J
josie_L
Guest
Did not Lot suffer for being righteous?
- Status
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
What a staggering insult to write.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
To me, there is being righteous in a humble sort of way, and being righteous in a way that is filled with hubris.
When I read passages in the Gospels about the Pharisees attempting to catch Jesus in saying something that was not official teaching, or doing something that was against the spirit of the Torah, that was hubris.
When I think of humble righteousness, one person comes to mind, just because I’ve been reading her works. Hildegard of Bingen. She called herself an unlearned woman, of the weaker sex, yet she was quite brilliant in many disciplines, as well as not being afraid to offer her opinion to the powers that be on all sorts of church matters.
Sometimes those of us in the church can suffer from too much hubris in what we think God wants. I often see that in myself. Yet I would rather model myself after Hildegard.
So what has this to do with the Methodists and their decision-making? I guess being careful of not having too much hubris in what we ‘think’ God wants. And on the other hand, having enough humility to really listen when God plants someone like Hildegard in your midst.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Your analogy is confused.
If you believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, there is no question of “hubris” (what a mean-spirited term to use in this context!
) St. Hildegard herself remained in respectful submission to the teachings of the Catholic Church. And there can be no comparison between her and those who advocate the perversions of “gay marriage” and “gay clergy”. (I assume these gay clergy are practicing homosexuals; if they are celibate, then what’s the fuss about? 
)Even if you leave the Catholic Church aside, homosexuality and homosexual acts are condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
Let us face the truth: this whole “gay rights” issue is the brainchild of secular progressives who are all too glad to have their ideology infiltrate both the Catholic and Protestant churches.
C
Contarini
Guest
Highly unlikely, I think. The tide is going the other way.
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
This is not a likely situation. Perhaps you should instead be praying for the progressives, who yet again see, in their view, the denomination choosing to crush and trample on God’s children who happen to be gay. Or even more, you should be praying for the many gay clergy in the UMC who live in fear that someone will bring them up on charges and prevent them from exercising the ministry to which they believe God has called them, or the gay youth who commit suicide because they believe that God hates them.
These are the folks who really need our prayers. Pray that God will convert them and turn their hearts and give them the strength to live celibately, or whatever your conscience prompts you to do. But at this point the conservatives are the victorious, merciless, uncompromising faction. No doubt they need our prayers too, but they have little reason to fear that they will be kicked out and your compassion for them is, at this time, severely misplaced.
Edwin
R
RPRPsych
Guest
I kind of get the impression you don’t know old John very well
Edwin
R
revert_jen
Guest
Wow. Merciless? Well, I can and do feel compassion for people who are struggling with same-sex attraction. I have a bit less sympathy for people who are worried that they will lose their jobs because they (in a sense) lied on the application than those who are worried about losing their jobs because the job has changed underneath them.
I have never been a Methodist, but I doubt that the church officially teaches that God hates people with SSA or active homosexuals. I know the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that God hates anyone, and I’d be extremely surprised to hear that the Methodists are different in that respect. If individual pastors need some pastoral guidance about dealing with homosexuals, that is one thing, and I’d be all for it.
But it is not merciless to teach that sin becomes virtue just because sin is popular. Men cannot truly marry men, and women cannot truly marry women, and pretending they can is just lying to everyone. There is more mercy in truth than in falsehood. And it is not crushing and trampling on people to refuse to lie to them.
But of course we should all pray for people on both sides of the issue–it is always safe to pray for everyone that they come closer to God and that God’s will is done (without prejudice toward whetever one personally thinks God’s will should be
).–Jen
L
ltwin
Guest
They are not unmerciful or uncompromising. They are adhering to what Methodists have always believed about marriage and sexuality. If a minority of Methodists espoused atheism (which is not unheard of among ministers of mainline Protestantism) would the UMC conservatives need to “compromise” on that just to be considered merciful people?
Whatever happened to the good old days when people had the integrity to resign from churches whose doctrines they no longer could affirm in good conscience?
And victorious? Hardly. IF someone is ever brought up on charges of violating the UMC’s beliefs about human sexuality, at most they get a slap on the wrist. Many UMC bishops and bureaucrats are likely sympathetic to the LGBT cause in the first place, so there are plenty of loop holes that LGBT activists can manipulate. African United Methodists have been systematically marginalized within the leadership structure, while the overly liberal Western Jurisdiction and the Europeans are over-represented on bodies like the Connectional Table.
J
josie_L
Guest
But the Pharisees (in general) were not righteous, i.e., they took a very legalist (almost cold-hearted) approach to interpreting the Scriptures, moreover, no one can assume anything about God that isn’t already stated via the Bible and/or Sacred Tradition (the Church is meant to guard the deposit of faith handed down from Jesus to the apostles and their successors, not add/innovate, change or diminish it).
The way you worded your post made it sound as if being righteous and suffering were mutually exclusive, when, in fact, the Bible (and history) is littered with people who suffered for being righteous. Although, suffering can also be the result of making poor choices and disregarding God’s teachings (some of which are plainly written in Scripture) because people rely too much on their own understanding and that of the world’s.
I think the most humble thing for a Catholic to do is submit all understanding (regarding the interpretation of the deposit of faith) to the Church that Christ founded, for there is no hubris in that, only trust in the promises that Jesus made regarding His Church.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
Does the truth depend on the majority vote?
Paul VI went against the majority view in not changing the teaching of the CC on the use of contraception…would you say here the vote of the majority should have prevailed?
And if the vote to allow gay marriage prevails…how could you say that is indeed the guidance of the HS? How can you be so absolutely sure?
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Are you asking about how the Roman Catholic Church discerns truth? I am not a scholar in ecclesiology, I’m afraid. I would imagine though that truth is decided upon either by a vote of a group of specific people, or by one person saying, ‘This is the decision.’
Pope Paul VI made his decision that he alone had the power and prerogative to go against the majority recommendations of both clergy and scientists. That was in his authority and that is what he chose.
In faith communities where God is the revealer and we are the discerners - or listeners - it seems to me that one has to have a vehicle for doing the listening. Prayer, of course. Counsel. Sharing what we hear in prayer. Trusting those who listen with us. And then having a way to reach decisions together. Or, in some cases, giving the responsibility to only one authority. A Pope. A prophet. A monarch.
How can we be sure it is the Holy Spirit? Unless God starts speaking to us in actual words again, I guess we use the vehicle we know and trust it is of God.
U
Usige
Guest
If only Christ had left a way to ensure that there was always someone to guide the Church through the ages…
Funny thing is we all trust God to reveal the truth and yet Christendom is fractured into 10,000+ versions of the truth. Don’t like the version of the truth your faith community teaches? Just shop around and you will eventually find some version that, surprise, surprise, matches the truth you always knew to be correct. Can’t find one that exactly matches your truth? Just lobby enough and you can vote for a new truth. Heck lobby and search enough and you can get rid of anything you dislike. Still not finding the truth of God (as defined by you)? That’s easy, just start your own church.
I guess I’m one of those unusual people that simply said “God I place my trust in you and your Church” despite the fact that I started out as a raging leftist protestant liberal that disagreed with 90% of Catholic teachings. Instead of trying to reform the Church to my views and praying that the Church change, I instead spent time praying to understand how I was wrong. There is but one truth of God and that truth doesn’t change to match society or popular vote.
C
Contarini
Guest
Nope. But I know progressives. I know that many of them are sincere believers in Jesus.
As long as Methodists are basically OK with divorce, they really have no business taking such a hard line on homosexuality. I respect the Catholic Church’s position because it’s strict across the board.
I don’t want the UMC to change the definition of marriage. But insisting on church discipline for gay clergy while accepting divorced and remarried clergy is a blatant double standard.
One conservative Methodist I know is pushing for doing away with church trials and writing into the BoD that clergy who ordain gays will automatically be defrocked. That’s the kind of thing I meant by “merciless.”
Methodist conservatives need to learn something from Pope Francis. Maintain doctrine, but do so in a generous and merciful spirit.
I don’t think of those as the “good old days.” I think of them as “the golden age of schism.”
Church is not a club. It’s the Body of Christ. Dividing from fellow Christians is a sin of such gravity as to make the issue of homosexuality trivial by comparison.
So the fact that the conservative position is enshrined in the BoD and all attempts to change it fail doesn’t mean victory. You have to wipe your enemies out or it doesn’t count?
Yes, I know that liberals are overrepresented still on many of the governing bodies.
Edwin
L
ltwin
Guest
A biblical argument can be made for divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances. How this has been turned into an ecclesiastical form of no fault divorce is another matter. Nevertheless, the fact that the church has failed to confront one kind of sin does not mean that we should bless all kinds of sin.
And one that was most likely championed by progressive Methodists. This is a highly successful progressive strategy–push the boundaries until the boundaries change and then precedent for further boundary pushing is established.
Well, since the “disciplining” of clergy who ordain gays is often a joke within the UMC ecclesiastical courts, I’m not surprised conservatives want mandatory sentences.
We are charged as Christians to maintain both the unity AND the purity of the church. A church that blesses what God clearly does not is driving dangerously close to false church status. It is not a sin to separate oneself from a false church.
The Apostle Paul was very clear about what we are to do in relation to disciplining those in the church who engage in and uphold sexual immorality, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
T
tseleehw
Guest
It looks like many in the UMC are considering splitting the church due to disagreement over these issues:
washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/05/17/united-methodist-church-to-respond-to-rumors-that-is-about-to-split/
washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/05/17/united-methodist-church-to-respond-to-rumors-that-is-about-to-split/
C
Contarini
Guest
I think the Biblical argument for same-sex marriage is at least as strong as the Biblical argument for remarriage after divorce. For starters, the concept of same-sex marriage is completely unknown, and thus not condemned in the Bible. (Yes, I know Gagnon and others argue that something like it was known in the ancient world and thus condemnations of homosexual behavior cover it.) Divorce and remarriage are known, and explicitly condemned.
No, but when it’s much easier to explain how remarriage after divorce is sin than how a faithful same-sex relationship is in, the double standard is pretty appalling.
Jesus had things to say about specks and beams. Things that “conservative” Protestants systematically ignore.
Heterosexuals, not homosexuals, have destroyed sexual morality. The current rhetoric of conservative Protestantism, including “Good News” UMs, is nothing more than scapegoating.
So start with things that we all recognize are sexual immorality and that clearly harm people, and leave gays alone in the meantime. (I’m not suggesting that gay marriages should be recognized. I’m suggesting that the UMs who in good conscience are blessing same-sex unions should be left alone until there is much more coherence and purity in the UMC’s–or the Christian Church’s in general–attitudes to sexual morality as a whole.)
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Well, today the United Methodists came up with a plan, and according to friends in the know, it is a ‘very Methodist way of doing things.’ I have read several links and am still not clear how it will be handled, but it seems that a commission is to examine the Book of Discipline regarding all matters of sexuality towards an intention to make changes. The Bishops were asked to lead the way forward, rather than elected members of the Conference, and they agreed it was to be handled this way.
The two things I got from this were that the Conference needed to break from trying to make a decision this week. And secondly, this would be a way forward toward inclusion.
It will take a few years, but inclusion will ultimately come.
I don’t think anyone saw this coming, but it seems the right thing for now. And they are still United, which has not been a given at all.
umc.org/news-and-media/bishops-ask-for-hold-on-sexuality-debate
hackingchristianity.net/2016/05/passed-the-bishops-lead-a-very-methodist-way-forward.html
The two things I got from this were that the Conference needed to break from trying to make a decision this week. And secondly, this would be a way forward toward inclusion.
It will take a few years, but inclusion will ultimately come.
I don’t think anyone saw this coming, but it seems the right thing for now. And they are still United, which has not been a given at all.
umc.org/news-and-media/bishops-ask-for-hold-on-sexuality-debate
hackingchristianity.net/2016/05/passed-the-bishops-lead-a-very-methodist-way-forward.html
- Status