An Apology From An Aspie Methodist

Post Reply New Topic

The reason it is not is because I keep my faith and political views seperate that away they do not conflict with each other I only care about what I believe personally not what others think or believe as long as I am okay with what I choose to follow and believe politically then I am okay with that.

The world has billions of nominal Christians, who can data-mine the Bible and cherry-pick verses to support any outlook they wish. There are very few genuine Christians who actually adhere to Christ's teachings.



A Christian must not judge anyone else, but rather focus entirely on his own sins and shortcomings. Jesus did not complain that his punishment was unfair--he accepted it gladly. This is what genuine Christians must do.



If a soldier orders you to carry his pack for him for one mile, carry it for him two. At the end of the first mile, you would presumably have the right to stop carrying it, if he ordered you specifically to carry it for one mile. A true Christian would not request this right, but would voluntarily carry the pack for the full two miles.

But, a true Christian would have no dispute with a non-Christian, and simply permit the Heathen to have his way.

The Biblical model does not assume that everyone is honest. In fact, quite the opposite.

You seem to be implying that the LGBT issue ought to be really big, and that there's only one possible reasonable conclusion that people could reach on that issue. You don't bother to state it, though, much less say why you think this.

I'm not implying anything, I'm stating that it must not be that important to Methodists that disagree with the stance of the organizers. Looking at the vote, there's approximately 40% of Methodists that disagree with this stance, and obviously there are people that are angry with this conclusion at the conference. But it's not a big enough issue to fracture off into another organization. Seems like there's plenty of people to accomplish it if it's close to 40%. So it must not be that big of an issue.

My original question was why they didn't just leave if it was a big enough issue that people have to apologize for their organization.

While I'm not implying that it should be a big issue, I think that the lack of remorse for belonging to an organization that you don't agree with implies that it's basically fine by them.

Talking about a 'lack of remorse' implies that there is something that someone should be remorseful over.

I don't think you can conclude that something isn't a big issue just because people aren't leaving over it. Lots of people in the US have disagreed with the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the Vietnam war, but did not leave the country.

Well, since other members have already debated on the "judge not" point, I'll try to make a different point.

From what I understand of Jesus, he would be more about reaching out to sinners and trying to get them to change their ways than banning them from the church. Everyone sins on a regular basis, and yet Jesus forgave and healed them of their sins.

Now, you could make the case that, since a gay person would probably see no problem with their orientation, and be unwilling to change their ways, that Jesus would tell them to get lost, because they are unwilling to learn or change their homosexual behavior. Still, that seems to go against what I know of Jesus.

More importantly, though, there are a small but significant number of LGBT-er's who might feel bad about the way they are, and be open to repenting and even changing their ways, even if they aren't fully sold yet. Those cases, excluding them from the church makes no sense.

What I'm saying is, I can kind of understand the viewpoint that homosexuality is a sin, simply because that's what the bible says. I have no understanding of the viewpoint that they should be excluded from any church.

Jesus never preached about hating gays or not allowing them to have the rights of everyone else on Earth. People will twist what the bible really means to fit their agenda and ideas this has happened all through out history.

Technically the structuring of the church was left to the apostles, so it would be out-of-place for Jesus to say who was included or excluded during His time on earth. Perhaps if He'd stuck around longer, we'd have that answer. But with there being such communication among the apostles and the primitive Christians in Jerusalem, it's likely that matters of church discipline were firmly based on Jesus' teachings. Disfellowshipping someone was never intended to be a permanent measure, just a temporary device to help show a deviant believer how much he really depended on his church family and that rejoining the faithful was preferable to living a secular lifestyle. Shunning is a bit of an extreme example and, to me, represents the lengths Christians were allowed to go to maintain discipline within the church. I believe, following a similar pattern throughout the Bible, that any means necessary was to be pursued with shunning being a sort of last resort. Something I think the church of today misses is this idea of living a consistent lifestyle outside the church meeting. For one, accepting sinful behavior is harmful to the reputation of a congregation and gives it the appearance of being too preoccupied with looking like the world around it. For another, a "mind-your-own-business" mentality is ultimately destructive to the person who is in error, not to mention potentially disruptive to the church. I've been burned by some truly awful things that happened at the hands of church members behaving badly, so hopefully you'll understand what I mean when I say that the church of today has become entirely TOO tolerant. And I'm not just talking about homosexuality, either.

It is true that Jesus was about reaching out to sinners and trying to get them to change their ways. But you should also note that Jesus didn't beg and plead with those who rejected Him. There was an open invitation, and you either believed and repented or you didn't. It's worth noting that Jesus weeded out those who were weak in their faith or who had impure motives. Jesus gave instructions as to how to handle those who rejected His disciples. Jesus gave instructions for them to not associate with sinners. He made it easy for all people to hear the word. He didn't make it easy for those who thought they wanted to follow Him but didn't desire a change in their lives.


Agreed, but different reasoning. I don't think Jesus would have put it quite that way, but He certainly had a way of telling people to get lost. I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything like this in reference to homosexuality specifically. I think Jesus would have shown love and compassion for those who genuinely felt compelled to behave in a certain way, and I think if anyone suffering from unwanted same-sex attraction Jesus would have "cured" them. I don't believe there is a "cure" for homosexuality in the natural world, but I do think if there IS such a thing as a cure, it is in recognizing a need someone has to feel loved and accepted when someone shows them an alternative. It's also worth noting that Jesus sought out those who recognized their own spiritual brokenness and their hopelessness in front of the religious authorities of the day. Jesus refused to entertain religious authorities by performing miracles when He knew that they were already prejudiced against Him. He certainly didn't hang with sinners for the sake of approving their behavior. He was there to give them what they needed the most.


Agreed 100% here. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's commonplace for Christians to go all holier-than-thou on these people, and I believe we lose more believers this way. I got to meet Dennis Jernigan once. He is a well-known prolific Christian songwriter whose work happens to also appear in the Baptist Hymnal. I find his testimony amazingly inspiring. As I recall, it was the response of his Christian friends to his struggles with sexual orientation that pushed him into the gay lifestyle. Finding a way out of homosexuality was a painful experience but ultimately much more liberating than being a slave to an attraction or predisposition he never really wanted to have.


If someone is seeking a lifestyle of repentance and righteous living according to the Bible, then I don't care what their sexual orientation is. The reality is that most churches rarely exclude anyone, and when they do, it's usually a huge mistake. You want to know how my family got kicked out of church? Two ladies complained about my son having an ear infection. One of them was a "children and preschool minister" and escorted my wife and two children off the church campus. All because of something we had no control over and had no ill effects whatsoever on any other church members or their children. And they didn't stop there, either. They sent DHS social workers over on three different occasions to make sure we got the point. That didn't stop us from coming back, of course. And pardon the expression, but we were prepared to raise hell over it. I can sympathize with anyone being ostracized for any reason because my family has been there.

I have no problem with allowing homosexuals who are seeking a life of repentance to come to any church meeting. But that assumes several different things, like admitting that they are struggling with an unwanted attraction and are at loss as to how to deal with it but are at least not actively living the lifestyle. The best thing for someone like that I think would be to commit to long-term celibacy, avoiding both same or opposite sex relationships while focusing on other kinds of human interaction. Where I would have a problem would be if a homosexual individual or couple were to actively flaunt that lifestyle in front of other members of the church community. If an openly gay couple is a prominent part of that community, it sends the message that the church tacitly approves unscriptural behavior. By far more congregations tolerate some degree of homosexuality within their ranks than those who actively seek it out and remove it.

The other thing I have a HUGE problem with is open homosexuality among church leaders, whether clergy or laity. If a church claims the Bible is the word of God and claims to obey it, then they cannot possibly represent themselves as an entity approving of something the Bible condemns. Allowing church leaders openly opposed to Biblical morality sends the message that, ultimately, the church really doesn't believe the Bible. Now, if a church leader is single and suffers from unwanted attraction, he can practice celibacy to avoid sinful behavior and effectively lead the flock. I would not feel the same confidence for a person or person's openly engaging in sinful behavior and refusing to change it. It's misleading to the congregation as much as it is incompatible with scripture.

Now I'm really curious what this decision actually said. Who exactly would it exclude, and why?

The OP said something about excluding the LGBT community (IIRC), but I really doubt it was phrased exactly like that.

AngelRho-

I can sympathize with a having been harassed by a fellow church member.
One lady who I had known for most of my life had volunteered to babysit for my wife and me, for which we were very grateful. Well, for apparently thinking we weren't good house keepers - and because I believe there was a certain class prejudice involved, as well - she had called Child Protective Services on us. We handled the problem with a thorough spring cleaning (which would have happened, anyway), even though both my wife and I still feel stigmatized by having been visited by CPS. When I confronted this church member, she had initially denied being a snitch. But at the same time, she had come up with reasons why my wife and I were bad parents - such as that my parents were bad at raising me, so it wasn't my fault I didn't know how to raise my child. You can imagine how shocked I was hearing this from a person I had trusted - so much so, I only became infuriated minutes later. Well, my family and I aren't about to be thrown out of our church home. But every time we see her at church now, she can't look us in the eye. And our pastor has made it clear we aren't the ones in the wrong here. Just wanted to let you know that I can sympathize after being in a similar situation.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Apart from salvation, Jesus' focus was on repentance. Hating the sinner and the unclean was the tradition of the Pharisees. Jesus was about bringing all the lost of Israel back into the fold (and all people by extension, really). The Law teaches punishment; Jesus taught forgiveness.

This has nothing to do with any "agenda" and everything to do with Biblical truth. Jesus taught that only Yahweh is God and that believers should only worship Yahweh. Based on scriptural evidence, two things are wrong about homosexuality: 1) It is marked clearly as one form of idolatry in the OT. 2) It is an expression of human dissatisfaction with God's purpose for making human beings male and female. In principle, it is a very similar kind of dissatisfaction that led to the fall of Satan and Adam's fall in Eden. There are no scriptural redeeming qualities, and this is affirmed in the epistles. Deny it all you want until Jesus returns, but the Bible very clearly and plainly speaks against homosexuality.

By the way, I should point out that what is sinful about homosexuality is not the tendency some people may have towards same-sex attraction. We've inherited a sinful predisposition from Adam and, contrary to what some theologians hold, are "born this way." Temptation is not sin. What makes it sinful is choosing to give into it, whether this means mentally indulging in whatever the sin is privately or committing the physical action of the misdeed itself. By choosing a path that leads away from an active, open lifestyle preoccupied with whatever the sin happens to be, one embraces the behavior as good and right and deviates from scripture. More often scripture is twisted in favor of wrongful behavior, not against it. That's rationalization.

And when you rationalize something, you are making rational lies.

I did check it out. It doesn't exclude homosexuals from participating in church. MOST denominations won't go there. But it does affirm that the scriptural position on homosexual behavior is that it is sinful behavior and that individuals engaged in that lifestyle should not promote it by serving as clergy. By all means do not take my word for it, but DO check it out for yourself.

Jesus' policy "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" is indeed incompatible with the idea of criminal justice and punishment. It's a good thing then that we don't need a Christian justification, because our Western justice systems are supposed to be secular institutions.



In other words, you still get to judge us godless heathens, as well as Christians who live in sin according to your personal judgement, just not the people who are as god-fearing and righteous as yourself I suppose Jesus' commandment "love your neighbor as you love yourself" probably also meant "love your brother; you may hate your neighbor if he's a godless gay person".

To me as an atheist who has no reason to twist the gospel message in a futile attempt to reconcile it with the OT and with Paul's contradicting teachings, Jesus' message seems pretty straightforward. I think Gandhi came closer to following Jesus than any Christian. If there was a historical Jesus who said all the things that have been ascribed to him by the gospel authors, he knew that only very few people would make a real effort to follow in his footsteps. He also knew that there would never be a shortage of power-hungry, self-righteous people who are eager to rule and judge. His followers didn't have to participate in these power struggles, nor were they meant to do so.

Jesus' followers were not supposed to rule over others, to judge others, or to fight wars (not even to defend themselves and their country). He wanted them to be humble, modest, selfless, loving, non-violent and non-judgemental. I think he wouldn't even have wanted them to get into heated arguments on the internet and fight verbal battles with non-believers. It's a shame that Paul and other later Christians didn't fully understand that. But even Paul had his moments, for example when he wrote: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs." Prefix that with Jesus' "love your neighbor" and "do good to those who hate you", and you have the gospel message in a nutshell.

Idolatry? As in idol worship? That doesn't make sense.


This seems like an incredible stretch to me. Also, it would make anyone who is single wrong, which seems an absurd conclusion to me.


I don't think it is as plain and clear as you make out. It's been awhile since I looked into it, but in at least nearly every place where it's mentioned, it is ambiguous. Some of the condemnations involve temple prostitution, so it isn't clear they aren't condemning prostitution. Every mention in the NT uses a Greek word with an uncertain meaning.


I was hoping someone would make a link, but I went ahead and found one myself. Here it is.

A relevant quote from the article:


Apparently, they were considering changing old language in their rules, but couldn't come to a consensus.


I think you're not quite right here, but it is an interesting thing to say. I think he would have disapproved of contentiousness for its own sake, but I don't think he would have frowned on all arguing. He certainly had a way of being very, very blunt at times.

All things considered, though, this thread hasn't been particularly contentious. Certainly people have disagreed, but I don't think we've had any namecalling or nastiness in the thread.

I know that Jesus passed very severe judgement on entire cities according to the gospel stories. But he also said "You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me." In other words, he as the (alleged) son of god was in a position to judge people, unlike puny humans

It's all in Torah.


THAT wouldn't make anyone wrong who is single. And, besides, being single is a temporary condition that most people in general can't help at one stage of life or another. I'm not opposed to people who feel the need to remain celibate, nor am I opposed to birth control, which does have its obvious benefits. But remaining single and the consequences of using birth control long-term are in violation of the first commandment. (Note: Being unattached would mean total devotion to God if one so chose. But being unattached carries its own risks of leading the celibate into temptation, as Paul aptly noted).


Prostitution would be a form of sexual impurity, though. The OT doesn't rule out "sex servants," but this often takes the form of ancient surrogacy. It is less than ideal, however, and trouble often arose when the patriarchs (and their wives) failed to wait on God.


That's a little bit deeper than what I was thinking...try this:
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1324
From the church itself. Incidentally, my wife is a former Methodist; was before I corrupted her with my radical Baptist sensibility.


I think you're right on track with Jesus' attitude towards debate. Think of all the times in the Gospels that Jesus answered the challenges of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the founders of modern-day rabbinic Judaism. Jesus' response to them as recorded in the NT is very similar to the patterns of debate they had among themselves. These debates, following the destruction of the Temple, are recorded in the Talmud and are used as a means of documenting the oral tradition and history of the Jews--the part that's NOT included in the Bible. The two most prominent sects that figure in the NT were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, had a solid knowledge of the Law, BUT believed that the tradition was just as much inspired scripture and the words of Moses as Torah was. The Sadducees did not count the oral tradition as law like the Pharisees, but they also rejected the idea of the resurrection. Jesus often sided with the Pharisees when dealing with the Sadducees, even bringing the ultimate insult against them that they "didn't even know the scriptures." Some scholars have concluded that Jesus Himself was a Pharisee because of the time He spent debating scripture with them. If you really dig into the gospels and the Acts, you'll notice that even among the Pharisees, certain high-ranking religious leaders, and certain members of the Sanhedrin, Jesus did have sympathizers. He obviously spent enough time debating with them to win a few friends among the hardest skeptics of His time.

On namecalling and nastiness--I hope it's clear that's not my point or goal at all. If we're discussing what's in the Bible, then by nature of the subject there are going to be some things that everyone at some point will likely find offensive. I don't think the point of the Bible is to tell you what you want to hear. Many people struggle with the idea that ALL people are sinners, not just those people we're singling out in this particular discussion. But I do think the Bible can be a shot of nasty-tasting medicine for those who need the benefits of the medicine. I think of John's scroll in Revelation. Tastes sweet going down, but really sours the stomach when it gets there. And I think of the times Jesus strategically dropped bombs on His listeners when the crowds swelled. The remaining disciples where the ones left who had given up everything and didn't even have home to go back to, and I think you only really "get" Jesus if you're totally sold out to His teachings. I think at times namecalling can be appropriate in order to drive a point home, or at least to wake up someone who isn't paying close enough attention. Jesus did His share of that. But I don't get the idea that this forum is really the kind of place where that is necessary.