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
Reverend Layman?
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.
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.
Suspended from an un-church? Has Genus (sp) heard of this? A record?
....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
later pingout.
Methodist ping.
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.
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
Another reason why EACH individual church should be locally governed by elders/deacons, as was done in the 1st century.
I would say that Rev. Johnson was within the text of the Book of Discipline to deny membership. The text clearly states that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."
One is not talking about denying attendance, access, prayer, counseling unto salvation, etc. One is talking about denying membership in a denomination that says, "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."
How could the pastor do otherwise?
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Very interesting situation with a lot of insight and knowledge on the thread. Of course, the article isn't totally clear with details - for instance, was the homosexual who was denied membership in the church a repentent, non-practicing homosexual? Or a celebratory, "accept me as I am" homosexual? And he was allowed to come and worship - just no membership.
Seems reasonable to me that one should be denied membership in an official house of worship if one openly violates basic rules of morality and intends to keep doing so. Of course, in this case, we're not sure as those details aren't stated. But one can draw inferences.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Wouldn't it depend on whether the person was openly and notoriously engaging in sinful, i.e., homosexual behavior? The act is sinful, the inclination is not.