United Methodists Engage in Transgender Talks

Matt »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

Our Friend Quecat makes a list: "another excluded group - hmmm...
unrepentant adulterers
unrepentant liars
unrepentant thieves
unrepentant idolators [sic]
unrepentant gluttons
shall I continue?"

Sure. How about I list the sins on your list that I haven't seen in an active clergy person. I'll limit myself to the past five years.

...

There, all done.

(Gluttons? Seriously? Have you never stepped into a church or something?) If we were to go back oh, say 60 years, we could probably add African Americans, women, and a host of other formerly excluded groups.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that you're set on this path. Good luck with it. I DO wish you'd have at least attempted to listen instead of just reciting your (false) gotchas again. That gets tired really fast.

For what it's worth, I don't think the UMC is going to change their bigoted policy this year. Hopefully by mid-2012 we'll be able to honestly say that we have "open hearts, open minds, open doors".

Also for what it's worth, I agree that 1 Corinthians 15:33-34 is wonderfully apt this week.

United Methodists Engage in Transgender Talks

Matt »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:35 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

Quecat said: "Are you implying that habitual and unrepentant sin is somehow the same?"

No, I'm pretty clearly not. Setting aside for a moment the fact that homosexuality isn't a sin (Read the first paragraph of my first post. Thanks.), we've decided that most OT sins aren't relevant anymore; to use your vernacular, they're "under the blood of Jesus". Yet for some reason, we have decided that homosexuality should exclude people from ordination, even though it (by that rationale) should also be "under the blood of Jesus". (I'm having trouble coming up with another excluded group. Can you think of one?)

Also, being a woman isn't a sin, but it was ordered in the NT that they should not hold positions of authority in the church. Years ago the UMC decided that that rule wasn't relevant to the church of the 20th century. There is no such exclusion in the OT or NT against homosexuals being ordained.

Quecat also said: "Or is it merely bigoted to point out that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE."

No, it's bigoted to think that, because of this one aspect of one's character, they're less than you. It's pretty textbook bigotry, and it needs to be stamped out.

United Methodists Engage in Transgender Talks

Matt »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:44 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

Straightstreet said, "Homosexual and Christian are complete OPPOSITES. HELLO!"

No they aren't. I think the word you're looking for is 'incompatible', but even then you're wrong. Look at the original text in the original language. It doesn't say what we've been told it says. For more information on that, head to whosoever.org.

That aside, I've been fortunate to know many ministers in the UMC. I know ministers who are convicted felons. I know ministers who are divorced. I know ministers who had affairs while serving a local congregation, divorced their wives, then married their mistresses. I know ministers who are women, and women who are also divorced. I know ministers who are estranged from their parents. I know ministers who have tattoos, who enjoy eating at Red Lobster, and who wear polyester vestments when they preach the Word of God.

The UMC (including me) has no problem with any of these, even though each should be prohibited by the UMC's rationale against gay clergy.

It's time for this policy, this bigoted policy, to be removed and for the UMC to finally become whole.