I actually think that’s a more coherent position. If it became common, I might (solely as a matter of my own private judgment, and leaving the Church’s authority out of it) be more likely to accept the idea of gender-neutral marriage.
Sorry, but I completely disagree. I think that the attitude you describe is mistaken and extremely harmful.Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” derive from the political arena, and my preference is that people not apply them to religion (though I lapse into using them myself) The political arena uses liberal and conservative to describe pragmatic strategies.
Christianity relies on revealed truth. “Gay union” isn’t something to be liberal or conservative about. It is not a gray area, where different interpretations are plausibly Christian, nor is it something that could not have been considered before, like the Internet. It is a total break with scripture and tradition of Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Putting a label like “conservative” on religious opposition to gay unions, or abortion, is coming from the secular media. Within Christianity some things are orthodox; some other things are optional, doubtful, or discretionary; and still other things are clearly unorthodox.
But not every idea that is coherent is Christian.
).Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and until recently all Protestantism, traditionally taught that some things are discretionary, but that absolute truth does exist, permanently, not something **we **invent to fit the current culture. Even the secular culture held to that position, at least prior to the 20th century and the development of Communism and Nazism. Those regimes taught that the truth is not something that we discover, but something we redefine to fit our current needs.
It’s important to note that the Church’s statements on social issues, such as abortion, represent the effort of the General Conference to speak to human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation. They are intended to be instructive and persuasive, but they are not church law and are not binding on members. Members will hold differing views on abortion. There is no requirement for members to agree with the Church’s view.
Actually according to Catholic teaching they are Catholics and are part of it.
There is something that really urks me about this statement. It’s as if whoever wrote it was embarrassed or ashamed that they had to state their own church’s doctrines, so they opted to bury it in a useless discussion of denominational politics.
The only question I would ask is, does the UMC hold the same stance w.r.t. persons who are sexually immoral is other ways (e.g. fornication, divorce/remarriage, or heterosexual sodomy)?
****Methodists ****are not of one mind regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.
Homosexuality is different from fornication or divorce, etc. because it is seen by many people to be not just an action but an integral and normal part of some people’s sexuality.
That’s not exactly true. Baptists, for example, split during the Civil War over the issue of slavery to become Southern and Northern (i.e. American) Baptists.
Excuse me for referencing umc.org, the official online ministry of the UMC.
That’s another discussion (which I don’t run away from either – see my earlier post:
). Nevertheless, for those like myself who maintain that homosexual acts are sinful, my point remains: we need to also condemn those forms of immorality (e.g. divorce and remarriage) that heterosexual Christians are more likely to be tempted to.
You are excused.
Historically, they did.
By the 1940s, other causes, such as mental or physical cruelty, were introduced as lawful reasons for divorce, but ministers were still prohibited from solemnizing marriages that did not meet those requirements.
I agree, especially the bolded. Christians in all denominations who seek to restore orthodoxy need the prayers of us all. You are right, we have to fight for small, reachable victories now, without surrendering the need to restore the fullness of orthodoxy when possible. In the Catholic Church, I have seen some bishops denounced by “conservatives” for not solving all the mistakes of the past 50 years in their first year in office.
I don’t really know enough about them to say that they do or that they don’t, but based on the preceding paragraphs and other info that I’ve gotten from this thread, I wonder if they do or at least if a portion of the UMC does.
