Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Methodist Bishop Kammerer Suspends Clergy for Moral Offense of Refusing Membership to Homosexual
South Hill Enterprise (Virginia) ^ | late June 2005 | Mike Bollinger

Posted on 07/01/2005 12:13:05 PM PDT by mbarker12474

Local minister placed on involuntary leave

Refusal to admit homosexual as member an issue

By Mike Bollinger

Staff Writer

SOUTH HILL - A controversial national issue has made its presence felt in the local area as a South Hill minister has been placed on "involuntary leave of absence" after refusing to admit a homosexual member to his church.

The Rev. Edward Johnson of South Hill United Methodist Church has been placed on a one-year, unpaid leave, according to the Rev. W. Anthony Layman, district superintendent for the Petersburg District of the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church.

"The pastor has been placed on an involuntary leave of absence by the board of ordained ministry after a vote in executive session," Layman said Monday.

A congregation member said Monday that Layman along with Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer visited South Hill Methodist Sunday and explained the situation to the congregation.

Layman would make no comment Monday other than to say Johnson has been placed on leave. Associate Pastor Lee Warren also declined to comment further Monday. No church officials would speak on the record about why Johnson was placed on leave.

Gary Creamer, a member of South Hill UMC, said Monday that the sexual preference of the prospective member was the reason for Johnson's being placed on leave. Creamer said he echoed the opinion of many other members concerning Johnson.

"I feel Rev. Johnson was holding to Biblical principle in denying membership to that individual," Creamer said. "I feel extremely sad and grieved. I feel a terrible injustice was done."

Creamer said he has not yet decided whether he will continue to attend the church.

"I haven't made up my mind whether to leave or to stay and be a part of the loyal opposition," he said.

The decision to place Johnson on leave was made, Creamer believes, without taking into account the feelings of the local congregation. Church members were "completely excluded" from the process, he said.

"I just feel like the congregation as a whole was ignored," he said. "I don't think anyone had any idea of the gravity of what was going on."

Creamer said he did not believe the church would react in such a harsh way in response to Johnson's actions.

Reached for comment Monday, Kammerer would not comment on the details of Johnson's leave. To do so, she said, would violate his confidentiality.

She said the United Methodist Church is guided by the Book of Discipline, which is reviewed globally by elected delegates every four years. Any portion of that book may be amended during these reviews, she said.

Over the last 30 years, the United Methodist Church has consistently maintained the prohibition of ordination of gay clergy, Kammerer said. However, that prohibition does not apply to church membership.

"In regard to membership in the United Methodist Church of laypersons, homosexuality has not been prohibited as a reason for not accepting someone," she said.

Kammerer said if Johnson meets terms provided for him while on leave, he would be reinstated as a United Methodist minister in good standing. In all probability, he would be reassigned to another church, she said.

"He would be eligible for reappointment, regardless of where it is," she said.

Layman will meet with the staff-parish committee, the local church personnel committee, this week and begin work on providing an interim pastor for South Hill UMC, Kammerer said.

"He will tell them who that person is and why they are a good match. The committee commented that an interim pastor would be a good request, and we will work toward that," she said.

Clergy matters are not subject to input from local congregations, according to Kammerer. She said they are handled in executive session by the board of ordained ministers, as was done in this case.

"He is accountable to the annual conference as a clergy member. He is not subject to any one local church," she said.

The process has been ongoing for approximately four months, Kammerer said.

"As Rev. Johnson's bishop, I wish he and his family well and pray for healing in the life of the congregation in South Hill," she said.

Creamer said the individual in question had been worshipping at the church for some time and was singing in the choir.

"This person was never discouraged from coming to church. That would be un-Christian. However, actual membership would be another story," he said.

The congregation, Creamer said, found about the decision late last week. The decision was made by a vote taken at the Virginia Annual Conference in Hampton last week, he added.

The Rev. Johnson and the person who sought admission to the church, along with Denny Hardee, the chairman of the church's staff-parish committee, and several other church members were all contacted in connection with this story. All chose not to comment.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: bishopcharlene; christiannomore; clergysuspended; culturewars; homosexualagenda; kammerer; methodist; morals; pastor; religiousleft; southhill; umc; unitedmethodist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Methodist clergy go through the annual ritual of having their character examined for moral goodness. It is rare that a pastor is accused of serious character flaws, but it apparantly happend at the secret session of clergy at the Virginia Conference meeting on 13 June, in Hampton Va.

The elitist oligarchy at Va Conf UMC headquarters in Richmond refuses to announce or explain the matter, even to laity in churches in Virginia. Local pastors are also silent.

Homosexuality per se is of course at issue, but the primary issue is that of the local pastor's allegedly serious moral transgression of refusing membership to a homosexual. Plus:

-- local control over membership -- local control over their pastor -- bishop power & clergy voting power re character test -- Biblical, Christian stance on homosexuality as a sin (or not) -- what sins (and unrepentance) disqualify persons from acceptance at church? membership in church? -- UMC governing law (the _Discipline_) and what it does or does not say about clergy power over membership, etc.

Mike Barker Lay Member, Trinity UMC King George Va

1 posted on 07/01/2005 12:13:07 PM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Reverend Layman?


2 posted on 07/01/2005 12:19:00 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

This is getting ridiculous. Just a few hours ago I was reading that a lesbian couple was suing an inn in VT over a phone discussion of wedding plans in which the innkeepers expressed reluctance, short of refusal.
When does the backlash begin? They are like wild dogs tearing our nation to shreds.


3 posted on 07/01/2005 12:19:25 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Let him join.

Then make sure every sermon mentions the error of putting out own desires ahead of God's law.

Be specific with examples.

He'll either leave or repent.

But now I guess the adulturers and fornicators know a place where the clergy would be afraid to challenge their behaviors.


4 posted on 07/01/2005 12:20:01 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Suspended from an un-church? Has Genus (sp) heard of this? A record?


5 posted on 07/01/2005 12:28:09 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter
Yup! Up is Down, Down is Up, Cold is Hot, Hot is Cold, Right is Wrong Wrong is Right, and we are supposed to just sit back and accept that premise. No I !!
6 posted on 07/01/2005 12:28:30 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Did someone add them to the Endangered Species Protection Act while I was snoozing? Why are homosexuals so all-fired sacred these days? Somebody tell me.


7 posted on 07/01/2005 12:32:04 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Reverend Layman?

Creamer? Johnson?

I do declare, I'm gettin the vapors.

8 posted on 07/01/2005 12:42:04 PM PDT by anonymous_user (You gotta be passionate about something. I guess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
the fact that the person that was refused as a member JUST because he was a homosexual is like refusing membership to another because of adultry....

....as long as that person isn't a practicing homosexual or a practicing adulterer ..... and is REPENTANT .... then they should be admited as members.

Active homosexuals and active adulterers should not be admitted as members

9 posted on 07/01/2005 12:43:40 PM PDT by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

I'm a Methodist, and I have to agree with the Church on this one.

What if this were an adulterer or fornicator? Would they be refused membership? My church has them in the congregation.

I recall a sermon by one of our pastors; he was stating that someone once scoffed at attending our church because we were all sinners. The pastor's reply was "Sure we are! Our church is filled with sinners and there is always room for one more!"

We are all sinners. I sure am. I have no right to enter heaven for the sins I have committed, and trust, I have committed some bad ones. If I go to heaven, it is only by the grace of God. God calls us to recognize our sin and repent.

I agree with your suggestion. Either this person will recognize their sinful nature and repent, as God calls them to do, or they will not. I think the pastor was wrong for refusing this person's chance to repent of their sin. If we start refusing sinners to attend church, it will be a lonely and empty building.


10 posted on 07/01/2005 12:43:43 PM PDT by henkster (When democrats talk of "the rich," they are referring to anyone with a private sector job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter
Many wealthy organization and philanthropists who themselves are lefties, pouring money into the cause. And too many elected officials and Judges got themselves into public life FOR this specific cause. That's why. They buy whatever legislation they want, and call any dissenting opinion hate.
11 posted on 07/01/2005 12:44:19 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: henkster
If a sinner is repentant, absolutely they should be accepted. Was this woman repentant?
12 posted on 07/01/2005 12:46:28 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

later pingout.


13 posted on 07/01/2005 12:50:16 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
Doubtful. But the unrepentant is now the "victim." On other words, right is wrong, and wrong is declared right.

Clearly, the persecution of those who adhere to Truth is well underway here in this country.

14 posted on 07/01/2005 12:53:45 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: henkster
If we start refusing sinners to attend church, it will be a lonely and empty building.

Which will be the more lonely and empty building?

1. A church that refuses sinners?

Or

2. A church that accepts sinners who declare their sin is not a sin and they must be accepted, celebrated and their unions blessed in Holy matrimony?

15 posted on 07/01/2005 12:58:31 PM PDT by N. Theknow (If Social Security is so good - why aren't members of Congress in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: henkster; Lester Moore; scripter; little jeremiah; Clint N. Suhks
If we start refusing sinners to attend church, it will be a lonely and empty building.

But they weren't refusing him attendance, were they?

No, they just denied him membership, which implies acceptance.

So, these adulterers who attend your church, do the proudly proclaim themselves as adulterers and inform you that you must change your attitudes about their behavior or it proves that you are not a loving Christian? Do they attend with their mistresses? Are you certain that comparing them to the open (and often in-your-face) homosexual is a valid comparison considering the disparity in their public behaviors?

I mentioned adulterers in my first post because folks always raise that question in defense of the open homosexuals. Actually, the adulterers and the fornicators are counting on the church's silence in regards to the homosexuals. They know if the church loses its ability to stand against that behavior, how can it stand against any other sexual sin?

God and Satan are both watching these developments. I believe that Satan is pleased by these developments and that God is not.

16 posted on 07/01/2005 12:58:31 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Good question. I don't know.

I'm struggling with that. We must minister to the sinners, but cannot condone their sins. How can we turn away sinners who come to us? I've committed sins since joining my church. Should I be forced out? I'm pretty sure some of the people in church with me have done the same. And it should come as no surprise to anyone that this happens.

Where I would draw the line is if this person stated their open homosexuality, expressed an intent to continue as a practicing homosexual, and denied that it was a sin. Then I would deny membership. I've seen many new members admitted and I have to confess I kind of zone out when the pastor goes through the oath of membership. But I believe one of the lines is "Do you truly repent of your sins..." or something like that. An expressed intent to continue with homosexual practices is a violation of the oath even as it's being given.

I would still encourage attendance for this person. Can't give up on saving someone.


17 posted on 07/01/2005 12:59:00 PM PDT by henkster (When democrats talk of "the rich," they are referring to anyone with a private sector job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Methodist ping.


18 posted on 07/01/2005 12:59:03 PM PDT by The Grammarian (Postmillenialist Methodist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

The main question in this case isn't whether homosexuals should be allowed membership. The question is whether a local clergy who refuses membership to a homosexual should be removed from his job, on the grounds that this refusal is seriously immoral and unChristian.

Mike B.


19 posted on 07/01/2005 12:59:49 PM PDT by mbarker12474 (United Methodist Church: Empty Your Wallets. Empty Your Minds. Last One Out Close the Doors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Homosexuality is by definition a sinful act.If you identify yourself as a homosexual you are saying you are sinning and have not repented.The Church has an obligation not to fellowship with them but to minister to them.


20 posted on 07/01/2005 1:00:45 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
Isaiah 5:20-21
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!
21 posted on 07/01/2005 1:02:38 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Blessed

Good post! And right on target!


22 posted on 07/01/2005 1:03:16 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

Wondering why the queers don't go off and start thier own church and do what they want to in it.

Sorry I said queer I mean't ass bandits or muff divers which ever is your cup of tea>


23 posted on 07/01/2005 1:03:16 PM PDT by MudSlide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

AMEN!!!!!!


24 posted on 07/01/2005 1:04:15 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: henkster
Where I would draw the line is if this person stated their open homosexuality...

Pending any evidence to the contrary, this is most likely how the minister discovered the problem in the first place.

25 posted on 07/01/2005 1:04:38 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Perhaps the question is "Should the church government ignore the wishes of the congregation?". I believe that came up in the case of the lesbian pastorette.


26 posted on 07/01/2005 1:05:32 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Read reply to gidget7. No, I don't condone homosexuality and recognize it is a sin. I believe the church cannot accept the practice of homosexuality without condoning sin, just as the church cannot condone adultery. And does not. But I also believe Christ commands us to minister to homosexuals and attempt to get them to recognize their sin. Come on down, sinner! As you suggested, let's remind them of it every time they sit in church. Heck, I get reminded of my sins every week and I still show up.


27 posted on 07/01/2005 1:05:33 PM PDT by henkster (When democrats talk of "the rich," they are referring to anyone with a private sector job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MudSlide
Wondering why the queers don't go off and start thier own church and do what they want to in it.

Because their primary goal is the destruction of what others have built, not to build something of their own.

Otherwise, why would they chose this course of action?

28 posted on 07/01/2005 1:06:02 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
>Reached for comment Monday, Kammerer would not comment on the details of Johnson's leave. To do so, (she) said, would violate his confidentiality<

Here is the root of the problem.Why would you expect a Biblical stand from a Bishop that is not Biblically qualified?
29 posted on 07/01/2005 1:06:07 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Is it any wonder that I just realized that this isn't much of a holiday for me this year? It's been becoming less and less of one, but it's over, for now. I can't celebrate this country of perverts and degenerates. Thank God for you good people, but I'm pooped. I've had it. I can't take any more of this garbage.


30 posted on 07/01/2005 1:06:53 PM PDT by johnb838 (Adios, liberal mofos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blessed

That begs the question about whether couples living together should be allowed to join the church. We have a lay leader that is living in sin and leading services at our Methodist church (with great Unitarian flair).


31 posted on 07/01/2005 1:07:16 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Again, the question was not about whether to minister to homosexuals, but to accept them fully as members. That would make ministering to their sins rather difficult, you know.


32 posted on 07/01/2005 1:07:28 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: henkster
You are absolutely right!! Bus adulterers are we all know, do not go to church and say I am an adulterer and you have to accept me as a member, and not consider me a sinner. Likewise an unwed pregnant woman or unwed mother.
33 posted on 07/01/2005 1:08:52 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

A church is not a democracy, it, and it's leaders are there to preach the gospel, not take a vote on it's content.


34 posted on 07/01/2005 1:10:29 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

>That begs the question about whether couples living together should be allowed to join the church. <

Their is no question to beg.They should not be in leadership or any position that would lead anyone to think the church condones this.


35 posted on 07/01/2005 1:11:04 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

It probably was how the minister found out. The prospective member stated they were homosexual. Now, where the conversation went from there is something we are all speculating.

If the person confessed homosexuality as a sin in this disclosure, then I believe it was wrong to deny membership.

If they informed the minister as an "in your face, you must accept me as a homosexual because I see nothing wrong with it" then I support denial of membership. No different than someone wanting to join the church, but insisting they were going to home to worship Satan after service Sunday and found nothing wrong with it.


36 posted on 07/01/2005 1:11:36 PM PDT by henkster (When democrats talk of "the rich," they are referring to anyone with a private sector job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: johnb838

Please don't feel that way. You must remember, we are celebrating the Country our founding fathers built, NOT the one these perverts would have it be. If everyone gives up, our nation will be lost, and all that those who died to preserve it will be for naught!


37 posted on 07/01/2005 1:13:14 PM PDT by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: henkster

>If the person confessed homosexuality as a sin in this disclosure, then I believe it was wrong to deny membership.<

You would have to be pretty much clueless to assume that is what happened in this case.


38 posted on 07/01/2005 1:13:57 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: henkster; xzins
I'm a Methodist, and I have to agree with the Church on this one.

I'm also a Methodist, and I disagree with the UMC on this one, on principle. I do think the bishop has a point that the Book of Discipline does not prohibit homosexual membership, however, and thus I think the UMC was within its rights.

What if this were an adulterer or fornicator? Would they be refused membership? My church has them in the congregation.

They should be. This is a major problem in the modern universal Church--allowing unrepentant sinners (note: UNREPENTANT) to become members of the church, and not disciplining members who fall into sin.

I recall a sermon by one of our pastors; he was stating that someone once scoffed at attending our church because we were all sinners. The pastor's reply was "Sure we are! Our church is filled with sinners and there is always room for one more!"

There is a major difference between the principle that "Every man has sinned," and "Every man is an unrepentant sinner."

We are all sinners. I sure am. I have no right to enter heaven for the sins I have committed, and trust, I have committed some bad ones. If I go to heaven, it is only by the grace of God. God calls us to recognize our sin and repent.

Exactly my point. God calls us to repent; and in fact, having gone through a change-of-congregation membership ritual within the past two years, I know that part of the vows taken to become a member in the UMC include the vow that you repent of your sins and renounce the forces of spiritual darkness. An unrepentant sinner should not be granted membership, whether that sin is practicing homosexuality or heterosexual adultery or anything else. Given the political nature of homosexuality, I would be loathe to even consider putting a practicing homosexual through the membership ritual without some assurance that he understands that homosexuality is NOT acceptable behavior for a member of the church.

I agree with your suggestion. Either this person will recognize their sinful nature and repent, as God calls them to do, or they will not. I think the pastor was wrong for refusing this person's chance to repent of their sin. If we start refusing sinners to attend church, it will be a lonely and empty building.

The problem is not that the practicing homosexual was not permitted to ATTEND church, neither is the issue that he was refused the chance to repent; it is that he was denied MEMBERSHIP in said congregation.

39 posted on 07/01/2005 1:20:30 PM PDT by The Grammarian (Postmillenialist Methodist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
She said the United Methodist Church is guided by the Book of Discipline

Here's the problem - they're following the wrong book.

Christians should vote with their feet - i.e., LEAVE & find a church that makes God's Word final authority.

40 posted on 07/01/2005 1:24:19 PM PDT by JesusIsLord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blessed

I'm not willing to assume anything. You appear ready to jump to a conclusion. Do you KNOW how this came to light? Do you know this person did not confess their homosexuality as a sin? I attended a Methodist church in another location where I felt that the congregation had a very "holier than thou" attitude. (That was where the minister made his "we're all sinners" sermon. He wasn't popular with his flock). I left for several reasons, but one was that I saw people who sinned, confessed it, and repented. And were still ostracized by the congregation. There are unfortunately Christian congregations who profess the faith greatly, but practice it little.

I've stated my position given the possible alternatives here, and stand by it.


41 posted on 07/01/2005 1:24:50 PM PDT by henkster (When democrats talk of "the rich," they are referring to anyone with a private sector job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: henkster
If the person confessed homosexuality as a sin in this disclosure, then I believe it was wrong to deny membership.

Unforunately, using the term "confessed" is problematic here as that usually implies some level of repentance. If the person admitted or proclaimed it, denying membership would have been the only correct option.

42 posted on 07/01/2005 1:39:32 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: henkster

> Do you know this person did not confess their homosexuality as a sin?<

Based on this quote it is obvious they allowed him to come to Church.The man was said to be a homosexual not a former homosexual.If he was repentent and renouncing homosexuality why didn't the so called Bishop acknowledge that? Why did he choose to injure the church body if he was a Christian(required for membership in all Christian churches I know of)?

Your take on this requires a suspension of reason and placing your faith in the statements of a church hierarchy clearly in rebellion against the word of God.

Creamer said the individual in question had been worshipping at the church for some time and was singing in the choir.


43 posted on 07/01/2005 1:39:42 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Blessed

Memo to self:proofreading is your friend.The quote I refered to in the previous post was pasted out of context.


44 posted on 07/01/2005 1:41:58 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

I used to be a Methodist, then I started doing some investigating. The Board of Church and Society is a group of Marxists, the Council of Bishops is not much better. They(United Methodists) are contributing members of the Mational Council of Churches, and the World Council of Churches. Both organizations have very deep Comnmunist/ Marxist ties. Check out discoverthenetwork.org to learn about NCC and WCC. here is a link to the board of church and society:http://archives.umc.org/frames.asp?url=http%3A//www.umc-gbcs.org


45 posted on 07/01/2005 1:43:50 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: antisocial; xzins
I used to be a Methodist, then I started doing some investigating. The Board of Church and Society is a group of Marxists, the Council of Bishops is not much better. They(United Methodists) are contributing members of the Mational Council of Churches, and the World Council of Churches. Both organizations have very deep Comnmunist/ Marxist ties. Check out discoverthenetwork.org to learn about NCC and WCC. here is a link to the board of church and society:http://archives.umc.org/frames.asp?url=http%3A//www.umc-gbcs.org

I am aware of this. However, you have some misconceptions about how the UMC is run. First off, the Board of Church and Society has long been a semi-independent group within the UMC--it has its own endowment, which prevents its checking by the other bodies within the church. Second, yes, the UMC is a member of both the NCC and WCC. This does not reflect individual congregations of any given conference. The theological conservatism and Biblical adherence of any given portion of the UMC is determined roughly by region. The Southern conferences tend to be very conservative, as are the two Indiana conferences and some of the other Midwestern conferences. The left coast and the Northeast both tend to be extremely liberal, theologically.

Also note that there are large revivalist movements within the UMC, notably the Good News Movement and the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church.

46 posted on 07/01/2005 1:55:40 PM PDT by The Grammarian (Postmillenialist Methodist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: henkster
I'm a Methodist, and I have to agree with the Church on this one....What if this were an adulterer or fornicator? Would they be refused membership? My church has them in the congregation.

I have to agree with the Bible on this one.

I Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

The Scripture is clear: Those who call themselves Christian "brothers", yet persist in open, notorious sin, are to be expelled from the church, and indeed to be socially shunned as well ("do not eat" with them).

The moment they give up their sin, they are welcome to return. Otherwise, not.

47 posted on 07/01/2005 1:56:55 PM PDT by Rytwyng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

They did not say he cant come to church just cant be a member

Chronic sinners who refuse to repent are to be shunned by the church.

In fact the bible is pretty straight forward on how to deal
with members who refuse to repent and choose to live in habitual sin...

They are to be cast out...and to be denied fellowship with the believers..they are to be BARRED from the church..

The truth is..once this sinner has heard the word and refuses to repent and insists his sin is not only OK but
insists on his own way...

He is to be banned from that church until the time of his
sincere repentance...and then he 'may' be restored to
the church..

The Bishop who went after the minister who was doing God's will in the matter is wrong...and evil..and should also
be barred from worship let alone holding a position of authority...this church is apostate

All the believers should either throw the bad guys out or if this is not possible ...leave taking all their support with them

imo


48 posted on 07/01/2005 2:01:22 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Just trying to get in touch with my inner tagline..got feelers out but not much luck so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

Do you mean to say that each individual church can decide whether it will provide money to NCC and WCC? My understanding is that each conference is required to give a % of the collections of each of the churches in it's region
that is designated for NCC and WCC as well as other projects.


49 posted on 07/01/2005 2:10:17 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson