First The Episcopalians, now the Methodists

I found this news report on the web. Where will it all end?

Methodists Order Review of Lesbian Case

Updated 8:04 PM ET May 1, 2004


By JOE MANDAK

PITTSBURGH (AP) - United Methodists ordered their top court to review the case of a lesbian pastor after the court ruled Saturday that gay sex violates Christian teaching.

The denomination's General Conference voted 551-345 to direct the Judicial Council to review the case of the Rev. Karen Dammann, whose avowed homosexuality led to church charges of committing practices "incompatible with Christian teaching."

In March, a jury of 13 pastors in Bothell, Wash., acquitted Dammann.

But the Judicial Council, in a 6-3 vote Saturday, said being a practicing homosexual clearly violates Methodist law, and that such a violation could be cause for removal from church office.

The Rev. Maxie Dunnam, president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky, asked for the General Conference vote in light of the judicial panel's ruling.

It was unclear what action the high court could take in Dammann's case. Methodist law does not allow for an appeal in church trials. However, the council had retained jurisdiction over Dammann's case when it ordered Dammann to be tried, and traditionalists hope that will allow the council to revisit the case.

"There's nothing in (church law) that physically outlines what their options could be but there's nothing that specifically prohibits them either," said Mark Tooley, a conservative with the Institute on Religion and Democracy. "Regardless of the jury verdict, she should still not be appointed as a pastor."

Dammann, reached by phone in Washington, said she would consult with her lawyer Lindsay Thompson to learn what actions the Judicial Council could take.

"This thing just never ends," she said. "I'm disappointed. I can't believe it."

Thompson said asking for the review was an effort "to rewrite the rules."

"The people who are upset about this clearly are inclined to stop at little if anything to undo it and prevent it from ever happening again," he said.

The Judicial Council is expected to rule sometime during the conference, which next convenes on Monday.

Dammann was put on trial after she told her bishop she was in a committed relationship with a woman. She married her partner in Portland, Ore., in March, after county officials there began allowing same-sex marriages.

Damman is now on family leave.

The debate over homosexuality is expected to dominate the agenda of the conference, which is held every four years and runs through May 7.

No one believes that the 8.3 million-member denomination is about to break apart. Delegates have rejected proposals more accepting of sexually active gays by about 60 percent to 40 percent over the years. That voting trend is expected to continue among this year's 1,000 delegates.

___

AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll contributed to this report.

The Bible also says that people who divorce and then remarry are committing adultery and should be stoned (Old Testament).

Obviously we don't do that anymore (thankfully!), but no one seems to bring that particular issue up.

However, some extremely conservative -- and twice-married -- friends of my in-laws' believe that the Bible should be followed strictly and completely.

I was physically restrained by my wife from asking these two people if they thought they should be stoned.




Erik Deckers

I haven't been stoned since the late 60's... oops wrong stone!

If homsexuality were normal your bible would have had Adam and Steve in the garden!

What do you think Sodom and Gamorah where all about!?!

AS for divorce, the christian religions are the most harsh, the others understand that mistakes can be made and learned from.

If we are taught to weigh our choices against the outcomes our decissions will not come back to haunt us. Most failed marrages were based on lust not inner love!

Jesus taught that while divorce was not God's ideal, yet for "the hardness of (their) hearts" he permitted divorce and remarraige where adultery was involved.

Read John 8, it's a touching story of God's love and forgiveness toward the "woman in adultery".

This is a masterpiece in combining adherence to the law of God, and yet showing compassion.

This should be taken as an accurate guide to the Bible and Adultery for us today, rather than the OT law.
Christ supercedes that law.

Both OT and NT indicate that homosexuality is sin and needs to be repented of.
Those that think they can combine Christian obedience with a sinful lifestyle deceive themselves.

Loving another human is not a sin.

To address the "normalcy" of homosexuality, start looking in nature. It occurs in quite a high number of other species on this planet. It happens. Humans didn't invent it. While we're on that same line of thought they didn't invent masturbation either.

The stigma attached to homosexuality in ancient cultures is to discourage non-fertile couplings. That's it. Religion picked up the ball and ran with it.

Honestly people. If God made these people just like they made the rest of us, he knew damned good and well he was making them the way they are. This isn't a choice to be "sinful", it's just the way they are. That's who they fell in love with. Just like you couldn't help who you lost your heart to.


...good Gods, I get tired of this argument...

I've seen those signs that say "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Actually, God made Steve too.

God made each of us. To say that someone is wrong because they're gay, they're a different color (the Bible was used to support racism in this country many years ago), non-male (it's still used to keep women down in some of the more radical denominations), etc. casts aspersions on God's creation. It's saying that God got it wrong.

Yes it can be, adultery, paedophilia, and fornication are examples of what those involved may interpret as "love" but are in fact sinful, ie, they cause pain and suffering to others, they are selfish and hurtful relationships.

If we a speaking about love in the sense of caring -of course that is always a good thing, but when it becomes physical I would argue that the line between love and lust become blurred.

Since you use the word 'sin' I will say that if the Creator deems a relationship to be wrong, then it is wrong. God knows best.
Homosexuality is wrong, it is sinful, it is unhealthy, unproductive and against nature.

The God of the Bible make His position clear on this. If any church decides otherwise then they are acting contrary to the laws of God.

Now is one is not a Christian then i guess it's not going to be a concern, but if we profess to follow the teaching of Christ, then we should obey what He says, otherwise we are hypocrites.

I thought "loving" in this sense meant emotional love, not the physical act. And since Jesus recognized three types of love -- phyllos, eros, and agape -- the statement could be true.

Sorry, just being a smartaleck.

The Bible has also made other positions clear -- positions that we don't follow anymore. So are we sinning when:

- we eat a cheeseburger? (OT)
- we wear linen and cotton? (OT)
- women speak in church? (NT)
- wives don't submit to their husbands? (NT)


Erik Deckers

Ah, such a subject. Normally I just lurk around here quietly.

I learned that you can no sooner convince another person of "what is a sin" than you can teach a pig to fly. It's a complete waste of time. That said I'm not going to get into the "homosexuality is a sin" arguement: I have my opinions, and they will remain my opinions.

Tassiecelt is exactly correct when he says that there is "bad love", and as such "all love" cannot be considered good for the people. He mentions adultery, for example. The "if it's love then it's OK" arguement is therefore incorrect.

He is also correct when he states that the God of the Bible make His position clear on this. The Judeo-Christian texts leave no room for discussion: homosexuality is against God's will, not matter now fervent an arguement you make for it. Get over it. The "the Bible has also made other positions clear..." statement in no way takes anything away from what the Bible says about this.

BUT...

Christians are to be disciples of Christ, following in his example. Christ never turned away a sinner. There was no sin too great for Jesus. Jesus was a man of compassion and grace, and all who call themselves Christians are to act the same way. Christ made it clear to the woman at the well that she was living a life of sin, and that He still loved her and wanted her to spend eternity with Him in heaven, but also that she should sin no more.

There is not one of us that will "sin no more" until after death, but does that give us reason to stop trying? Nope. And does that mean any one of us deserves to be in church more than another? Nope. A church is supposed to be a hospital, not a members-only club.

I'm certainly not going to judge anyone else until I sin no more.

Is homosexuality a choice or is it something you're born with? Is it genetically encoded, and therefore cannot be helped? I don't know, and I don't care. The major issue in my life is not whether I'm going to let a homo into my church, but rather what can I do to make myself more worthy of Christ's grace. My job is not to spend too much time argueing about it but rather to spend the time giving the gospel message to people that need to hear it. I'm going to let the Holy Spirit do all the work of convicting someone of their sins - I'm way too full of sin myself to tell them what they either can or cannot do. I know what is printed in the scripture, and I know what the Holy Spirit has impressed in me.

Should a lesbian be a pastor? Should a woman be a pastor? Should a un-married man be a pastor? Should a married man be a pastor? Should a divorced man be a pastor? Should a black man be a pastor? These are all struggles the church has had to deal with over the recent years. I say that there are plenty of churches out there - find one that you like and don't worry about what another congregation is doing. There won't be such problems in heaven.

Remember that the Word of God is not the Bible - it's Jesus Christ Himself. Through the convictions of the Holy Spirit you will hear the true Word of God.

Shamalama, I agree wholeheartedly to all you've said.

As you suggest, there are lots of issues here, they cannot possible all be fully addressed in one or even twenty posts here.

Thank you for adding a little more to truth.

It seems that Christianity is a buffet, in the early days they did all in the name of Jesus Christ then along came the Catholics and the use of the titles Fath3er, Son, and Holy Ghost, a trinity if you will. But the Old Testament says that there is One God not 3 in 1 however a Schizophrenic God would explain how women are not supposed to preach then suddenly it is politically correct for them to preach in some circles. I am not a Christian but a Druid so I watch such things with amused interest. The Christians will eventually fulfill one of the fears of Jesus that he would not find the faith on earth, Christians are changing it daily.

Well there are a few things here that seem calculated to make at least a few people angry -- not for the opinions themselves, but for the way it is said. For my part I will just mildly observe one thing, although if you were in my Intro to Psych class I would take points off your final exam for it:

Schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personality, whch is what you seem to be assuming when you refer to the trinity in the way you have. That's a mistake millions of people make every day, and it makes life miserable for schizophrenics everywhere, who are feared, disliked and maltreated enough without some erroneous idea that they have multiple personalities. What used to be called multiple personality is called Dissociative Identity Disorder, and it is a completely different problem. Also much, much rarer.

Do the world of mental health a favor -- don't think about schizophrenics as people who are sublet into a load of different people who don't agree and argue among themselves a lot. That is not what the "talking to themselves" behavior is about at all, for one thing. A really badly afflicted schizophrenic has all he can do to pull together one integrated personality and live in it with any reliability, so much less than having more than one.

Wow. Second time today I've seen this discussion on an internet forum. Ok so here is my minor input.
Shamalama I like what you say. And I think you had it when you use the example of the adulterous woman. Some of us believe that according to scripture, and the oral traditions of the church if you are an RC like me, that homosexuality is a sin. So was the adultery, and stealing, and murder, and a multitude of other things. As you said, I'm not one to throw the first stone-otherwise I would have to hit myself several times first. Okay, alot of times.
Some do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. What's seems to be the main question that surrounds this issue is what should we, the church, do with people who by our definition continually and fragrantly commit what we believe to be a sin of any sin, and then accuse us Christians of not being loving enough like Jesus to let them get away with anything. The first church council of Nicea address these questions. That had to do with what they should do with people who took an oath to the emperor to stay alive during the early persecutions and then still wanted to be members of the early church when Christianity was not outlawed. They chose to let them back in with conditions-aka sin no more.
Druid I have to agree and disagree with you. Yes the church is a huge buffet now. Shouldn't be but the early church was no picnic despite what the tv preachers say. Read the gospels and you will see that they were fighting among themselves before and after Jesus death and resurrection. And it wasn't the Catholics that ruined everything-I really wish that someone would put up that on mythbusters or snopes. The early church fathers-the ones trained by the disciples themselves. They had very many of what we would call modern Roman Catholic beliefs. Want to know when was the early church really ruined-When the goverment (Constantine) stepped in and made it the religion of the empire. That is why I am, to a degree, for separation of church and state. Also, we RC's believe that the church is slowly working toward perfection and I do mean slowly. We make huge mistakes-sometimes we learn from them, sometimes we don't and really screw things up. The church is not God-unfortuately this is the standard people hold us up too and one image the that the RC church in some times and places has mistakenly tried to put itself off as. We are merely tyring to be as close to him as possible but we are not God.
But back to the original question. Some OT laws are used today and some are not even used among the Jewish people themselves. Besides the Jewish OT is different than the Roman Catholic OT which is different than the Protest OT. How much of the OT should be followed was debated from the beginning of the church and will always be debated. Point is -its hard but not impossible to pull out OT laws that most of us don't even follow literally or even agree on. I think we need to ask ourselves what Jesus and his followers define as sin and were do we draw the line with repeat offenders. What did he do? Forgave and sin no more is what he told the woman. Could a person slowly work on getting rid ofa sin or did it have to be instanteous conversion. I think the scriptual answer about how many times we have to forgive someone answers that. How about the money changers, the thief on the cross? Because were we believe Jesus drew the line is were we should draw it before we lose those things that mark us and identifiy us as Christians.

I meant no disrespect to anyone. But it seems to me that the Christianity of today is largely disassociated from that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles. I mean even the mode of Baptism has been changed by many of the Sects of the Religion. In the Biblical accounts found in the book of Acts it was always done by immersion and in the Name of Jesus Christ, not in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It seems to me that those that came after the first ones that were taught by Jesus have taken liberties and created a NEW religion that has little if anything to do with New Testament Christianity. At least the Modern Druids have the intellectual and spiritual candor to admit that our current form of Druidism is not the original since the D cases lost Druids of old kept no written records, and the oral tradition was distorted and in many ways oerverted by the Christian Romans who invaded. They reduced Druid gods and goddesses and dressed them up as Christian Saints, (Brigid of Kilcardin comes to mind, she was a Druidic Goddess of the hearth, of healing, and of Blacksmiths long before the Romans made her into one of their Saints.

I guess what I am really saying is will the real Bible following Christians stand up since the fakes are giving them a bad reputation!

Quote: I guess what I am really saying is will the real Bible following Christians stand up since the fakes are giving them a bad reputation!

Trying to, its just that there are so many of them!!!