What The United Methodist Church really teaches about gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hatikvah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
Thank you for posting that. I would just like to add: I try not to base my ideas about Catholics on what I find on a website. (Well, vatican.va, but only in the sense that what I find there is a library of Vatican documents.)
Click to expand...
Probably good advice, however, the thing I like about caf is that people actually will express themselves about their faith. I find in real life people would sooner talk about the weather or grandchildren.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
The division within protestantism is a ugly, horrible stain on Christendom. When I criticize it I do it with sadness in my heart. I hated the division then and still hate it now.
Click to expand...
I believe you la, and when you say division are you meaning “the whole gamut of differing interpretations?”
 
Wannano said:
I believe you la, and when you say division are you meaning “the whole gamut of differing interpretations?”
Click to expand...
Mainly yes, but in my time as a protestant it seemed like someone’s feelings were always getting hurt over whatever and people leaving their church as a result. I guess it seems like the easy way to deal with problems but not the correct way, and nothing really gets solved that way if you think about it.

I do have protestant family who have been at the same Church for 20 years and I commend them for that because it just seems rare nowadays
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Mainly yes, but in my time as a protestant it seemed like someone’s feelings were always getting hurt over whatever and people leaving their church as a result. I guess it seems like the easy way to deal with problems but not the correct way, and nothing really gets solved that way if you think about it.

I do have protestant family who have been at the same Church for 20 years and I commend them for that because it just seems rare nowadays
Click to expand...
I hear you.
 
Wannano said:
Probably good advice, however, the thing I like about caf is that people actually will express themselves about their faith.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t deny freedom of expression by any means. But I fear that (you and?) many Protestant posters that I read here, don’t appreciate the difference between respecting someone’s right to make nasty comments (be it Fundamentalist, Traditionalist RC, ultra-liberal, or whatever) vs. gravitating toward those comments and partnering up with the people who make them.
 
Peter_J said:
Oh, I don’t deny freedom of expression by any means. But I fear that (you and?) many Protestant posters that I read here, don’t appreciate the difference between respecting someone’s right to make nasty comments (be it Fundamentalist, Traditionalist RC, ultra-liberal, or whatever) vs. gravitating toward those comments and partnering up with the people who make them.
Click to expand...
So I am clear…partnering up means challenging and confronting?
 
Peter_J said:
😃 Do I have to post a link to an online dictionary? :pshaw::ehh:
Click to expand...
I guess I don’t have just the right concept of what a partner can be…I tend to think of Trump and Clinton as partners in the debate. So ok, I have the wrong mentality of the word. You singled m3 out so you now have my permission to give me a real example of where you have seen me do this here on caf. Give me an example.
 
Peter_J said:
I agree, but that fact doesn’t define the word.
Click to expand...
That is why I asked for clarification…that is , if you meant we confronted the nasty commenter or if we joined him in spewing g out nasty stuff.
 
commenter said:
The church is often compared to a health center, where ALL are sinners. We love, not condemn, those who smoke and drink. Lots of nurses are unable to quit smoking, don’t condemn them. But what if the school nurse told the middle school students that it isn’t clear if smoking is bad for you, that they should be open minded about it. At the same time she is “harshly” criticizing trans fats, bad posture, etc, demanding students take action.

The UMC is highly dogmatic in terms of demanding members take action on social justice type issues. They condemn this or that, urging members to bring Christian principles into the political arena. For ****this **** denomination to foster ambiguity on same sex marriage and abortion would put them into the “pro choice” camp. They support the status quo.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can point me to the case where someone has been put on trial by the UMC for failing to “take actions on social justice type issues.” I know of no such cases. There have been quite a few church trials of people for celebrating same-sex unions or for living in “partnered,” presumably sexual relationships while also being Methodist clergy. Hence, your suggestion that the UMC is more aggressive in policing “social justice type issues” than sexuality issues just doesn’t seem to be accurate.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Perhaps you can point me to the case where someone has been put on trial by the UMC for failing to “take actions on social justice type issues.” I know of no such cases. There have been quite a few church trials of people for celebrating same-sex unions or for living in “partnered,” presumably sexual relationships while also being Methodist clergy. Hence, your suggestion that the UMC is more aggressive in policing “social justice type issues” than sexuality issues just doesn’t seem to be accurate.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Alright. But what about, for example, trials for celebrating remarriages for divorced persons who had no grounds for divorce? (Presumably there would be a lot of those, inasmuch as heterosexuals greatly outnumber homosexuals.)

As always, pardon me for butting in. 🙂
 
Peter_J said:
Alright. But what about, for example, trials for celebrating remarriages for divorced persons who had no grounds for divorce? (Presumably there would be a lot of those, inasmuch as heterosexuals greatly outnumber homosexuals.)

As always, pardon me for butting in. 🙂
Click to expand...
The disparity between how they treat gays and how they treat the divorced is one of the reasons why I can’t really get on board with the conservative wing of the UMC.

The bigger issue is the lack of authority and the inevitable division that will follow their taking a strong and effective stand against gay unions, of course.

I say this as someone for whom the last alternative to becoming Catholic has been becoming UMC, which I’ve been fairly seriously considering in the last year or two.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
The disparity between how they treat gays and how they treat the divorced is one of the reasons why I can’t really get on board with the conservative wing of the UMC.

The bigger issue is the lack of authority and the inevitable division that will follow their taking a strong and effective stand against gay unions, of course.
Click to expand...
“Disparity” is not the word I would use here. “Acceptance of divorce remarriage” is not competing with “acceptance of gay unions”. In fact they are both competing against Christian tradition, kind of working in tandem, with the divorce/remarriage helping clear the way for gay marriage decades later; sort of like acceptance of contraception, leading to abortion. Those 2 things don’t compete against each other, they also compete against Christian tradition (and the Natural Law).

But even with your term disparity, which way would it work? If you believe Christianity is a “good” intervention, a “treatment”, one could argue the divorced/remarried people are getting cheated here by the churches. Their own moral dilemma is minimized, perhaps the moral ramifications are totally ignored nowadays. They don’t benefit from neglect.

If you consider Christian intervention to be “beneficial” then the gays would benefit from getting extra attention since the moral implication of their choices is - for the moment - still being at least mentioned. So which way would the “disparity” work?
 
Contarini said:
The disparity between how they treat gays and how they treat the divorced is one of the reasons why I can’t really get on board with the conservative wing of the UMC.
Click to expand...
I can’t say I blame you (and not just because I want us to “get you” :)).

Frankly I even wonder about the inconsistency of Protestant churches wrt homosexuality on the one hand and contraceptives on the other. (But you already know what a hardcore SSPX-type traditionalist I am ;).)
 
commenter said:
“Disparity” is not the word I would use here. “Acceptance of divorce remarriage” is not competing with “acceptance of gay unions”.
Click to expand...
No, but as has been pointed out several times now the official UM position does not recognize gay unions and calls for penalties against clergy who either celebrate them for others or enter into them themselves. Conservative UMs defend this position staunchly and indeed wish to strengthen it, while taking no similar stand against divorce and remarriage.
If you consider Christian intervention to be “beneficial” then the gays would benefit from getting extra attention since the moral implication of their choices is - for the moment - still being at least mentioned. So which way would the “disparity” work?
Click to expand...
Either way, it’s a problem.
 
Contarini said:
… as has been pointed out several times now the official UM position does not recognize gay unions and calls for penalties against clergy who either celebrate them for others or enter into them themselves.** Conservative** UMs defend this position staunchly and indeed wish to strengthen it, while taking no similar stand against divorce and remarriage.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Contarini said:
Either way, it’s a problem.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Heck, before too long the reverse inconsistency may become commonplace (or not-too-uncommon anyhow). That is to say, self-proclaimed conservative Christians who harshly condemn any sex outside of marriage, but have no problem with “gay sex” within “gay marriage” … and, likewise, who harshly condemn divorce/remarriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top