Three Misleading Claims in WCA/Good News’ Book for GC2019



Comments (4)

Comment Feed

Language does shape thinking

Traditionalist is a prejudicial term that needs to be eliminated from usage by both UM Insight and Rev Jeremy Smith. The implication is that the ideology of those so labeled is traditionalism. I consider that most of us so labeled are little concerned for or about “traditions” but rather what God has said regarding any particular subject. If the subject is sexual morality, God’s Word as found in the Holy Bible is quite extensive and clear. Natural law and human anatomy and reproductive physiology are also quite straight forward (no pun intended). Tradition only weighs in a distant third in the consideration of the issue. None of these lead me to believe I am being bigoted or unloving in my opposition to the “progressive“ movement. How do you define progressivism? How is it compatible with the teaching of Jesus?

Scott more than 3 years ago

Language shapes thinking

"Homosexuals no less than heterosexuals are persons of sacred worth..." This wording reveals a cracked framework (homosexuals v. heterosexuals) that fails to support the weight of what should be the foundation itself: ALL persons are of sacred worth. I have so many objections to both the wording and the way of thinking it reveals that I struggle with where to begin. This language establishes a hetero/ homo dichotomy as a framework for classifying persons. As the contrast plays out, the sacred worth of "heterosexuals" is assumed while the sacred worth of "homosexuals" has to be validated, faint wiff of "making an exception" and "just to clear things up." Even more basic to the thinking revealed here: broadly classifying people as either heterosexuals or homosexuals assumes a congruity between the sexual attractions a person feels and the individual's sexual behavior, subtly assuming that people engage in whatever sexual practice to which they are inclined. The synecdoche referring to a person as "a hetero/ homosexual" implies that sexual preference/ expression is the essence of the whole person, leading to the lie underlying elements of thinking on both sides of the debate. The hetero v. homo dichotomy also assumes blanket affirmation of heterosexual behavior as though it were a different category, regardless of how it plays out. Is heterosexual sex acceptable merely because it is hetero? No. But the wording in our Discipline communicates "hetero good/ homo bad," which props up homophobia and condemnation, intentionally or not. How would the debate over sexual morals look if we all came to the table recognizing that we are all created in the image of God (of sacred worth), that humans are naturally sexual beings, and that we are all inclined to sin (Romans 3:23). Whatever your sexual inclinations might be, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave of sin...So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free." John 8:34, 36

Kathe more than 3 years ago

"Eschewing inflammatory words like sin or abomination" was a mistake.

The Bible uses strong words because people's souls are at stake. John Wesley used firm language as well. Tip-toeing around sexual perversion so as not to offend the sinner makes them think they have no need to repent when there is huge need. We must all Repent and turn back to God.

Skipper more than 3 years ago

A harsh reality

The last minute addition to the wording in 1972 speaks the truth when it comes to historical Christianity. But I know that means absolutely nothing to you because you are convinced that it is up to you to rewrite Christianity and tell everybody what it is they are supposed to believe.

betsy more than 3 years ago