christian teaching that sexual contact between two men or two women falls outside the boundaries of acceptable moral conduct for disciples of Jesus Christ.
RMN also seeks to end the UMC’s prohibition on accepting sexually active homosexuals as candidates for ordained ministry (¶304.3 of the UM Book of Discipline).
Links in the commentary below have been added by MethodistThinker.com. — Ed.
-
I got up early on Sunday, Feb. 27, and headed out from Bedford, Texas, to Austin. This was the day that had been advertised by University United Methodist Church as the day they were going to vote on becoming a Reconciling Congregation.
|
“A local church or any of its organizational units may not identify or label itself as an unofficial body or movement. “Such identification or labeling is divisive and makes the local church subject to the possibility of being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of The United Methodist Church.” |
|
|
“[A]nnual conferences may not legally negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objections to those provisions.” |
The primary problem with this vote is that it is clearly forbidden by Decision #871 of the United Methodist Judicial Council [see excerpt at left]. In addition, Judicial Council Decision #886 has bearing on this matter [also excepted at left].
As soon as I found out that University UMC was planning this vote, I notified the pastor, the Rev. John Elford, that he was moving the church in a direction that seemed to be in clear violation of the United Methodist Book of Discipline. He indicated he was determined to continue and had already discussed it with his District Superintendent.
I then contacted the office for the District Superintendent in the Austin District, the Rev. Bobbi Kaye Jones, citing the relevant Judicial Council Decisions. I never received a response.
Next, I contacted Bishop Jim Dorff of the Southwest Texas Conference and informed him of the plans of UUMC. He excused the action because, in his view, the congregation was only “affiliating” — not “identifying” — with the Reconciling Ministries Network.
I fail to see the difference. Affiliating with a group is identifying with a group. And Judicial Council Decision #871 simply says that Annual Conferences, local churches, and units within churches (Sunday School classes, UMW groups, etc.) are forbidden to “identify or label” themselves as “an unofficial body or movement.”
After weeks of back and forth emails, I decided to attend the Feb. 27 Church Conference at University UMC as an observer. I also attended the morning worship service just before the church conference.
-
A first-hand account
The sanctuary at UUMC is lovely, and the bottom floor was comfortably full with between 250 and 300 worshipers. The congregation that gathered was multi-generational. I was met by friendly greetings from several members as I made my way to my seat.
University UMC — Austin, Texas
I noticed that rainbow crosses and pink triangles were displayed on many lapels.
The pipe organ was belting out a rousing call to worship and the sound reverberated off the ample hardwood surfaces of the room. The atmosphere was celebratory as the congregants anticipated the purpose of this day.
The style of worship was traditional. There was a lot of liturgy and an assortment of ancient hymns, plus also a couple of more recent songs from the hymnal supplement.
Everything in the service was designed to lead up to this historic vote. Even the children’s sermon was a call to remember that there are many different pieces that make up a puzzle.
“When God’s peace is at work, even though we are going in lots of different directions, God brings us together and gives us God’s love,” the pastor told the children. “To love each other, care for each other and be reconciled to each other. We want to be with all different kinds of people, not just people just like us,” he said.
The last statement was directed to the adult congregation more so than it was to the children.
University UMC’s pastor, John Elford, is a tall man with a quiet and conversational speaking style. In remarks sprinkled with humor, he emphasized that UUMC is a “welcoming congregation” and the people there are “learning more and more every day” about all that term means.
Ironically, the Scripture Pastor Elford chose to speak on was “Blessed are the peacemakers” — on a day when he was leading the church to take a divisive action.
|
|
| Audio of John Elford’s Feb. 27 sermon (19 min.) |
I certainly didn’t disagree with everything he said. He spoke of the hard work Jesus calls us to of reconciling the world to God. He said it is not always easy to make peace. Peacemaking can be back-breaking work in which we must trust God’s providence for success.
Pastor Elford said we need not fear as we do this work because evil is being overcome with good. He declared that the forces we are up against are what Paul called “principalities and powers.”
Regrettably, the context of the day infused Pastor Elford’s words with a meaning that differs from church’s historic proclamation of the gospel. Ultimately, the pastor of University United Methodist Church was challenging his congregation to “make peace” with what God’s Word has declared to be sinful. In this new meaning of things, a person cannot be truly “welcomed” unless his or her behavior is affirmed and even endorsed.
The Rev. John Elford (standing, blue shirt) awaits the vote
Pastor Elford was calling his church to celebrate behavior that has been condemned for thousands of years — including in both the Old and New Testaments.
Further, he was asking them to violate the spirit of our denominational Book of Discipline and the clear intent of the UM Judicial Council by joining an unofficial group whose statement of purpose is opposed to church law.
The controversy over how the church will treat homosexual behavior has been “front and center” in every General Conference for four decades. The United Methodist response has been consistent, clear, and gracious. We view homosexuals — as we do all people — as being of sacred worth, but we recognize homosexual behavior as being contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the established body of doctrine held by the church. That is our stand.
It is not the prerogative of a pastor or local church to purposely rebel against settled church law, while suggesting that everyone who opposes them (including, by implication, the UM Judicial Council, the General Conference, and every orthodox UM member) is a part of the “principalities and powers” of darkness.
But led by their pastor, and with the district superintendent present, this is precisely what University United Methodist Church did. After the 11 a.m. service, by a vote of 228 to 15, UUMC became affiliated with the Reconciling Ministries Network.
-
Why this matters
The wording of the ballot (shown below at right) makes it clear that the ruling of the Judicial Council has been violated. By calling itself “a member of RMN” and placing the phrase “A Reconciling Congregation” on its website and other communications, UUMC has identified or labeled itself as an unofficial body or movement.
Click to enlarge
I believe in presiding over this vote, the Rev. Bobbi Kaye Jones failed in her job as a District Superintendent. When this Church Conference was called for, she should have ruled the meeting out of order and refused to place the power of her office behind this action.
Moreover, because Bishop Jim Dorff was made aware of this action and refused to intervene, he has, in my opinion, failed to do his job in upholding and defending the faith and enforcing the Discipline.
Why does the action of University UMC matter? In a word, it’s all about covenant. As an elder in the United Methodist Church, I am in covenant with all other elders, bishops and district superintendents included.
From the UUMC website
This is serious business.
This whole debate began in the 1990s when my home conference in Northwest Texas voted to become a “Confessing Conference.” This action was challenged and the Judicial Council rulings cited above were made. Any church or conference that had declared itself as affiliated with the Confessing Movement or Reconciling Movement were asked to remove any mention of it from their signage and printed materials.
The Confessing Movement churches and conferences complied. But as the Reconciling Ministries Network continues enlisting churches in its cause, the bishops are turning a blind eye.
Because of the vows I took as a member of the order of elders, I am compelled to speak up. I will not be silent.
Jesus said to the church at Laodicea: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of My mouth” (Rev. 3:15-16—HCSB).
Compromise on sin — any sin — brings us to lukewarmness. It allows the enemy to gain a foothold in our congregations.
We can love and confront those within the Body who are dealing with sin, but to affirm what they are doing is certain death to us as individuals and to the Body of Christ.
Ezekiel 3:18 — “If I say to the wicked person: ‘You will surely die,’ but you do not warn him — you don’t speak out to warn him about his wicked way in order to save his life — that wicked person will die for his iniquity. Yet I will hold you responsible for his blood” (HCSB).
God will hold that congregation, pastor, D.S., Bishop, and the denomination responsible for “cooling” the temperature of the Word by condoning sin.
Thank God for Wesley Putnam. We need more like him in the United Methodist Church. His comments here are reasonable, not hateful toward anyone, and they point out the double standard of some in the UM hierarchy.
The breach of Christian teaching regarding homosexuality is really symptomatic of a much larger problem that has to do with apathy, lack of discipline, an arrogant disregard of traditional understandings, and a rabid activism by a small minority that effectively deifies flawed postmodernist human understandings over rational approaches to revealed truth.
Thank you for standing on the truth.
Thank you for you bravery.
Thank you for taking your oath seriously.
Thank you for caring so passionately for the United Methodist Church.
God Bless,
Greg
Gutsy, but true. Thanks for your boldness!
Thank you, Wesley Putnam, for your courage and devotion to the UMC and the truth.
I hope many Annual Conference members will note this article and will elect theologically orthodox delegates to the 2012 General Conference.
The quote from Judicial Council Decision #886 does not apply to this situation because it speaks only of annual conferences and not congregations. The decision was made by a local congregation and not an annual conference.
The quote from Judicial Council Decision #871 also does not seem to apply in this instance either because the church in and of itself is not identifying itself as the movement, but affiliating with an existing movement. There are several hundred United Methodist Reconciling congregations. I have never heard of any one of them being in violation of the Book of Discipline for becoming a Reconciling congregation.
–
Editor’s note: Decision #886 (full text here) further states:
[T]he Discipline is the book of law of The United Methodist Church, the provisions of which are binding on an annual conference and individual members of the Church [emphasis added]. If annual conferences were free to violate provisions of the Discipline because they disagree with them, this would have the effect of negating or ignoring the Discipline. Such acts would leave the Church without any enforceable law, which would lead to chaos in the Church.”
Decision #871 (full text here) further states:
The identification or labeling of an Annual Conference, local church or any other constitutional or Disciplinary entity of the Church implies acceptance and affirmation of doctrines, purposes and agendas of such unofficial organizations. Such action subjects United Methodist organizations to being in conflict with the Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith and the General Rules which are protected by the Restrictive Rules (¶¶ 16 and 19). The council has ruled, in the case of an Annual Conference, such action would be “… divisive and destructive to the life of the church.” See Decision 847.
We hold that the same logic in Decision 847 is applicable to local churches [emphasis added].
I would love to see Reconciling Congregations held accountable to the Discipline. But there’s one positive I have discovered regarding the RC’s advertising: It makes it easy for many United Methodists to identify those congregations and avoid them!
The Discipline contradicts itself. On one hand, it celebrates sexuality in its myriad of forms as a gift from God, then says homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. So, holding Reconciling Congregations accountable to the Discipline will be just as difficult as holding non-Reconciling Congregations to it.
Lord help us if we are going to teach our children about love and acceptance. I am not saying that you need to stop thinking that homosexuality is a sin but rather need to recognize that we are ALL sinners.
We are all broken people trying to be made whole again through Jesus Christ. The church should be fostering these disciplines towards wholeness in our communities. We are all on this journey, gay and straight alike.
Editor’s note: The commenter is inaccurate in stating that United Methodist Book of Discipline “celebrates sexuality in its myriad forms as a gift from God.”
The Discipline’s statement on human sexuality (¶161F) “affirm[s] that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons.” It further states that “[a]lthough all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.”
Those who take a stand from within the church know what they are doing. This is not a frivolous action. The minority is acting from belief. They will not pretend to accept a ruling that requires them to proceed in what they believe to be an unjust manner.
The General Conference and many bishops have tried to chart a course that does not force a show down. One possibility would be to allow the Reconciling churches freedom within the broader denomination. That is the case in many conferences (apparently, there was no major objection from within the Southwest Texas Conference). But it will not be legislated at GC.
So, do we go to war?
If you seek to punish congregations for this sort of affiliation, then you must also seek action against those that label themselves as “Transforming Congregations,” “Confessing Congregations,” or who affiliate in any way with the African American or Native American caucuses within Methodism, or any of the other “movements.”
Your comments show a shocking lack of Biblical understanding about what is translated in English as “homosexuality” but in Greek and Hebrew actually means “sexual idol worship.” This translation has gone unquestioned by people, such as yourself, who are Biblically illiterate and don’t want to understand what they read.
Furthermore, you cannot claim that the message you advocate is any more part of the “church’s historic proclamation of the gospel” than the Reconciling position. There is no evidence that the early church held the beliefs now stated in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. Paul preached against marriage, saying it was better not to marry at all, and only to do so if you were too weak to remain single. Jesus didn’t even address the issue of who would be married to who in the afterlife, saying that it didn’t matter at all. The emphasis was on living in a loving, supportive community, a community built on justice. Continuing an inequality that is supported by a linguistic error in Biblical translation is not justice, it is ignorance, and if people know it is an error and continue to support it, it is hatred.
Editor’s note: Some issues raised the commenter (specifically, biblical references to homosexuality and the Christian church’s historic position on sexual activity between two people of the same sex) are discussed in detail in Staying the Course: Supporting the [United Methodist] Church’s Position on Homosexuality (Abingdon, 2003).
For a more recent commentary on the church’s position, by scholar Ben Witherington, see here.
The previous comments demonstrate more Biblical illiteracy than anything that precedes them. Paul was clear what behavior he was talking about (from his epistle to the Romans: “And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.”)
Sexual relations between two people of the same sex is condemned, unequivocally, in both the Old and New Testaments. The early church understood this implicitly. This is simply not a debatable point except among those who want to employ absurd mental gymnastics to forward disingenuous arguments. (And it seems to me that they are frequently folks who’ve cared not a whit about the Bible beforehand, just like many of those who’ve suddenly “gotten religion” about marriage insofar as it can be bestowed upon same-sex couples.)
Further, I believe Paul’s message was essentially to stay in the same marital state (fidelity in heterosexual marriage or celibacy in singleness) in order to minimize distractions that might hinder serving Christ. If he seemed to speak against marriage it was because a) he thought Christ’s return was imminent, and, therefore, marriage was not essential going forward, b) he felt that having a spouse could be a distraction to serving Christ, or c) he deemed it better to marry than to commit sexual immorality via fornication.
Who are the real hatemongers here? Is it Christians who freely admit their own imperfections but who want the church to adhere to clear Biblical teaching about sexuality? Or is it those who accuse such Christians of practicing hatred for believing such standards should be adhered to?
Don (a commenter above) repeats the self-serving and erroneous Biblical translations on homosexuality that are being spread by such people as Mel White and Tex Sample. They argue that they have discovered the “true” translations of the Greek words for homosexuality used in the New Testament.
These newly discovered translations result in the God’s Word condemning only ritual acts of homosexuality with a temple prostitute that occur on an altar of worship. These Indiana Jones’ of Scripture have uncovered the “true” meaning of the original Greek in the nick of time to serve the agenda of activists such as the Reconciling Ministries Network.
But as even a liberal like Tony Campolo points out, if these were the true translations all along (and every Biblical scholar over past 2,000 years got it wrong until the light went on in the 1990s), then where is the evidence that early Greek-speaking Christian congregations accepted or blessed homosexuality and condemned only “sexual idol worship”?
Not only is there no evidence to confirm this politically expedient reinterpretation, early Greek-language Christian writings firmly condemn homosexual relations as sinful because God (through the words of Scripture) had identified it as sinful conduct. Period.
The fact that homosexual activity is a sin is not the debate. Even the largely silent leadership of the United Methodist Church concedes that if the UMC embraces homosexuality it will be in defiance of historical (and current) ecumenical beliefs held worldwide (see Bishop Timothy Whitaker’s article on the subject).
Rather, this is a debate about the core beliefs of a church, beliefs in the Bible, and whether or not to bend to societal pressures. I think to the average United Methodist, accepting homosexuals into a congregation is no different that accepting adulterers, thieves, or folks who don’t honor their mother and father. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.
But do we have an organization asking the church to no longer consider adultery a sin? A pro-thievery movement? A movement to have the General Conference change the Ten Commandments to 6-and-½ (and with #5 having an asterisk)?
This issue and many others have placed the United Methodist Church at a crossroads and now is the time for leadership. Judging from the lack of enforcement, there is none.
Phil’s comments are excellent. I would simply add two observations that continue to be a source of discomfort to those of us who have (mistakenly) thought this issue long since settled and who would love to concentrate on more important matters: Bishop Whitaker’s article is from 2006 and some bishops have stated that their views on this subject are “evolving” (Read: we must be diligent).
Secondly, for many leaders in mainline denominations, the issue (incredibly) is whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful. As I suggested earlier, they “strain at gnats” to find some technicality in Scripture that supports their views while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that refutes them, often convincing even themselves that they are being reasonable and Scriptural. This hearkens back to the Romans 1 idea of worshiping the creature (i.e., flawed human reasoning) rather than the Creator.
Jim (a commentator above), surely you — as a learned person — are aware that the interpretation of Scripture has changed vastly over the past 2,000 years, and that how we understand it today is not how the early church understood it. Would you deny that in the 1800s incredible strides were made in the realm of Biblical study through the introduction of methods of textual redaction and examination?
Further, it is a documented fact that in the ancient world having a same-sex lover even while you were married to someone of the opposite sex was an accepted practice. The Greek military even encouraged same-sex soldiers to develop relationships to make them fight more fiercely in battle, not only protecting the women and children at home but also their lover who is right there with them on the front.
We are Wesleyans — our understanding of the Bible is informed by experience, reason, and tradition. In this case, reason and experience come to us in the form of medical and psychological understandings that did not exist at the time of Paul or of Leviticus, or the early church or even the Reformation.
We are told in Scripture that we should never dare to call anything bad that God has created as good. Sexual orientation is not a choice a person makes, it is determined by genetics and environmental influences combined in such a way that it is not a “choice,” though many evangelicals would like to make people believe it is a “lifestyle choice” of some kind.
At the end of the day, we are talking about people. Do you want to say to a group of people, human beings, that God does not want them or love them because of how God himself made them?
All are welcome at God’s table. We United Methodists affirm this every time we celebrate the Eucharist. We deny no one, because God denies no one. To deny someone violates our Wesleyan tradition and our Wesleyan understanding of humanity. To deny someone access to God goes against the very understandings of humanity upon which Methodism is based, against the erroneous understanding provided by Calvinism.
That goes against church tradition. Be upset over that. Judicial Council Decision 1032 is a clear violation of John Wesley’s understanding of the church, the role of the pastor, and humanity. That decision is not based on Wesleyan principles, our Articles of Religion, our Confession of Faith, the Restrictive Rules, or Methodist history. That is breaking the covenant.
Editor’s note: Decision 1032, referenced by the commenter above, held that the pastor-in-charge of a United Methodist congregation is invested with the authority to determine if someone who wishes to join a local church is spiritually ready to take vows of membership.
For more on how that decision relates to the historical understanding of the church, see “Judicial Council Decision 1032 and Ecclesiology“ (PDF), a 2007 paper by Dr. William J. Abraham of Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University.
Thanks, Wes, for sticking up for the word of God.
Don, I fear you misapply the quadriliateral (i.e., Scripture, tradition, reason, experience). None of the other three elements ever trumps the clear language of Scripture, which hasn’t changed.
Further, if we apply the biological strides you claim have been made in understanding homosexuality, it doesn’t help your cause. The more we study homosexuality, the more we learn it is likely not biologically determined. The Human Genome project found no “gay” gene. And the growing number of identical-twin studies suggest that homosexuality is not biologically determined.
Surely you don’t argue that sexual orientation is “good” just because it is something that gives pleasure. Think of the implications.
Editor’s note: The United Methodist Book of Discipline refers to the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral (a term developed by theologian Albert Outler in the 1960s) this way:
“[Methodist movement co-founder John] Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason [emphasis added]. Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’… [Wesley] looked for confirmations of the biblical witness in human experience, especially the experiences of regeneration and sanctification….”
Don, I find several flaws in your argument.
1) You used traditions of “the ancient world” to justify using homosexual behavior as a tradition for examination in the Quadrilateral. This is in error for two reasons.
One, John Wesley derived tradition (also Scripture and reason) from Richard Hooker (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity — 1595) which was tradition from from the early Christian church, not worldly traditions as you propose. Two, we are clearly instructed in Scripture not conform to the world (Mark 8:36-38, Luke 9:25-26, John 15:18-19, James 1:27, James 4:3-4, Rom 12:2, 1 Peter 2:11-12, 2 Peter 1:4, 2 Peter 2:17-12, 1 John 2:15-17).
2) Medical and psychological “understandings” do not confirm that homosexuality is genetic. I am a former member of the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973 the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, not based on medical or psychological research but because of disruptive lobbying and political pressure by activist groups. Regardless, does any new knowledge of this world invalidate God’s commands for us?
3) Yes, everything God created is good, but not everything man does with His creation is good. Was Cain born with envy and a temper that led him to kill his brother? With your argument, God created Cain with his envy and temper — was that good? I could go on with numerous examples.
4) God made us and He loves us, but we are fallen, sinful. That is why he sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for our sins and to save us from the ways of the world. Everyone has sins that they struggle with (pride, anger, lust, etc.) but they are not denied as being wrong, sinful or against God’s will — as some want to deny that practicing homosexuality is wrong.
5) “We [United Methodists] deny no one, because God denies no one.” Hmmm, might need to take another look. See the Scriptures listed above, along with John 12:47-50 and Luke 12:35-49. Remember, too, that in Matt 19:21-22, Jesus let the rich, young ruler walk away grieving because even in keeping The Law his heart still longed for the things of this world. He could not give up his love of this world for God, his possessions.
For the early church, the Apostles’ Creed was devised and used to exclude those from the church who held false teachings. In our own tradition, Wesley in 1741 used tickets within the societies; there were given only to those who held to the General Rules. Members had quarterly reviews by class leaders and pastors. Wesley even established penitential bands for backsliding members. And on several occasions Wesley removed pastors and society members.
In 1743 Wesley wrote “The Nature, Design, and General Rules of the United Societies.” In this Wesley recorded the rules for membership. To join a society a person had to ascribe to one condition: “a desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their sins.” And in order to continue in the society they were expected “to evidence a desire of salvation, First by doing no harm…. Secondly, by doing good.… Thirdly, by attending to the ordinances of God.”
6) No, everyone is not invited to celebrate the Eucharist. Read the UM Hymnal, Service of Word and Table I or II under Invitation: “Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin….” Those who do not love God and earnestly repent of their sin you should not receive Holy Communion.
7) The covenant I see us breaking is that we are allowing our brothers and sisters who are engaging in homosexual conduct (or any other sin for that matter) to continue in their sinful behaviors. We are teaching them false doctrine, thus allowing them to be deceived that they are living according to God’s will. Instead, our responsibility is to show people that God loves them and He wants to save them from their worldly desires.
Note: If you wish to understand our Wesleyan heritage a little better, I recommend Wesley and the People Called Methodists by Richard Heitzenrater. The United Methodist Church of today is a far cry from the Methodist movement established by Wesley. I hope we can regain some of the qualities that once made this movement highly effective at making disciples of Jesus Christ.
I keep reading Acts 10 and wrestling with the changes in morality that the church has embraced throughout history. What does it mean if God decided in 33 (AD) that eating non-kosher is not sinful? Did God change His mind in 1956 as to whether women should “keep silent” in church (1 Corinthians 14:34)? What about in the mid-nineteenth century ending “slaves obey your masters” (Ephesians 6:5)?
Maybe God is not changing — perhaps what we see in this scary progression of the apparent relaxing of God’s perfect rules is that God cares about one thing: does this person seek and accept Jesus Christ as their savior? And maybe God does not care if people can see signs of repentance through changes in their behavior. (Perhaps we should remember not to judge lest we be judged?)
Paul focuses a significant part of the epistle to the Galatians answering this question, but back then it looked like this: “How can a Gentile become a Christian if he is not circumcised?” (check out Galatians 2:15-21). Paul keeps reminding us “the law” is no longer what matters. Belief in Jesus Christ is what matters. Circumcision was a very simple question for most Jews: willingness to be circumcised was a simple sign that a person had turned their life over to God; therefore, if a Gentile wasn’t willing to do that, how could anyone know that person was serious about being a Christian? And what does Paul say? “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6, NRSV).
Our calling is not to judge who is or is-not worthy — or even to tell other people if their lives are sinful or righteous! So, next time we sinners choose to pick at the “speck” in another’s eye before we ask “what is the log in my own” (Matt 7:3), we might want to remember we have been told to offer love and not judgment.
We have been called not to trials and juries and charges and exclusions, but our calling is clear: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28 19-20). And maybe we should read John 3:16-17 more: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (NRSV).
So let’s stop fussing at churches who are reaching out to their community (even when we do like the community), and let’s keep Jesus Christ at the center of our lives — the Jesus Christ who tends to show up disguised (Matt. 25) as a poor person, an outcast, even, perhaps a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person asking to hear the gospel?
Editor’s note: Methodism’s co-founder John Wesley often preached on “belief in Jesus Christ.” An excerpt from one such sermon is here.
Audrey’s heart may be in the right place but her reasoning is tragically flawed and reflects the typical approach of those advocating homosexual behavior. She got the main thing right — the centrality of faith in Christ — but she really misses the boat with respect to repentance and Biblical teaching. I have to wonder if she totally misunderstood or disregarded the previous posts.
Audrey right that it is not up to us to judge, it’s up to God — and God has done this via Scripture and the working of the Holy Spirit.
The teaching about some of the issues she raises has always been a little unclear (e.g., many, even in the early church, have regarded Paul’s letter Philemon as argument against, not for, slavery), but the biblical teaching about homosexual behavior has been clear and consistent. Further, the Bible is clear in its assertion that faith in Christ evokes a new creature — a new man or woman — and that implies a readily apparent behavior modification.
It’s reasonable to conclude that God does care about repentance. If repentance is unimportant, then so is Christ.
Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoffer certainly placed a lot of importance on repentance (from Eric Metaxas’ Bonhoffer, p. 293, in reference to Matt. 7:6):
The world upon whom grace is thrust as a bargain will grow tired of it, and it will not only trample upon the Holy, but also will tear apart those who force it on them. For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty. The key to loose is protected by the key to bind. The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.
Fascinating post. And quite interesting.
I did not know any of the history of the “Confessing Conference” dispute in Texas or the rulings that came out of it.
That is interesting history.
Jim, Wade, et alia,
I have read Wesley and the People Called Methodists. Numerous times, actually. I have taught courses in Methodist History based on that text, and others like it.
Albert Outler put the formula of the Quadrilateral together based on his reading of Wesley’s sermons, diary entries, Biblical notes, and other information from Wesley himself. The fact that it has a formulation date in the 1960s does not mean it was not in use by Wesley or the people called Methodist prior to Outler.
Wade, you really scare me with your comment, “Regardless, does any new knowledge of this world invalidate God’s commands for us?” How do you reconcile that belief with “slaves, obey your masters?”
Slavery was an accepted practice in the ancient world. In the modern world, it is an abhorrent abomination that we understand violates the very image of God that exists in humanity. Are you seriously trying to tell me that our understandings through the progression of history and acquisition of knowledge (which, by the way, happens as part of God’s will for humankind) do not change the way we understand things? That would be “experience” and “reason” as part of the Quadrilateral.
No, the Quadrilateral does not remove the phrase “slaves, obey your masters” from Scripture, but it does change the way we view it (our hermeneutic). We understand that slavery was an accepted practice in the ancient world, and this instruction from God was valid and relevant at the time Paul wrote it. We understand that in the present day slavery still exists in parts of the world, but now we work to eradicate it, we do not work to make sure “slaves obey your masters.”
In the same way, the ancient world accepted the practice of anal penetration and male/male sex as a form of idol worship, particularly in fertility rites, where the priest of whatever culture it is deposits “seed” within another man, or another man deposits “seed” within the priest. You do not see female/female sex listed in these passages because no transmission of “seed” takes place. Lesbianism is not mentioned in the Scriptures, period. In Greek and Hebrew, it is not there. Male/male sex is clearly in the context of idolatrous worship practices, which are documented in the history of ancient Egypt, ancient Canaan, and other cultures. It is the transmission of seed in these religious rituals that is forbidden, because that violates the commandments of not putting any god before our God and not engaging in the worship of idols. Read that again…it is violating two of the Ten Commandments. That is the abomination.
Are women kept silent in church now because their questions are disruptive to the order of the church? Do slaves sit in the balconies of churches while white congregations sit in the nave? Are divorced people forbidden Communion? Have wives who have left their husbands because of abuse gone back and reconciled with them? If you deny that our understanding of the Bible over time evolves because of revelations of the Spirit about the world around us and how to apply Scripture, then you have created a dead Bible that has no life, no grace, no room for new understandings based on further revelation from the Holy Spirit.
I am saying our understanding of homosexuality (which, again, is not the Greek or Hebrew word used in Leviticus or elsewhere in the Bible) has changed.
Surely some of you must know someone who is gay. Ask them how much it hurts to be rejected by family, by friends, by your church community, how much their hearts break because they not only feel that the church hates them but that God hates them because preachers only address this topic from one angle.
I work as a church musician. Half the people I went to college and seminary with are gay. They are the ones who play the piano and organ and guitar for you. They are the ones who direct your choirs and your praise teams. You cannot ask them to become “straight” any more than someone can ask you to try being “gay.” That is not how it works.
It is so easy to sit on high and hand down pronouncements and edicts and judicial council rulings when you ignore the people around you. When the issue affects you, or your family, or close friends, you look at it more carefully. No one who is posting here has done that. You are making pronouncements from a distance based on something you don’t understand and don’t want to bother with learning more about.
Let us be in dialogue about this. Engage in Holy Conferencing, as is the Methodist way. Don’t throw out Scripture citations with a 1st century literal meaning and expect the rest of us to go back to abusing and mistreating our friends and family, or our fellow United Methodists.
Editor’s note: For Albert Outler’s own comments on the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” see Spring 1985 issue of the Wesleyan Theological Journal, available online here (PDF).
For more on how the history of how the church has dealt with issues related to sexual morality, see chapter 3 of How Christianity Changed the World (Zondervan, 2004), available in part here via Google Books.
Chapter 11 of that same book discusses Christianity’s counter-cultural role in relation to slavery, beginning in the earliest days of the church: “[T]he early Christians received slaves into the church’s membership and often freed them where they were able to do so. Slaves regularly communed at the same altar with Christians who were not slaves. Receiving and accepting slaves as equals, and having some of them in leadership roles…says Herbert Workman was in some instances another reason for persecuting Christians. ‘Roman governors, conscious of the vast slave populations, were ever anxious lest there should be a servile outbreak.’”
@Don: The Scriptures about homosexual behavior, as chronicled in both the Old and New Testaments, are clearer that those about slavery or the role of women. You don’t have to be a strict literalist to believe that.
Our understanding of the Bible has certainly been enhanced in some respects, but it has not changed to the degree you suggest. Your analogy is tantamount to saying that we’ve become enlightened in the area of mathematics to the point that we’ve now discovered that 2 + 2 equals 5! To borrow your language, “that is not how it works.”
Rejecting behavior is not tantamount to rejecting the person. I don’t assume that anyone who has a problem with my sexuality, or physical appearance, or some other characteristic necessarily rejects me as a person. That’s an extremely defensive posture to take, and it inhibits the dialogue you say you seek.
Rev. Putnam:
Thanks for your coverage of our recent vote at University UMC to join the Reconciling Ministries Network. I didn’t know you were in attendance that Sunday and I have to admire your tenacity in pursuing something that you believe is true. I also appreciate the positive things you said about the church and the worship service, despite that fact that you strongly disagree with the vote taken afterwards. Here are a few editorial comments from the other side.
The case you’re attempting to make, namely, that we’re breaking church law is a stretch. The judicial language is quite clear and so we were quite clear that we were not labeling our church as an organization. We joined RMN, just as we have joined many other organizations, including Interfaith Action of Central Texas and Austin Interfaith. So I can only conclude that our breaking church law is a red herring and that the reason you want to raise the specter of “chargeable offenses” is that you disagree with our affiliation with RMN.
The arguments about scripture that you and several commenters reference fail to go beyond the usual cherry-picking. There are dozens of proscribed activities in scripture, but conservative UM’s have chosen to focus on one to the exclusion of all the others. Other than extra-biblical prejudice against gays and lesbians, I’m not clear how you can single our certain verses and claim they are God’s word, while allowing all kinds of other verses (women in leadership, for one) to slide. When you add in all of the conventions and traditions that all of us, conservative, moderate and liberal, have in the UMC that are not in the Bible (check out Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity), you have a real hermeneutical mess on your hands.
In the same way that we have received women and blacks more or less fully into the life of the church and rewritten “long standing” church traditions (and I use this with a grain of salt, since the language in the BOD declaring homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching is less than 50 years old), I have no doubt that in my lifetime, the GLBT community will be fully welcomed and honored in the life of most churches.
On accountability, I’m happy to be held accountable to the gospel of Christ and to hold you accountable also to the one who welcomed all, who loved enemies, and who included a hated zealot and a despicable tax collector in his inner circle.
All of us at University UMC are passionate about the United Methodist Church and following Christ. Since we began our dialogue about affiliating with RMN, we have experienced sizeable increases in worship attendance, Sunday school attendance (we have had to create an additional children’s class), new members joining, visitor traffic and mission and justice activity. We give thanks to God for the new people who have come our way and are hungry to hear of God’s love for all. And we give thanks to God for all United Methodists, including those we firmly and respectfully disagree with.
Peace,
John
Editor’s note: John Elford is the pastor of University United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas.
@ Site Editor — In my previous post, I am referring to the Christian reaction and understanding of slavery in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. I am not speaking of the early church or the story of Onesimus. If our own denomination had been faithful to that story, obviously The Methodist Episcopal Church would not have shattered into Northern and Southern branches.
@Mark — I am not suggesting such a concrete change as 2+2=5. I am suggesting that we now know that leprosy is not caused by demon possession but rather because of a transfer of microbial life forms. The Bubonic Plague was not a plot by Jews or Arabs to decimate Christendom, it was a communicable disease carried by rats and other vermin. In the same way, I am suggesting that if we step back from a strict literal understanding of things and look at the Scriptures in question in the context of what is happening at the time they were written, we can see more of the picture. Someone reading Leviticus in the Middle Ages, with a limited education or understanding of the events surrounding stories in Scripture, will likely read literally. However, when you have access to information on ancient cultures that shows that at the time of Leviticus, Canaanite and Egyptian idol worship specifically involved the transmission of semen as the “seed of life” in fertility rituals, it gives us a context that perhaps St. Paul, St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas did not have.
That is what I mean by an understanding that has been shaped by reason and experience over time, and because of the further acquisition of knowledge. That is using experience and reason to give us greater insight into the Scriptures, it is not changing the Scriptures. How do we justify our younger generation being absolutely smeared with tattoos and piercings? Leviticus forbids all those things, too…but somehow we get around those. How?
Just as an FYI, I was raised to believe and used to feel exactly as many of you do, wondering how anyone could justify saying that homosexuality is not a sin, because obviously the Bible says it “very plainly.” Once I spent time learning about homosexuality (by reading the Bible, commentaries on the Bible, and medical and psychological treatises and journal entries, among other things), gained friends who were both homosexual and Christian, learned about ancient cultures and how they worshiped idols through fertility rites, and witnessed the downright vitriolic and venomous attacks from the conservative side of the spectrum on my own baptized United Methodist brothers and sisters, my views shifted.
As fellow Christians and fellow United Methodist, I beseech and implore you to spend just a little bit of time investigating the other side of this issue. I am not asking you to change your views, I am simply asking that you take just a small amount of time and look at the other side, and the Biblical thought and research that supports the other side. Let’s come to the table together and dialogue, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is our way, both as United Methodists and as Christians.
The Rev. Mr. Elford does not directly address the issues raised by the Rev. Mr. Putnam. His response is the boilerplate usually given by activists in this area. Mr. Elford rightly reminds us that there are many “proscribed activities” (I think we used to call them “sins”) in Scripture that we often bypass in focusing on homosexual behavior.
But, as I think a commenter mentioned, there is no organized movement to remove adultery, lust, etc. from the list of “proscribed activities.” There are many, like myself, who would prefer to avoid this issue…but it’s not going away — not because traditionalists are obsessed with it but because folks like Mr. Elford are.
Again, as has been mentioned in this forum, a holistic understanding of Scripture yields the understanding that the institution of slavery and the role of women is not and has not been clearly elucidated by Scripture. Not so with homosexual behavior as it is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Unequivocally.
I suspect, based on the writing of Mr. Putnam, that Mr. Elford is a nice person and means well, but he would do his credibility a real service if he simply said he disagreed with Scripture.
Thanks for a carefully considered and insightful article. I am a former member of UUMC who moved on because this one issue seemed to be the consuming the energy of the church. It’s not that UUMC quit its other ministries — and there are even members who do door-to-door evangelism of the “are you saved? have you accepted Christ?” variety — but all the energy seemed to be going to this one issue.
If you really want full inclusion of gays, lesbians, bisexuals (exactly how does one live out bisexuality in a committed relationship, by the way), and transgendered, for heavens’ sake, join the Episcopalians or ELCA.
I can tell you how your arguments would be suasive at UUMC, however. It’s clear you believe homosexual relationships are un-Biblical. Were you also to stand up for “Thou shalt not kill” or maybe come out “against adultery,” chances are you would get an attentive audience on reconsidering the church’s recent endorsement of the Reconciling movement.
But the fact is, divorce is OK, and war is OK. The church already picks and chooses its verses. If you don’t think they are and you live out your Bible-based belief, you’ll get an audience at UUMC who will listen to you.
I have been a member of University United Methodist Church for three decades, and I have followed the preaching of George Ricker, Chuck Merrill, Karl Rohlfs, and now John Elford every Sunday of my adult life. Every one of them made a specific point to include gays and lesbians in worship and in the community of the church.
Joining the Reconciling Ministries network changes nothing about UUMC. We are the same congregation we were before the vote. Why were you not here complaining every Sunday when Chuck Merrill went out of his way to welcome gays and lesbians to worship?
For you to be coming into my home and passing your judgment on my family is beyond arrogance.
UUMC follows the example set by Christ in welcoming all who seek Him into the Kingdom of God. I thank God every day that I have found a place where I am not simply tolerated as a member, but my presence is embraced and celebrated. Should not all Christians have access to such joy?
I am a lay member of University UMC and voted for the resolution. I also co-Chair the justice ministry of UUMC. UUMC has long welcomed everyone, including members of the GLBT community into its full membership and full participation in the polity of this congregation. We have had GLBT folks in significant leadership roles in our church, unconditionally so.
I am no theologian, but a simple lay person seeking to understand God’s command to love and seek justice. I continue to see discrimination and hate all around me here in the USA, and telling GLBT folks they fit into some category that is less acceptable seems to me to be in violation of the gospel to “love my neighbor as myself.”
The voting to join the RMN was in my opinion a symbolic proclamation of our intent to treat all persons as children of God, and to tell the world, we accept you unconditionally, just as Jesus did. I believe we did the right thing, and am proud of the proclamation we have made.
Given that over 90% of the congregation present voted to join the RMN suggests to me that their interpretation of scripture is clear. We sought to experience the fullness of God’s love for every person entering our doors. Is that a “sin”? Besides, what’s the big deal? Is this the foretaste of the collapse of marriage as we know it? And even the UMC?
Over the centuries we have learned slowly to accept into full humanity different sorts of people we selectively excluded from God’s full love: slaves, Samaritans, women, and now its the turn of the GLBT community, and its about time.
Lets get on with the practice of love and justice, enfolding every person with civility and trust, making every person feel loved and secure, and lets stop making the condemnation of the practice of inclusiveness a crime, for heaven’s sake!
Hi everybody, I attend University United Methodist Church and I endorse the decision to become a Reconciling church. By and large we’re a church where we let God do the judging. Excluding homosexuals is a surefire way for the church to end up on the wrong side of history. We failed as Christians during segregation and we are failing again now.
Rationally, all scientific evidence so far points to homosexuality being having a strong genetically transmitted component, and we should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of genes passed on to them by their parents.
Scripturally, those who point to Leviticus lose all credibility unless they uphold every law enshrined there (no clothes employing two different fibers and so forth). Why this selectivity? Also, regarding Paul, we freely disregard his comments about beards and head coverings. Why ignore Scripture that says we are all sinners, equally worthy of punishment?
Not one of us here at UUMC advocates for or against homosexuality. We only advocate for the church being inclusive. I would welcome all of you to attend UUMC and see for yourselves if we are performing God’s mission.
As a (heterosexual) United Methodist, I have to ask why those who are so vocal against homosexuality are not asking to change the language of the Book of Discipline to read “The practice of child abuse, human trafficking, greed, extortion, lust, and (insert your favorite vice here) are incompatible with the teaching of Christianity.”
We have singled out one sin (if indeed that is what it is, since this is still being debated) to the exclusion of all the ones Jesus spoke most vehemently against.
David asks the question of Mr. Putnam, “Why were you not here complaining every Sunday when Chuck Merrill went out of his way to welcome gays and lesbians to worship?” I think that misconstrues Mr. Putnam’s intentions. I don’t think Mr. Putnam, or any other sincere Christian, would voice objection to a church welcoming all people,for we are all sinners. Me, you, all of us. No one is trying to “make a crime of inclusiveness.”
The problem occurs when “welcoming” sinners turns into affirmation of sin. Christ came not to affirm us in iniquity, but to deliver us from it.
David further asserts that “For you to be coming into my home and passing your judgment on my family is beyond arrogance.” David, this is not just your home it is God’s home, and God has given us inspired Scripture to order and maintain it. And it is not just your family, it is our family, and when a family member is headed in the wrong direction other family members have an obligation to help right their course. This is more an expression of love than judgment. You might want to consider whether your attitude reflects the same arrogance you criticize.
Robert observes that “Were you also to stand up for ‘Thou shalt not kill’ or maybe come out ‘against adultery,’ chances are you would get an attentive audience…” Perhaps we, as a church, should be more vocal on issues such as these. However, I am not aware of any UM church that doesn’t condemn murder or adultery.
But, consider this: what if a church came out for adultery or for murder? Would you be even more disturbed by that? That’s analogous to what UUMC is doing.
Someone asked why we (meaning, I assume, those of us who accept the clear Scriptural teaching on this issue in BOTH the Old and New Testaments) are “singling out” this one sin. We’re not. You are. We’re simply responding to the actions you are freely choosing to initiate.
I am writing as a 25+ year member of UUMC in Austin. To Rev. Putman I want to say thank you for having the courtesy to come and meet us and observe first hand the character and commitment of our congregation.
What you observed was the most recent step in a very long journey for our congregation. We have been having this discussion as long as I have been a member, and I assume it was going on long before I got to UUMC. Over the last 10 years many groups within the church have voted to become “reconciling.” We have had many discussions, both formal and organized and informal and spontaneous. The issue has come up in our planning meetings and discussions about the future of our church. While we appreciate the leadership of Pastor John since he came to our church in June, 2010, Rev. Putman’s tone focuses the attention on Pastor John rather than on the congregation. The decision to become affiliate with the Reconciling Ministries Network originated with the congregation and has been driven by the passion and concern of the congregation to examine who we are and how we want to live out our faith.
For me, the vote was a great relief. As a Methodist since childhood I have an emotional attachment, but as a thinking adult I have struggled with the ethics of being a member of an organization that discriminates against some of dearest friends and family members. The struggle for equality in the church will not be over until the Discipline is changed, but I can be at peace with the Methodist church as long as I see that change is possible, if slow.
Finally, I appreciate the various interpretations of the scriptures presented by the thoughtful responses to this post. As a congregation we spent much time on this subject. Fortunately we have many retired Methodist pastors in our congregation, and they were kind enough to share their expertise and guide us through the “what does the Bible say” discussions. As is evidenced by the responses on this site, clergy can disagree widely, leaving us lay people to reach our conclusions through praying for guidance and following our hearts, which we did.