A mtee wh the Uned Methodist Church has affirmed a proposal on acceptg LGBT clergy and gay marriage. Ron Cogswell/Flickr Gay clergy and same-sex marriage may be allowed at Uned Methodist Church thanks to a proposal drafted by the Connectnal Table, a rpected ternatnal body of clergy members and lay people the church. On Tuday, the mtee
Contents:
- UNED METHODIST NSERVATIV TAIL BREAKAWAY PLANS OVER GAY CLN
- UNED METHODIST CHURCH MOV TO ALLOW LGBT CLERGY AND GAY MARRIAGE
- UNED METHODIST CHURCH ANNOUNC PROPOSAL TO SPL OVER GAY MARRIAGE
UNED METHODIST NSERVATIV TAIL BREAKAWAY PLANS OVER GAY CLN
Though societal shift has taken place regardg homosexualy specifilly, other sful sexual exprsns are not treated by society general as matters of blogil necsy or human rights (Levic 18:6-23; 19:20-22; 20:10- 21 et. Whether the are socially acceptable or socially abhorrent, no fense based on blogil necsy or jtice is leveraged wh the exceptn of homosexual exprsn (verse 22) which has led to the movement toward legal equaly and social acceptance.
Like all Christian bodi, the Free Methodist Church is prently nonted wh the necsy of rpondg to strong cultural prsur to accept homosexual relatnships, pecially those scribed as “monogamo, venantal partnerships. Send, the Bible’s nsistent negative appraisal of homosexualy is the primary obstacle to the acceptance of homosexualy by the majory of ntemporary Christians and Christian bodi. Moreover, the Bible as nonil Scripture functns as norma normans (normg norm), tablishg the standard for the Church’s life and fah for every generatn throughout history; and th the Bible’s nonil role requir also to asss how the biblil junctns and perspectiv n, om the perspective of the biblil wns s entirety, be legimately applied to the issue of mted, monogamo homosexual relatnships/partnerships our own day.
Throughout the history of the Church, and large measure even to the prent time, a broad nsens has existed around the terpretatn of biblil passag alg wh homosexualy. In the past several years scholarly treatments on the issue of homosexualy and on the biblil passag related to have multiplied exponentially; a vast lerature has emerged. The specific behavrs sandwiched between this amg clu ct (18:6-18), terurse durg menstatn (18:19), adultery (18:20), votn of children to Molech (18:21), homosexual terurse (18:22), and btialy (18:23).
UNED METHODIST CHURCH MOV TO ALLOW LGBT CLERGY AND GAY MARRIAGE
Some scholars have argued that bee the prohibn regardg homosexualy immediately after the warng not to participate the Molech cult we are to unrstand the real issue the homosexual prohibn to be idolatry and not sexual immoraly;17 and, ed, the Old Ttament do otherwise prohib male cult prostutn. This discsn of the relatnship between the prohibn of homosexual nduct and idolatry rais the issue of the motive, or reason, behd the prohibn of homosexualy. G., menstal blood or excrement ( the se of anal peratn homosexual terurse), th renrg the issue one of rual or cultic pury;21 the ference here is that the prohibns are no longer applible for Christians who follow J and Pl22 their rejectn of the ntug relevance of pury laws.
The ncln that bt fs the data is the one put forward by the noted anthropologist Mary Douglas, and adopted by several biblil scholars, viz., that the issue behd all the prohibns, cludg homosexualy, is the transgrsn of dively tablished boundari which rrpond to the natural world and/or support social stabily, particularly healthy fay stctur. Homosexual relatns between nsentg adults of equal social standg were accepted by Israel’s neighbors wh the Ancient Near East; social stigmatizatn and legal sanctns were imposed only s volvg pulsn, pecially between persons of power and those of lower social standg (such as between adults and adolcents).
Most of the ancient near East adopted an attu to homosexualy very siar to that of classil Greece and Rome which simply accepted as long as was done among nsentg adults. He go on to support the claim of dive wrath by his threefold sistence that “God gave them up, ” firstly to the lts of their hearts and the gradg of their bodi (1:24), to which he offers no specifics; sendly to “gradg passns” (1:26), offerg the specific example of homosexualy; and thirdly to “a based md and thgs that should not be done” (1:28), to which he provis the specifics of an extend vice list. Th, Pl do not scribe homosexualy here bee is the most egreg of all ss but rather bee s mentn ntribut to his argument that Gentil have liberately turned their back upon the revelatn of God ma manift creatn.
UNED METHODIST CHURCH ANNOUNC PROPOSAL TO SPL OVER GAY MARRIAGE
Pl choos to foc on homosexualy this passage also bee such behavr exprs particularly well the sence of idolatry, viz., the rejectn of the God who reveals God’s self precisely through creatn. It is important to regnize that Pl is scribg the wrath of God upon the world, and pecially the Gentile world, as a whole, and is not suggtg that those who practice homosexualy are themselv, as dividuals, more ignorant, more guilty, or servg of greater judgment than is the se wh other Gentil.
Although some have recently argued that this phrase refers to “nstutnal heterosexuals” who ny their own heterosexual nature when they engage homosexual acts that are unnatural to them, 37 this exprsn was typilly ed by those Greek philosophers (pecially Stoics) who opposed homosexualy to scribe homosexual behavr s ntradictn to physil nature.