In an online community a discussion of homosexuality led to a number of exchanges. One man wrote, “God tells us not to do a lot of things in the Bible, including not eating pork, not eating cheese and meat at the same meal, not eating certain types of fish, or shell fish. If a person does any of these, they are an abomination, you know the same as homosexual. I don’t agree that Jesus was homosexual, or Mary and Martha.”
My response was; “The food bans were specifically addressed through Christ’s own words (regarding not what goes into one’s mouth as defiling one but what comes forth from it)..as well as by Peter’s vision of the sheet with all the animals in it and how that was applied by apostles to Jesus teaching for evangelizing Gentiles….just as circumcision was deleted as a condition of identification with following Jesus (who was a circumcised Jewish rabbi, BTW). And discontinuation of animal sacrifices by followers of Christ because of its irrelevance as a means of atonement after Christ’s own sacrifice as “fulfillment” of that law. When NT doctrine is rooted in such direct parallels that represent the “fulfillment of the law” in Christ, releasing Christians from certain OT restrictions there is a clear case for the reason for the contrast between OT and NT practices. These are not contradictions but doctrines that flow from one toward the other logically and demonstrably. There is no such demonstrable flow from restrictions in OT against such restrictions of sexual practices to approval of them in the NT. To use one type of OT-> NT change as an example to excuse or justify another type entirely that lacks comparable flow from one toward the other seems beyond logic to me and appears to be an attempt to use what’s NOT there in NT in terms of “fulfilled” or permitted change in practice or rules to extrapolate approval without cause instead of acknowledging what clearly IS there that sustains prohibitions.”
Another wrote, ” I have heard everything from Jesus and John the Beloved were gay lovers, to Paul and Timothy were, or David and Jonathan were. These people aren’t worth their salt in biblical interpretation. The Jewish people abhorred sexual immorality including homoerotic desire and behavior. One only needs to look to the two Levitical prohibitions of homosexuality both of which were punishable by death. Although the NT proscribed “throwing someone out of the church” for egregious sexual sins as homosexuality, it did not call for the death of homosexuals, thankfully. Nevertheless, if we look to Jesus’ understood acceptance of the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, then we can infer that Jesus was against the sin of homosexuality. Also, reading Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7 makes clear that those who insist to continue homosexual practice will not be justified. John Wesley would have certainly concurred. This is not Christianity nor is it Wesleyan. There are all sorts of “professional” and “highly educated” people who will claim homosexuality or homosexual marriage is Christian, but it’s not since it is impossible to get around the OT and NT prohibitions against both homoerotic desire and behavior. Hope this helps.”
Some urged not using an heretical sermon to smear the whole UMC.
My observation was this:
” I learned years ago when it comes to liability issues, if you have a policy intended to establish practices to which your organization does not adhere, it is worse than having no policy at all in place. The entire UMC is culpable in such issues as are reported to occur in pulpits under its authority. The Book of Discipline in The UMC has been deemed all but useless for holding anyone accountable for anything as it has been so sorely abused and disregarded over the last 3 or so decades. While it still represents valuable guidance for a church’s polity based on biblical doctrine, in its still-current iteration, it demands voluntary compliance or enforceable discipline, both of which have been as abused as scripture itself by all kinds of people/ groups. This is why so many have come to the conclusion it is time to “come out from among them,” i.e., The UMC. My church congregation’s leadership has sought to honor obedience to the spirit and letter of sound polity and doctrine, but many within our congregation have had to conscientiously object to what we have perceived as abuses and neglect of duty by higher ecclesial leadership by declining to pay certain financial aspects of UMC apportionments that support groups, agencies, and activities that they believe violate the spirit and letter of polity, doctrine, and scripture. It’s getting harder and harder to sit on hands and not take action, but here, on hands, too many sit. Social Principles were not intended to undermine and gut the Discipline of its accountability and enforcement authority, yet it seems it has. Out of personal conscience and respect for my now-deceased husband’s preference and direction, it seems this may have to be my last year attending our UMC home congregation of 27 years, if there is no progress toward resolution of the impasse. It seems that many are expressing the position of Jerry Clowers’ narrative tale of “Marcel Ledbetter” trapped in a tree with a wildcat….”Just shoot up here amongst us.. One of us has got to have relief.”
It seems someone is going to have to live with a permanent limp to break the wrestling hold The UMC seems determined to maintain. I feel badly for people facing potential loss of retirement security, economic hardship, etc. I suggest,however, the UMC as it stands today has little real concern for those that do not conform to the political agenda of its bureaucracy. Many people have faced wreck and ruin for the cause of faithfulness to Christ throughout history and others have stepped out in faith trusting God and His people and found that God made a way where there seemed to be no way.
I’ll always be inclined toward Wesleyan Methodism in my personal theology and faith practice, but I’m actively watching for a soft landing beyond the clutches of The UMC, as I believe it has altogether chosen a path I cannot follow.”
Responding to inferences that David and Jonathan were lovers, I responded:
“People who equate spiritual and emotional intimacy between people with mandatory sexual conduct reveal the inadequacy and immaturity of their spiritual and emotional lives and their preoccupation with “love” being defined primarily in terms of sexual behavior. Spiritual and emotional intimacy is a more fulfilling, lasting, and mutually honoring kind of love that includes shared honoring of the Divine who is a part of the communion in such relationships, as well. It has nothing to do with sexual activity. Such a primarily sexual take on “brotherhood”, loyalty, companionship among childhood friends who grow up together, shared values and experiences that can exist separate from sex is a small minded view of “love.” Such a view of David and Jonathan is effectively an excuse for one’s own desires and behavior and as I heard recently, “An excuse is just a reason stuffed with a lie.”