Diametrically Composed



Comments (4)

Comment Feed

I am so tired of these types of discussions

No wonder I had to wander off and discover a God worth worshiping! The UMC needs to get over itself! The only thing designated to make decisions on behalf of the church settled this issue a very long time ago--way back in 1972 and again in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008. And although General Conference 2012 and 2016 were not allowed to speak to this issue, legislation that would have changed the wording in the Discipline never made it out of committee. Walk away from this insane discussion and do something important like reclaim a robust gospel about the triune God of holy love who is most definitely way more verb than noun; the triune God of holy love who loves each and every one of us more than we could ever think about loving ourselves; the triune God of holy love who went to unfathomable lengths so that we could become the truly human persons He intended us to be when he created the earth and everything in it and called it good!

Joan Watson more than 5 years ago

Wrong Definition of "The Majority"

So the "majority" is the group that proposed a compromise that was defeated in committee and that didn't have the votes to get their legislation passed on the floor? No, the majority was the group that elected all five new Judicial Council members, all four new University Senate members and that defeated Rule 44. Amazing that some don't see the big picture coming out of Portland. The U.S. evangelical-African coalition is the majority and it will be for years to come.

Rob Renfroe more than 5 years ago

Let's avoid triumphalism

Rob, I think your arguments might meet with more favor if they weren't so framed by a triumphalist attitude.Reminding us that you are the majority seems dangerously close to "lording it over others" that Jesus warned the Pharisees about. I think you and your allies will be received more positively if more of us thought you were genuinely interested more in serving than in being the majority. The future of the church will belong to those who serve more than it will be to those who organize caucus groups to achieve certain votes. Blessings

Bill Mefford more than 5 years ago

I have to dispute one thing...

....and that's this: "...One side is ready to accept LGBTQ fully and completely (for a wide variety of reasons) and one side is not (for a wide variety of reasons)..." The first part is fine, but the second parenthesis I am not sure is accurate.

Every time I have argued this issue the responses are as predictable as competing election campaigns' press conferences. It's always, "The Bible says..." Never mind that our churches are filled with the divorced and remarried. The Hebrews relegated women to an anteroom in the Temple and prayed thanks to God for not having made them women. And the Levitical law forbade the males-only section to those who had lost their male members such as perhaps a temple stonemason who had the unfortunate fate of having dropped a stone on top of his wedding tackle. We now know, of course, that even with the loss of external genitalia such a person would still be biologically male but the law said no mighty sword, no pray in sanctuary.

Now, these days, some might say "That's right, transwomen are as bad as women!" but as for the guy with the unfortunate accident? I think experience shows people'd say, "That's stupid!" when reminded of the rule. So there is definitely prejudice and bigotry going on. IOW, The Bible is being read selectively to enforce prejudice.

Now, to this, one could possibly add (1) bad experiences with LGBTs, and (2) self-loathing by closeted people (that's LGBTs who haven't "come out," sometimes to themselves, but mostly to family and friends). Considering the first, I once had a quite awkward conversation with a fellow whose father-in-law was gay. Apparently the man left this fellow's wife's mother and abandoned his children to partner with another gay male, and I suspect, there were financial issues involved, as in the old shibboleth about how divorce impoverishes women and children. The missing piece was how was this so much worse had he left for a woman, or to go pan for gold in the Klondike? I guess since families continually reinvent themselves, they decided it was worse because by increasing the offense it made them feel better about themselves. In the movie "Dog Day Afternoon" as well as in the true story in which it was based, the wife of the principal bank robber- hostage taker Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino) - was robbing the bank to pay for his lover's sexual reassignment surgery. Sonny was married and his wife blamed the lover for the whole fiasco. So, there's that. Then there's the fact so many of the most vociferous antigay quasi-religious figures themselves have a secret gay life. Their names are legion: Ted Haggard, George Rekers, Jim Bakker, Billy James Hargis, etc. They are drawn to the issue because it so deeply affects them personally but no one else knows. In the African-American community, such a factor is so common that they have a euphemism for it: being "on the down low." Many African=American men of means including especially pastors are so affected...

George Nixon Shuler more than 5 years ago