Tag Archives: United Methodist Church

On A Change of Mind Indeed

In a recent address the current president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, Bishop Bruce Ough, implored his colleagues to be open to having Christ change their minds. Some major metanoia (Koine Greek for repent which more literally means “a change of mind”) is certainly in order. Unfortunately, Bishop Ough’s idea of a change of mind seems to only go in one direction as his use of the common progressive buzz words would indicate. According to Bishop Ough, if we would only be open to Christ changing our minds we will find ourselves “freed to replicate Jesus’ pattern of expanding the boundaries of whom God loves and includes in the Kingdom.” It’s no mystery that he thinks that of necessity would involve the Church accepting and even celebrating everyone under the rainbow, so to speak, including the behavioral expression of what he sees as God-given sexual orientations and gender identities.

change-mind-18

The truth is the true Church already welcomes and includes everyone from any background and has since Jesus gave the great commission, although the Spirit, as Bishop Ough alludes to in his reference to the Book of Acts, had to guide the church into the full meaning and implications of the mission to the Gentiles. As the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 indicates, the blessing of God’s election of Israel was always meant to include the Gentiles, that is all the peoples of every nation on earth. By its very nature the Church commissioned by Christ Jesus and set apart by the Spirit of God is inclusive of all people of every nation and background, including those whose sexual desires have been corrupted by sin (i.e. all of us).

This certainly does not mean, however, that every set of sexual desires, proclivities, and practices will be included, commended, or recommended in the church. The genuine inclusive nature of the church is summed up well by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. ~ 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

Because of God’s great love for the world and everyone in it, we are all invited to come as we are, but not to stay as we came!

Now I know some are going to continue to argue that sexual immorality here, as elsewhere in the New Testament, does not really condemn all sexual activity outside of natural marriage traditionally understood as a covenant union of one man and one woman. And I know some are going to argue that the Bible, Old and New Testaments, never really condemned committed same-sex unions (although it is becoming impossible to believe that sex confined to monogamous marital unions is a satisfactory norm for progressives as I and others have demonstrated before–see here and here). The official position of the so-called “centrist” (“contextualist”? see Dr. Chris Ritter’s assessment of the re-branding here) movement, the Uniting Methodists, is: “We believe our differences on the questions of same-sex marriage and ordination stem from differences over biblical interpretation, not biblical authority.”

Some sincerely believe this, I’m sure. But undoubtedly there are others who know this is not true, but will go along with it because it is obviously more marketable than just admitting that they are in fact rejecting the authority of Scripture. One of their leaders, Adam Hamilton, certainly one of the most influential United Methodist pastors in America, is clearly on record saying that he does not believe that all Scripture is inspired by God. He also diminishes the special inspiration of the Bible in general when he says the Bible is inspired “in the same way and to the same degree as many contemporary preachers and prophets and even ordinary Christians have been inspired by the Spirit in every age” (Making Sense of the Bible, 294 as quoted by David Watson in Scripture and the Life of God). It is just not credible that the progressive “centrists/contextualists” have the same view of the authority of Scripture. How far we have fallen from John Wesley’s view of Scripture!

In his introduction to his notes on the New Testament Wesley said:

The Scripture therefore of the Old and New Testament, is a most solid and precious system of Divine truth. Every part thereof is worthy of God; and all together are one entire body, wherein is no defect, no excess. It is the fountain of heavenly wisdom, which they who are able to taste, prefer to all writings of men, however wise, or learned, or holy.

As always the question is not whether someone says they too believe in the authority of Scripture, the question is, what exactly do they mean by the authority of Scripture? I don’t think traditionalists and progressive/centrists mean the same thing at all.

Nevertheless, some are still going to make the more marketable argument that they really do still have a high view of Scripture but simply believe the church has historically misinterpreted the Bible to condemn all forms of homosexual relationships. They will insist the Bible says nothing in condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Some, I do not doubt, are genuinely sincere in this belief, although I sincerely believe they are sorely deceived. As Dr. Tim Tennent says in his assessment of this claim, “the exegetical case for this is not defensible.” (see full article here)

Although I know some sincerely believe the revisionist arguments, it’s not a given that everyone making these arguments is sincere.

In their book, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition, Donald Fortson and Rollin Grams relays the following regarding the revisionist arguments of the now deceased Yale professor, John Boswell:

Commenting on Boswell’s book, Homosexuality, Intolerance and Christianity, gay author John Lauritsen writes: It is not surprising that Professor Boswell has been enthusiastically hailed by the gay Christians, to whom he appears as a new Savior who will rescue them not only from queer-hating religionists, but from gay liberation secularists as well, by demonstrating historically that it’s all right to be a gay Christian. . . . I cannot remember reading a more frustrating book. Undeniably, it is a formidable work of scholarship. . . . On the other hand, Boswell’s arguments, his use of evidence, are fatally flawed by his doomed attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. . . . It is regrettable that one must be harsh on a work with such considerable merit, but willful dishonesty in a scholar must not be condoned. . . . We should invite John Boswell to join gay liberation wholeheartedly; he has skills and knowledge that we need. To join us, Boswell must first extricate himself from the impossible position he’s in: attempting to reconcile Christianity and homosexuality. It would be an act of maturity for Boswell to graduate from Christianity to secular humanism….. (Unchanging Witness, location 7734-7745 Kindle edition).

Revisionist arguments that find support for homosexual relationships in the Bible have repeatedly proven to be untenable. Despite the vitriolic epithet given to traditionalist Christians above by John Lauritsen, we are not driven by hatred of anyone. Rather we are driven by a love for the God who washed us, sanctified us, and justified us, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God and a desire to live faithfully with integrity according to God’s word.

I agree with Bishop Ough that we do indeed need to be open to change. But the change I envision goes in a different direction. As I’ve said before, the way forward is the way backward—the old fashioned way of repentance! United Methodists do indeed stand at a crossroads.

Thus says the Lord: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls….” Jeremiah 6:16

Will United Methodists respond as the majority in Israel did at the time as the rest of Jeremiah 6:16 reveals? “But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.'”

The way forward is the way back! For those with ears to hear, you “shall hear a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it’ …. (Isaiah 30:21).

Advertisements

Ordination and the Next Methodism

Last week I was ordained as an Elder in the United Methodist Church along with many other Elder candidates and a few candidates for the office of Deacon. The process to becoming an Elder in full connection is a long one. I began this journey 10 years ago. The earliest I could have been ordained was two years ago, but I self-delayed the intense written and oral examinations required to be approved due to some challenging life circumstances and a few qualms about the dubious state of the denomination. At any rate, I wanted to share a few thoughts about some of the vows I took during the process of being accepted into full connection during the clergy session and in the ordination service during our Annual Conference in Western NC. And piggy-backing on what others have shared about what the “next Methodism” should be like, I also want to share some thoughts on how these vows should be and can be taken more seriously in the future. (See others’ thoughts about the next Methodism here: Kevin Watson, David Watson, David Watson again, Scott Fritzsche, & Stephen Fife.)

During the clergy session at the beginning of our Annual Conference the Bishop invites the candidates for ordination on stage to answer historical questions of examination for Methodist preachers that go back to John Wesley himself. Some of the questions also seem to be a bit hysterical too as they often evoke chuckles from candidates, colleagues, and family and friends, such as the one that asks: “Are you in debt so as to embarrass you in your work?” With the exorbitant cost of higher education, including seminary, nowadays the debt question always evokes some chuckles.19576256_1788153057866681_480327071_n

I think the next Methodism certainly needs to find more ways to help ministerial candidates fund theological education and to train students on strategies to get by with less and reduce the amount of loans. Ministry is hard enough without the added strain of a mountain of debt. Thankfully, I was blessed that I didn’t have to borrow very much for seminary. What I did borrow to help with the transition from full-time gainful employment to a part-time local pastor salary while I was a full-time seminary student I, I was able to pay off entirely last fall. Nonetheless, as we find ourselves in an evermore missionary type environment, I think we need to seriously consider finding ways of educating and training ministers more efficiently, economically, and effectively. How is it in a day when we have the most educated clergy since Pentecost, we also seem to have some of the most Biblically illiterate congregations in history? With the technology we have today, surely we can train and equip clergy more efficiently and effectively.

More importantly, however, one of the other questions, actually the very first question asked of candidates in the clergy session is: “Have you faith in Christ?” That may sound like an odd one considering it’s being asked of candidates for ministry. But we must remember this comes from the Rev. John Wesley who wasn’t sure if he had genuine and complete faith in Christ even years after being ordained in the Anglican church.

In March of 1738 – about 13 years after he was ordained a deacon! – he wrote in his journal “I was, on Sunday, the 5th, clearly convinced of unbelief, of the want of faith whereby alone we are saved.” Wesley went on to contemplate quitting preaching. He asked himself, “How can you preach to others, who have not faith yourself?” His friend and mentor Peter Bohler insisted that he continue to “Preach faith til you have it; and then, because you have it, you will preach faith.”

Wesley took his advice, but for many weeks continued to struggle with heaviness of heart over his lack of saving faith. He consulted the Scriptures and the description of faith and the experience of salvation described therein and compared them to his own experience. He remained in a state of feeling weighed in the balances of the word of God and found wanting. Wesley understood faith in theory, but he knew he did not have it in his own experience. Rather than redefining faith to match his experience, he continued to seek faith as defined and described in Scripture. He sought a change in his own heart rather than denying the truth and changing the word.

On May 24th that year, still with heaviness of heart, he hesitantly attended a society meeting on Aldersgate Street in London. That evening upon hearing Martin Luther’s description of “the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ,” Wesley wrote, “I felt my heart strangely warmed.” I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: And an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.” Interestingly, the very next thing he describes is how he then began to pray with all his might for those who had especially despitefully used him and persecuted him.

From that moment on, although he was tempted to doubt, Wesley never again doubted that he had real faith, even as he recognized the need to continue to grow stronger in that faith. And that was the moment that really ignited the fires of Methodism as a movement and the Wesleyan revival across England that spread to America and around the world.

If Methodism is to really become a movement again, and if we are really going to see revival again, genuine faith and a call to real faith will be at the forefront. Wesley realized that knowing about faith doesn’t guarantee an experience of it in the heart as the real work of God. As he listened to the message of Luther on Aldersgate street, he finally received that precious gift of faith. Interestingly, it is Martin Luther who can also help us to ensure that our candidates for ordained ministry today have genuine faith in Christ alone for salvation and how to discern what specific shape it should take.

In his “Treatise on Good Works,” to correct misunderstandings of the doctrine of justification by faith alone which are still common today, Luther explained that genuine faith will be evidenced by the fruit of good works. He said faith in Christ is first a fulfillment of the first commandment, which is: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3). In the context of the storyline of the Bible this is because there is only one true God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all other gods are really just pretenders. The gods worshipped by the nations are not really worthy of worship. Only, Yahweh, the God who rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt, and who rescued Jews and Gentiles, all of humanity, through Jesus Christ, from slavery to sin and death, is worthy of worship. Hence, we are to love him with all of our heart, soul, and strength (Dt 6:5). From here Luther said obedience to the rest of God’s commandments would flow. He used the Ten Commandments to explain what are the good works for which  we are saved (see Eph 2:8-10). It’s also important to note that John 14:6, where Christ claims to be the only way to the Father, is a direct corollary of the first commandment, as Jesus Christ was the manifestation of the one true God in human flesh (see also Acts 4:12; Acts 17:30-31).

A person of genuine Christian faith should display a serious commitment to the first commandment and the first of the two greatest laws according to Jesus (Matt 22:36-40). Moreover, John 14:6, shouldn’t be considered controversial or embarrassing or in need of reinterpretation among those of genuine faith. So if there is a candidate for ordination who agrees with the modern day Lutheran (ELCA) pastor, Nadia Bolz-Weber, that the Wiccan goddess is Jesus’ aunt, and that other gods and goddesses are legitimate manifestations of the divine, can we really say they have faith in Christ? As I shared before, I was taken to a conference to listen to Bolz-Weber speak with many other young pastors who were also provisional members (i.e. commissioned but not yet ordained). Virtually, all of them thought she was a wonderful role model for United Methodist ministers. I do not!

We need to take the original intent and spirit of that historical question that Wesley asked more seriously. “Have you faith in Christ?” doesn’t mean do you believe in Christ as you define and imagine him. It means do you believe in Christ as he is revealed in the pages of Holy Scripture. Do you trust in him and him alone for salvation?

We have pastors in some of our churches telling their congregations that they don’t really need to believe in Jesus to be saved because everyone is saved already. We have some who are telling their churches that Jesus really didn’t rise bodily from the dead. We have others who are telling their churches that Jesus really wasn’t divine. A Facebook friend of mine, stopped attending his United Methodist church in California when the pastor said the Sunday after Easter that Jesus was not really divine, and planned to preach a sermon series from the Gospel of Thomas (a heterodox non-canonical text). In 2003, in spite of denying Christ’s virgin birth and his bodily resurrection, Bishop Joseph Sprague was cleared of heresy charges by Bishop Ough, the current president of the Council of Bishops, who obviously didn’t see Sprague’s heterodox beliefs as a big deal. Have they faith in Christ? Well not in the historical sense in which that question was originally asked. Not even close!Which brings me to some other questions I was asked about doctrine and Scripture.

We were also asked: “Have you studied the doctrines of the United Methodist Church?”; Do yo believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?; Will you preach them and maintain them? In that same spirit we were reminded by the Bishop in the liturgy during the ordination service that we are called “to proclaim the faith of the church and no other” (p. 675 UM Book of Worship). Additionally, we were asked if we believe the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, “to contain all things necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and are the unique and authoritative standard for the church’s faith and life” and if we would be loyal to the church, “accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word.”

In all of the above there is an echo of the call found in the book of Jude to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3). The reason for Jude’s call to defend the faith is because of people who had crept into the church and perverted the grace of God into an excuse for sensuality, which the context clearly indicates involved sexual immorality. As the story of Balaam in Numbers shows, the promotion of sexual licentiousness is sometimes the lure into the trap of idolatry (Numbers 25:1-9; 31:16; see also Jude 1:11 & Rev. 2:14).

In our current climate in the United States, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that a candidate who would answer that historic question in the spirit of its original meaning might be penalized or viewed as in need of correction for not being “diverse and inclusive” enough in their thinking. Through the commissioning process I was deemed by at least one person to be too rigid in my thinking because I expressed my conservative views on sexuality in particular. That person also began to talk to me about how all religions are really just manifestations of the same divine ultimate reality. He used the parable of the blind men and the elephant to illustrate his point. Gods of other religions are just as valid as the god of Christianity he said. He recommended two books to “help” me. One was “Six Ways of Being Religious”, which really doesn’t argue what he was arguing, although it obviously leans in that direction. The other was “The Future of Faith” by the liberal Harvard theologian, Harvey Cox. In that book, Cox argues against orthodoxy and the creedalism that has attended it. He argues for a more “diverse, open, and pluralistic” faith rooted more in a mystical experience of an apparently more impersonal ultimate reality. He actually includes John Wesley in his criticism of orthodoxy and its historical proponents, which he views as corrupting what he believes to be the original, “more open and diverse” version of Christianity. He also argues for a faith based less on specific content than experience; in reality Cox just presents an experiential faith with a different specific content. The diversity and inclusiveness so often promoted in Mainline circles is often just another version of the syncretism that both the Old and New Testaments warn God’s people against.

This one persons recommendations to me, which he included in his official report, were meet with approval by those on the discipleship committee and were put on their report of my interview as official recommendations for me. “Have you faith in Christ?” answered according to its original intent actually might put a candidate going before a board of ordained ministry in the U.S. and some other places in the category of “needing help and correction.” These things out not be!

The next Methodism, whatever that ends up being, if it is to become a Holy Spirit fired movement again, will have to take those historical questions more seriously according to their original meaning and intent. The faith required will require more than – albeit not less than – orthodox content. The faith required will be the kind that John Wesley, himself, received as the free gift of God on Aldersgate street a little over 279 years ago!

Click on the link below to listen to a powerful song by the Mark Swayze Band and let’s pray for that holy fire to fall upon the people called Methodists once again. Come, Holy Spirit! Bring us the faith to ignite the fire of revival once again!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mark+swayzee+band+come+like+a+fire&view=detail&mid=96D4663D00D2EDBBD2E996D4663D00D2EDBBD2E9&FORM=VIRE

 

 

Pastors, It’s Time to Have ‘the Talk’ with Your Church

As the father of five, I’ve already had to have “the talk” with two of our kids. I’ll do the same again for our next rising middle-schooler this summer. It is uncomfortable and awkward for both parties, no doubt. But it’s necessary if they’re to avoid the pitfalls and dangers of our hyper-sexualized, permissive society. Pastors, it’s time to have the talk with our churches too.

Every Mainline church has been brought to the point of schism over sex. It has proven to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg -and the tipping point – of much larger differences between those on opposing sides of the debate. This is not to say that the debate about Christian sexual morality and the definition of marriage is insignificant. The tip of the iceberg is still part of the iceberg, and is significant enough it has proven able to sink the ship of even the largest Mainline denominations, including the United Methodist Church.

I don’t think we got to this point because the church has talked about it too much. We got here through one little compromise at a time over the course of many decades. Silence to avoid controversy has contributed to the build up of danger that has been lurking in the dark waters underneath all along.

We’re not in danger of hitting the iceberg that will lead to schism; we already hit it. We have been at least two churches pretending to be one for a while now. The ship hasn’t sunk, but it is taking on water. God will provide a rescue boat, but we have to be prepared to board it when it arrives. Pastors, it is time to prepare your churches. We have to have the talk.

I’m not happy about any of this. The division is heartbreaking. I weep, quite literally, for the church in which I was baptized, confirmed, and will soon be ordained, the Lord willing. After wandering away from the Lord, and the church, sinning egregiously, developing an alcohol problem that was dangerous to me and others, dabbling into drugs, being sexually promiscuous, and getting involved in a cult in college, by the grace of God, I came home to the Lord, and returned to the church and denomination of my upbringing. I renewed my baptismal vows and, among other things, I once again committed to “do all in [my] power to strengthen its ministries.”

There have been times when I seriously doubted – very seriously – whether I could remain in the denomination in good conscience. Nevertheless, I decided if I was to remain, I would do my best to fulfill that vow by speaking the truth in love to the best of my ability. My ability may not be much, but, by the grace and mercy of God, I have tried. I have committed myself to being as open with my congregations as I can be about what is going on in the denomination and why. It has not been easy. But I believe it is necessary. The time for beating around the bush has passed – not that there really ever was one. Having the talk is uncomfortable and awkward for the preacher and the congregation. But it has to be done, and we’ve got to get started somewhere. So where do we begin?

(Re)Introduce People to the Triune God of the Bible

Recent research led by the Barna Group indicates very few professing Christians actually have a Bibical worldview. We must help our congregations get reacquainted with the God of the Bible, who revealed himself most fully in Jesus of Nazareth. This can be hard. A couple of years ago one young woman, who grew up in a UM church, after participating in a Bible study which was designed to get people reading through the entire Bible, admitted that she wasn’t too sure whether she really liked the God of the Bible, which she was reading through for the first time in her life. The portrait of God in the pages of Scripture challenged her conception of a god that is the essence of non-judgmental niceness.

As is typical, she first thought it was just the way God is depicted in the Old Testament, but soon realized that the seemingly overly harsh judgment of God doesn’t really go away in the New Testament, even with the preaching of Jesus. She discovered that in many ways the preaching of Jesus about coming judgment only intensified the matter. She found no quarter in Acts, which early on tells the story of a married couple being struck dead for attempting to deceive (Acts 5), or in the writings of Paul, the other epistles, and certainly not in Revelation. Of course, God graciously and mercifully offers a way to escape judgment, but not by promising there will be none.

A few years ago I caught a news report of some type of a nudist group parading around New York City. A reporter asked one of the marchers, who was blurred out on screen by the way, why she was marching. When he asked about whether she thought what they were doing might be questionable morally, she revealed that she considered herself a Christian, but she said, “God doesn’t judge, so neither should we.”

So many churches, even in the evangelical world, have been so steeped in a conception of God as the ultimate “nice” guy, who just wants us to be comfortable with who we are, however we are, at least in terms of culturally fashionable sins, that they are shocked and even appalled by God as actually depicted in Scripture. So we have to begin addressing the idol in the room. This idol represents what Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton identified in 2005 as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD). It is an unofficial religion that has inundated many modern churches in recent times, although it has roots and variants that go back a long way in the American church. At its core, however, it is hostile and inimical to Biblical Christianity. (Look here for a little more about MTD)

Once while delivering a sermon on the Trinity, I contrasted orthodox views with those of Jehovah’s Witnesses and some other groups. After the service, a gentleman in his eighties approached me and said that it was “un-Christian” of me to disparage the views of other people because who are we to say we are right and others are wrong. The irony was not lost on me that I was being told I was wrong for saying I believed Jehovah’s Witnesses were wrong about Jesus, although it was lost on him. Nonetheless, we must persist and preach and teach about the Triune God who is revealed in Scripture, Old and New Testaments, as,

“The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but will by no means clear the guilty …” (Exodus 34:7 ESV)

We have to address the idols in the room. And remember, Paul shows in Romans 1 that idolatry is the ground from which the poison berries of sexual immorality grows.

Now, Let’s Talk about Sex

We have to talk about the MTD idol in the room; we also have to talk about the elephant in the room that has brought us to the point of schism. In the past I was squeamish at evening uttering the three letter word that begins with s and ends with x from the pulpit. Semi-jokingly – very semi at first – I would actually say it that way rather than fully enunciate the word. But to avoid the topic altogether is ministerial malpractice. What people don’t know can hurt them.

The church should have been fully engaged in the conversation, but for the most part we took a back seat to the culture that has driven us off the cliff. Some will say that the church has talked about this too much, but even some of the most conservative evangelical pastors will tell you that they have not addressed it from the pulpit in a very thorough way, if at all. Rev. Dr. Chris Ritter, a leading United Methodist evangelical, said he has only preached on the topic of homosexuality from the pulpit one time in 28 years of ministry, and only then because people were asking. I’ve heard many others say the same. I asked a close friend and a member of another UM church a couple years ago if they were having any conversations about the controversy over sexuality in the church. She quickly responded, “Oh no, we don’t talk about it, because we would never want to hurt anyone’s feelings.”

One lifelong and very gifted lay member in another area, who decided to leave the UMC not that long ago said, “In 40 years in the UMC I can not recall any serious mention of sexual ethics, other than in the youth Sunday school class I taught for a time when I taught it. There were a few vague references to traditonal marriage or the like, but that’s it.” He said he was saddened, but also incredibly frustrated by the silence. There are many other gifted laity who have left their churches or who refused to support the churches financially because UMC leadership never seemed to take a clear stand one way or another.

One former member of one of the churches I served said he drove all the way to UM offices in D.C. to try to get some straight answers, but was not given the time of day. Frustrated he left for another denomination, and wrote an op-ed in the local paper explaining why. I know for a fact we have lost church members on the progressive side of the debate as well because of the dithering. Time for dithering is running short. Sooner or later everyone is going to have to make a decision one way another. The liberal Baptist scholar, David Gushee, recognizes this reality.

“I now believe that incommensurable differences in understanding the very meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the interpretation of the Bible, and the sources and methods of moral discernment, separate many of us from our former brethren — and that it is best to name these differences clearly and without acrimony, on the way out the door.

I also believe that attempting to keep the dialogue going is mainly fruitless. The differences are unbridgeable.”  http://religionnews.com/2017/05/09/changing-our-mind-still-christian/

The time to stop dithering is now. I just saw where another very frustrated lay person asked: “Why are our pastors not talking about these things?!” It’s time to address the controversy head-on and clearly. But how?

Although some who know me would find it hard to believe, I have never delivered a sermon where the sole focus was on homosexuality. But I have not shied away from talking about Christian sexual morality and what constitutes sexual immorality in general. But I endeavor not to single anyone out. I approach it from the positive prescription and beauty of God’s design for human sexuality according to Jesus, which is celibacy in singleness and fidelity in the lifelong covenant union of a man and a woman called marriage (Mark 10/Matt 19). I state that this is God’s will for humanity and that any sexual expression outside of those God-given parameters is sin and harmful to self, neighbor, church, and community.

You have to start somewhere, and that seems to me a good place to start. Virtually everyone within earshot will recognize that they are falling short or have fallen short of God’s standard in some way. We should never single out one particular expression of sexual sin, or in any way hold up any particular set of temptations to condemnation while ignoring others. We should also call everyone to repentance and proclaim the good news of forgiveness in Christ and empowerment for a holy life of self-denial through the Spirit. I think we should only talk about homosexuality in the context of sexual sin in general, even if we do deliver a message focused mainly on that topic. (See a good example of how Rev. Chris Ritter addressed the topic in a sermon here)

We should also be clear that all are welcome in the church regardless of their past, or how they may currently be struggling with temptation to sin sexually in any way, except in extreme cases of abuse. I once had someone express concerns about a person teaching in the church who supposedly had in the past engaged in same-sex relationships. I refused to treat that person differently than I would expect myself to be treated for the past sexual sin I engaged in with the opposite sex. I also refused to treat people any differently because of the particular way they may be tempted sexually than I would expect to be treated because of the ways I am tempted sexually. As long as people love the Lord and seek to live according to God’s will without insisting on creating special exemptions for themselves or rejecting certain moral commandments they should be welcome to fully participate in the worship and ministries of the church.

There should be no special sanctions, but also no special exemptions. Nonetheless, we must address the issue of homosexuality specifically from time to time. As it is the presenting issue that has caused so much controversy for so long that has led to actual schism we must address it head-on, if ever, now.

Many in our congregations will wonder if people don’t choose their sexual-orientation, in other words, if they are “born that way”, then how can we say that homosexuality is wrong. Young people who got their theology from Lady Gaga, and older people, who watch the nightly news or Oprah or Dr. Phil, may actually believe that people are born with a homosexual orientation like people are born with a certain eye color, sex, race, or ethnicity. Indeed, these are the most prevalent comparisons, but they are false. We must point out that even the American Psychological Association, although they are in full support of the LGBTQI+ movement, admits that there is no consensus among scientists as to the cause of homosexual or bisexual orientations and no particular factor or factors, including a genetic one, has been discovered to explain it. 

The truth is any particular set of sexual desires is best explained in comparison to other sexual desires. Comparisons to sex/gender (although how convoluted has this become now!), race, and any other obviously immutable biological trait, like eye color, is misleading at best. Of course no one chooses their desires, but we do have a choice about whether or not to act on them. Who is prepared to say all one’s desires must of necessity be acted upon?

In the UMC, the debate has centered around the topic of homosexuality, primarily because of the specific language in the Book of Discipline regarding “the practice of homosexuality” being “incompatible with Christian teaching” and the other restrictions regarding marriage and ordination. But the truth is it involves so much more. During recent demonstrations during the judicial council hearing, one group there to protest the church’s official positioLGBTQ+n and to show support for Karen Oliveto, the woman married to another woman, who was elected Bishop by the Western Jurisdiction despite church law, held up a sign saying they support “LGBTQ+ Ordination.” Rev. Tom Berlin, who considers himself a moderate UM, recently clarified his support for full LGBTQ+ inclusion, specifically acknowledging the addition of the Q and the PLUS to the conversation.

We haven’t really had an open and honest debate about the L and the G, much less the implications of the B, T, & Q. And what about that + ?!! What all is included in that?

You can imagine that the folks who have discovered dozens and dozens of different gender expressions within that T, will find an exponential number of sexual orientations to pour into that plus! If it is wrong to expect those attracted to the same sex to not act on their desires, how can we expect it of those with other unchosen sexual desires? It’s naïve to believe there will be contentment with monogamy as some would have us believe. I personally know ministers who think it is unfair that only married clergy can have sex. I doubt they are few.

Before I became a pastor, one UM pastor in my area said he believed what the Bible says about sexual morality is antiquated. The truth is the ancient teaching of the Bible about sex is no more ancient than the updated versions of ancient pagan sexual practices the Bible condemns in the Old and New Testaments. If you take the ideas of the famed sexologist of Indiana University, Alfred Kinsey, and compare them to the unbridled sexuality that God prohibits in Leviticus 18 and what was practiced among the ancient Greeks and Romans, you won’t find much difference (see “Sexual Sabatoge” 2010 by Judith Reisman).

I’m not arguing a slippery slope, I’m saying we are already at the bottom of the slide with the LGBTQ+(PLUS!) movement, and it was all in the seed planted by Kinsey like a time-bomb to begin with. So we should talk about this broader context as well. What all are we really being pushed to accept? If you think the gender controversy, for example, is just about bathrooms for transgenders, you don’t understand the larger agenda. Even at the last General Conference of the UMC, the instructions given to all delegates included “do not assume anyone’s gender identity, even if you have met them in the past” and to ask everyone what pronouns they prefer: he, she, or something else (p. 39). Try that at your church this Sunday!

Don’t fall for the misleading way these things are often framed narrowly. Put the conversation back within the framework of the bigger picture. We are not really just talking about homosexuality.

Is it Really that Serious?

There are a couple reason why some won’t see why this should be taken so seriously. One is some see Christianity as their preferred self-help program (MTD), but not something that really has eternal implications. Sadly some choose their wardrobe with more care than they choose the church they attend. Others will continue to argue that what we think about sexual morality is a secondary issue at best and that we can and should just agree to disagree, which will ultimately lead to a tacit acceptance of behavior that the Bible repeatedly warns if practiced in a willful and unrepentant fashion will exclude one from the kingdom of God (i.e. 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-11; Rev 21:8). It just doesn’t make sense to treat behavior that could potentially land someone in hell as an indifferent matter. A lot of our pastors and theologians are really universalists though.

Others will continue to argue that the issue is not all that clear. If that is really the case then all the more reason to stick with the traditional teaching of the church until there is clarity. But I have never heard anyone who insists that the Bible is unclear say that. They always seem to argue in favor of changing the teaching of the church. They misuse “mystery” and “uncertainty” as a license to condone what the church has always called sin until the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.

As I have shown before, others will argue that the Bible is clear, but say we just know better today and deem the Bible wrong. You have to admire their honesty if not their hubris. There are some pretty prominent names in this category such as Luke Timothy Johnson, and Walter Brueggemann. William Loader, who has written thousands of pages on ancient Jewish and Christian beliefs about sex also acknowledges that in all cases homosexual practices of any kind were considered “abhorrent” (p. 146 “Making Sense of Sex” 2013). Loader just believes the modern understanding of sexual orientation renders the Bible’s restrictions obsolete, or “antiquated” as the UM pastor mentioned above said. I think he underestimates the understanding of the ancients and overestimates the understanding of modern western progressives.

At any rate, this is essentially what UM pastor, Adam Hamilton argues. He says, contra 2 Timothy 3:16-17, there are some passages of the Bible that never were inspired by God, among them the passages prohibiting homosexuality. Similar to Brueggemann, he argues that some of the Bible does not reflect the heart and character of God revealed in Jesus, and should therefore be ignored. Listen to the way Brueggemann puts it:

“It’s not a matter of obeying the Bible — it’s about obeying the gospel. The gospel is about God’s saving love that wants to restore all of humanity to full communion. To reach back to an ancient text that has now been corrected by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is simply a bad maneuver and poor methodology and theologically irresponsible. Those texts are not the determinative texts.” (emphasis mine)

Too bad the apostles and authors of the New Testament missed that “corrective” revelation in Christ! What he and those like Hamilton and Johnson, have done is to create a cannon within the cannon to nullify the commandments they don’t like. They have created a tradition with a truncated notion of the gospel and a partial and, therefore, distorted, image of Jesus they use, in the words of Luke Timothy Johnson, to “reject the straightforward commands of Scripture.” In response I can imagine the actual Jesus of the Gospels saying something like, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God to establish your tradition” (Mark 7:9 ESV). The people in the pews deserve to know what they are really being asked to do.

We are really back to where we started: idolatry. Ultimately in order to justify behavior Scripture clearly condemns, people must create their own traditions that nullify the commandments of God (see Mark 7:13), and thereby carve out their own idol of a Jesus without judgment, who is acceptable to the world. You can’t really fiddle with the commandments against sexual immorality without fudging on the commandment against idolatry.

Pastors, it really is time to have the talk. And sex really is just the tip of the iceberg.  Be gracious. But be truthful. Get informed and inform, and pray for you and your congregation to be transformed by the renewal of the mind (Rom 12:2). Your efforts will be greatly appreciated by some, not so much by others. You will face resistance. And you will be tempted to remain silent. But if we are going to prepare people for the rescue boat that God sends we must resist that temptation and speak the truth in love.

“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

Ephesians 4:11-16 NIV