Skip to comments.United Methodists Say No to Lutheran Gay Clergy
Posted on 08/27/2009 9:36:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Lutheran ministers who are in same-sex relationships will not be allowed to serve as clergy in United Methodist congregations despite the new full communion agreement between the two denominations.
Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, made clear on Wednesday that UMC's ban on noncelibate gay clergy still stands.
"Our Book of Discipline on that subject did not become null and void when they took that vote," said Palmer, according to the United Methodist News Service. "It still applies to United Methodist clergy."
Palmer was referring to the highly publicized vote last week by the chief legislative body of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to approve a resolution allowing gays and lesbians in "life-long, monogamous, same gender relationships" to be ordained.
The controversial vote took place a day after ELCA delegates overwhelmingly adopted a full communion agreement with The United Methodist Church.
Full communion is not tantamount to a merger, church officials said. Instead, under the pact each church acknowledges the other as a partner in the Christian faith, recognizes the authenticity of each other's baptism and Eucharist, and is committed to working together toward greater unity.
The two denominations also express mutual recognition of ordained ministers for service in either church, according to the agreement. Some UMC leaders have already expressed eagerness to share clergy in underserved areas, as reported by the United Methodist News Service.
Although the agreement recognizes full interchangeability of all ordained ministers, UMC congregations will not be accepting partnered homosexuals from the ELCA.
As Palmer stressed, "the doctrine, polity and standards of ministry of the respective denominations in any full communion agreement are not wiped out when one denomination does something."
Last year, the highest legislative body of The United Methodist Church rejected changes to its constitution and voted to uphold its ban against the ordination of practicing homosexuals. United Methodists continue to hold that homosexual practice is "incompatible with Christian teaching."
Michael Trice, an ecumenical officer of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, noted that if partnered homosexuals in the ELCA want to serve in a United Methodist congregation, The United Methodist Church can say to them "we are sorry but that does not fit our protocols."
"Unity does not require uniformity in all cases," said Trice. "It requires faithfulness to the Gospel, honesty with our Christian partners, and wherever we can share a sense of mission and service in the world."
The agreement with the ELCA is UMC's first full communion relationship outside the Methodist tradition. The ELCA, meanwhile, has full communion pacts with The Episcopal Church, Moravian Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reformed Church in America and the United Church of Christ.
I really, really wish they would drop the word Lutheran from their name. Marty would have a thing or two to say to these heathen...
The good news is that the Universal Church is doing exceptionally well these days, unlike those "denominations" who have drifted off message...
You’d think that would be a good idea that the homosexuals would embrace. Unfortunately, serving God is not the real agenda. Destroying Christianity is.
That’s the best idea yet. But it will never happen. The militant gay community is not interested in serving God. They are interested in absolving themselves from all guilt (falsely!) by trying to force changes in church doctrine to accomodate them. They are concentrating on things of the world, not the Word of God. (IMO, for what little it’s worth).
But apparently it's OK for UMC for celibate gay clergy. What hogwash! UMC left Christ decades ago.
Yep. By their fruits shall ye know them...
When the Methodists start being more conservative than Lutherans, you know that things have hit the theological bottom. I, too, wish that the ELCA would change its name. There is NOTHING Lutheran about the ELCA. The question is whether or not it is still Christian. It is certainly an apostate denomination, but it has been that from its conception. Why in God’s Name would any Christian belong to this heretical church body is the question that each member of the ELCA has to answer for himself.
Nice liberal try. The article's focus is upon pastors, not membership. There's no excuse for allowing gay pastors, celibate or not.
In Romans 1, it is explained that God gives people up to homosexuality as a form of judgment. Church membership implies the individual has come back to God as a sinner (which we all are) and has put their faith in Christ's work, and has repented of their sin. A repentant Christian will no longer identify themselves as a 'gay' or an adulterer or a murderer. To do so it just another liberal method to slither their immorality into the church.
The article focused on the pastor. When it comes to a position of spiritual authority, it's not just a matter of commitment to to their faith, it's a matter of living out their faith - leading by example. The qualifications for a pastor are given twice in scripture. One qualification is that the pastor must be the husband of one wife. Homosexuality doesn't fit the qualifications, period.
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination." Titus 1.
The language of scripture is pretty clear. Frequently ignored, but straight forward.
So you choose a personal experience over scripture. This is the same reasoning that leads to gay pastors.
I'll obey God's word. His commands are clear. Disobeyed, excused, but clear.
"This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." 1 John 5:3.
It seems we have a different interpretation of the verses you quoted.
The word bishop means overseer. Paul was the bishop of many different local churches as they were getting started, and he was NOT married.
II Corinthians 11:28 says, Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
I Corinthians 7:7,8 says, For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
So when comparing Scripture with Scripture, the above verses are not saying that a bishop or pastor HAS to be married, but IF he is married, then those things must be true of him (husband of one wife, children in subjection, etc.). THAT is how I understand these verses.
I Corinthians 7:32-35 says, But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
The context of the passages in Timothy and Titus are clearly about appointing elders and deacons. You can scramble verses all you want, but it doesn't change the meaning of the passages in Timothy and Titus. They were given as clear qualifications.
The passages you chose have nothing to do with the position of being an elder (pastor). Searching for verses to neutralize other scripture is a dangerous game. By the time you are done, nothing means anything, thereby leaving you to play God.
You asked (and it's about the hundredth time in the last few days you've tried this same spiritual fecal ploy): "He is FIGHTING temptation and overcoming it."
Several Freepers have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that your comprehension of Salvation is why you cannot seem to understand the answer that keeps being repeated to you: 'The sinner is fighting temptation' is backwards to what God has promised us through Christ Jesus. You don't seem to like God's plan of Salvation since you appear to believe these 'celibate' homosexuals can fight temptation and lead God's people. As I said the other day, Get thee behind us, Satan.
Your pleading has a sulfurous stench to it, kind of like the method of arguymentative badgering your father used with eve in the Garden.
Nice try yourself. Before you accuse me of neutralizing scripture, be sure you’re not doing it yourself.
There are at least three possible interpretations of the phrase husband of one wife in 1 Timothy 3:2.
1) It could simply be saying that a polygamist is not qualified to be an elder, a deacon or a pastor. This is the most literal interpretation of the phrase, but seems somewhat unlikely considering that polygamy was quite rare in the time that Paul was writing.
2) The phrase could also be translated one-woman man. This would indicate that a bishop must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to. This interpretation focuses more on MORAL PURITY than MARITAL STATUS.
3) The phrase could also be understood to declare that in order to be an elder/deacon/pastor, a man can only have been married once, other than in the case of a remarried widower.
Interpretations 2) and 3) are the most prevalent today. Your insistence that it should be understood as — an unmarried man cannot be a pastor — is in fact extra-ordinary.
Interpretation 2) seems to be the strongest, primarily because Scripture seems to allow for divorce in exceptional circumstances (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:12-16).
It would also be important to differentiate between a man who was divorced and remarried before he became a Christian from a man who was divorced and remarried after becoming a Christian.
An otherwise qualified man should not be excluded from church leadership because of actions he took PRIOR to coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior.
Although 1 Timothy 3:2 does not necessarily exclude a divorced or remarried man from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, there are other issues to consider.
The first qualification of an elder/deacon/pastor is to be above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2).
If the divorce and/or remarriage results in a poor testimony for the man in the church or community, it may be the above reproach qualification that excludes him rather than the husband of one wife requirement. An elder/deacon/pastor is to be a man that the church and community can look up to as an example of Christ-likeness and godly leadership.
If his divorce and/or remarriage situation detracts from this purpose, perhaps he should not serve in the position of elder/deacon/pastor.
Hence, the correct interpretation in my view is this :
Pauls point in 1 Timothy 3:2 is NOT that a man must be married, but that IF HE IS, then he must meet the requirements of this passage
* He must manage his own household well. Literally, the Greek text says, a one woman man, i.e., a man who has eyes only for his own wife. He must be a man who is faithful to his own wife.
* There is no indication that Timothy had a wife, yet he functioned as a pastor in many ways as he was sent to various churches to do the work of a pastor/teacher.
* Paul was not married and, for the sake of ministry, felt that this was an excellent option (cf. His comments in 1 Corinthians 7). He acted as a pastor with the church of Ephesus for several years before he left ( see Acts 20 ).
No less a scholar than A. T. Robertson (friend and co-worker with D.L. Moody) wrote a book entitled : PAUL, THE INTERPRETER OF CHRIST with a whole chapter ( Chapter 11 ) entitled : PAUL AS PASTOR IN EPHESUS.
See here :
See A.T. Robertson’s credentials here :
Apostle Paul was Evangelist, PASTOR, and
Bishop to the church at Ephesus before he left.
Jesus also spoke of those who chose a celibate life for the sake of ministry (Matt. 19:12).
I am not playing God mt friend, I am looking at scripture the way it should be looked at.
Bring your daddy on, servant of slime. I’m pointing out the truth about your methodology and you want to smarm me? Bwahahaha. Don’t like your covers pulled off I see!
You've had numerous Freepers explain the facts of Salvation and what His life in the human spirit means in spiritual warfare, but you keep slithering back to praising the degenerates who are 'fighing temptation and remaining celebate'.
And yes, I will continue to taunt you in your service to your father, the father of lies a murderer from the start, because it is an effective form of ridicule for your sleazy efforts. So, want to try some other threat now, diablo-servant? And I haven't even started using my spiritual weaponry against you!
By the way, deceiver, Eve’s error was to ‘argue’ with the deceiver. You seem rather ‘hellbent’ on getting someone to argue with you, giving you a platform for your master’s deceits. So, I’ll not argue with your servantude, just call you for with whom you wrap yourself.
The poster is seeking to conflate and divert with misdirection, so that his 'argument' may carve out a tiny niche into which the degeneracy may be poured into the Church leadership.
Very simply put, if a sexual degenerate is fighting temptation and continues to self-identify with the degeneracy, that one is not 'in Christ Jesus'.
If this poster has not done so already (he has referred to David, so far, to conflate David/pre-Crucifixion with homosexuals supposedly fighting temptation while leading in tThe Church), the poster is fond of citing prominent televangelists who have 'sccumb to temptation'. Of course, the assumption, once pre-crucifixion David is cited, is that sinning and repenting is all too common a part of the life after Salvation.
The poster hasn't a clue of what 'a new creation' is all about, nor does the poster comprehend the contradiction of a sexual degenrate self-identifying with thier sexula degeneracy after claiming to have been washed in the Blood of Jesus.