United Methodist Church may face moment of truth with homosexuality

Funeral for a friend just says no to Elders

World is poorer, but heaven's now Rich-er

The Fellow, The Man, and Fellow Man

Why should the devil have all the good music?

Visions: Miracles, or spiritual mirages?

Flash! The world has notbeen won to Christ

How long will be too long for America?

Responses To 'Chameleon Church' Column

The following is a sample of  responses e-mailed to PastorBuzz@nxs.net, and a few of my replies, concerning the April 24, 2004, column published in The Maryville (TN) Daily Times asking "Is The United Methodist Church In Danger Of Becoming A 'Chameleon Church?" I have chosen to use the first names, initials, or other identification since some may have not intended their responses to be made public.

Dear Pastor Buzz,

Thanks so much for taking the time to write the article in The Times this morning. I thought you did a great job of laying out the issue.

I  am a conservative Presbyterian/Baptist, who pondered considerably on how the Methodist Conference came to the conclusion they did regarding the ordination of homosexuals. I thought you article was terrific.

Debbie

I have just read your article in the Maryville Times. Your logic is sound and refreshing. I have already left the UMC. I spent 18 years making compromises and finally my family and I had to flee. May God bless and keep you and give you wisdom.

Jerry

Dear Pastor Trexler,

I just want to say I really enjoyed the newspaper column on Saturday, and just want to encourage you to continue standing on the Word of God. Paul says in Romans to be not conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. I believe every word of God is true. I believe that everyone can renew their mind "if" they want to. I know you know that. (smile).

Anyway I just wanted to let you know you are not alone, others feel the same in regard to God's Word.

Your Sister in Christ,

Pastor Paulette

Hi, Buzz.

Thanks for sending this. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this issue, and I'm still confused about it.

The points you make in your editorial are valid. It is imperative that our lives and teaching are faithful to scripture. However, I'm really torn about this issue. I know people who are homosexual and are devout Christians. They are in monogamous, long-term relationships. One of the women I believe was born homosexual. The other was sexually abused by her father and grandfather from the time she was a toddler, and I believe (though she does not acknowledge it) that is why she is homosexual. 

I know the UMC welcomes homosexuals into fellowship. I'm glad of that. I'm not sure about whether we should ban them from ministry. I believe all clergy should be held to standards of purity and holiness. I'm not sure I can say that a homosexual in a monogamous, long-term relationship could not be considered as pure and holy as a heterosexual. We know that heterosexual clergy also are vulnerable and fallible. All humans struggle to commit ourselves fully to God's call to holiness.

My concern with declaring homosexuality to be sin because of what scripture says is that so much of what is in scripture is tied to the culture and the world view of the time in which it was written. Much of what scripture calls demon possession we now understand to derive from physiological causes. It is possible that our understanding of homosexuality will undergo a similar transformation. I would prefer to err on the side of being too inclusive rather than too exclusive. I believe that is the example Jesus set when he was on earth. 

I do believe that many people who are campaigning for gay rights are merely acting out because they have been wounded and are angry. Aside from the issue of homosexuality, they are not living the life Jesus calls us to. They are ruled by anger, hatred, and fear. I don't think these people would meet the standards or have the heart for ministry if they were not homosexual.

As I said earlier, I'm still confused about this issue. I'm praying for guidance for myself and for the church. I appreciate your courage and integrity in speaking out. I value you as a quick-witted, talented, big-hearted brother.

God bless you

Elaine

P.S.: I'm copying ____, so my pastor can have a crack at straightening me out if I'm too far out of line.

Dear Elaine:

Thanks for a thoughtful response on what I, too, believe is a tough issue. I, too, find myself sympathetic to homosexuals for a variety of reasons:

-- The gay rights issue surfaced in my generation. Looking at this historically, I was 16 when this issue hit the church in 1972, even before I knew anything about the United  Methodist Church

-- Before I knew Christ I was partying with homosexuals and bisexuals -- the latter of whom, by the way, produces an interesting quandry. Bisexuality is the epitome of choice, and it would appear that any one of us can choose to be bisexual.

-- Most of the homosexuals I have met are not the radicals who push their way to the forefront of this issue.

I would encourage you, by the way, to explore the 70-plus petitions concerning this issue before General Conference.

I would venture there are a number of people in our denomination who would agree with you, maybe even ____. We each have to follow our own conscience in this matter. I had friends from Middlebrook leave our church in the '80s over such issues, but I prayerfully chose to stay as a lay person. I pray I will not have to face the same decision as clergy.

I appreciate your stand on inclusiveness, but (and I'm seriously posing this question) isn't it strange in that the more inclusive we become as a denomination the more our numbers begin to dwindle? Perhaps when we "include" some groups we automatically exclude others -- and maybe we're excluding more than we are including.

I join you in prayer for divine wisdom, knowledge and understanding on this issue, for I am not being facitious when I say we may be at a huge turning point.

In His Service, 

Buzz

A Response From Elaine:

On the issue of inclusiveness and the numbers in our denomination dwindling: I'm not really concerned so much with including people in the UMC as I am in including them in the kingdom of God. If our goal is to grow the church rosters, exclusion is actually a good tactic. If we exclude everyone we're not comfortable with and tout how right we are to be white, American, Protestant, heterosexuals, we will probably attract a lot of people. I am not saying or assuming that sort of thinking is what you were expressing. Ijust think that a lot of people really want the church to be comfortable and homogeneous. That's what many of Jesus' followers wanted. The first Christians had to fight that tendency.

Dear Elaine:

Again, good thoughts. Not sure how "exclusion" would be a good tactic to grow the church; however, I have heard of "praying a church down to one and then building it back up." (heh-heh)

I don't think you are misunderstanding me, but just in case you are: I would not exclude homosexuals from ministry; however, I DO agree with the Book of Discipline that self-avowed, practicing homosexuals should not be ordained, any more than if I gave in to alcoholism would I be fit for pastoral ministry. On the latter point, my own alcoholism, God told me as much.

When I was working in youth ministry, about a year after I came to Christ, I began "social drinking." It was only a matter of months until I got drunk once ... then twice, the second being on a Saturday night. I went to church the next morning and Pastor Doug Smith preached out of Paul's letters, saying, "You were running the good race. Then you stumbled, but you get back up and run again." (Wow! Talk about believing a message was just for you!) The next morning, a Monday, I was driving to work. It was about 5 a.m. I was at the stop light near Cumberland and Henley Street (at the World's Fair Park) when I heard (yes, "heard") the Lord speak to me, saying, "You can do this thing, and I will still love you. But if you do, then you can not do my work."

It was clear; I haven't drank anything stronger than non-alcoholic beer (not even that, these days) since then.

I'm an alcoholic; nothing will change that. But I can not drink and do God's work. Simple as that.

Homosexuals are people of worth (who could argue against that?), and when they fall into the temptation of that lifestyle, grace is there (who could argue against that?)

For a good column that influenced me greatly on this issue, see "A Conversation With Rich Mullins."

Again, I join you in the struggle for a greater understanding of this issue.

Grace and peace,

Buzz

Dear Pastor Buzz,

Thank you for writing your article, "Church may face moment of truth with homosexuality."

In watching the news for articles, Google News alert sent me a link to the article.

We at NIC VOICE have been working to make known issues within the Northern Illinois Conference as well:www.nicvoice.org. I thought you might be interested in knowing about it, and also, these issues are explored in depth at www.ucmpage.org.

Following is an e-mail update we just sent to our subscriber list, and I thought you might be interested in it since you have posted information on your church's Web site about the Karen Dammann trial.

Blessings on your ministry,

Brenda Klockenga

This message is from NIC VOICE and Faithful Christian Laity:

• Analysis of Bishops' Responses 
• Chart of Bishops' Responses 
• Bishops' Responses 

Dear Pastor Trexler,

I read with interest and great sorrow your article in the Maryville Daily Times today.  My first reaction is that I thank God you were not my pastor four years ago when I came out at the age of 58.   I am a life-long Methodist.  I was raised in a Methodist parsonage and have been active in the church all my life.  I taught Sunday School for 35 years and have been active in district and conference level committees and positions as well.   I am the local lay delegate to the ____  Annual Conference, as I have been for the past two years.   And I am also gay, something I have known all my adult life.   I certainly never “chose” to be gay.

Fortunately my pastors, both present and previous, have been completely understanding and supportive of my sexuality and my late-in-life affirmation of it.   Most people in my church know I am gay and they welcome my partner when he comes to church with me.   The kind of attitude you express in your article is extremely hurtful and offensive.   Doubtless there are people in your church who are gay, or have close relatives or friends who are gay.  Saying that “gay persons are welcome, BUT …”  Is highly offensive and destructive, whether you realize it or not.   The statement “Open Minds, open hands, open doors” very hypocritical when we write in our book that we refuse to ordain persons whose sexuality is a minority status and we refuse to bless the unions of sexual minorities (such as my own.) 

There are two significant matters on which you are seriously mistaken or ill-informed.   First, you liken your fight against substance abuse and alcoholism to the matter of homosexuality.   Homosexuality is neither a disease nor a moral failure.   It is an example of the incredible diversity of Gods creative power.   My homosexual orientation is as much a gift of God as is your heterosexuality.  It is not a personality defect.  It took me 58 years to understand that, but it is true.  And nowhere does the Bible condemn love or any sort.   Quite the contrary.   If that love happens to be my same-sex partner, there is nothing there that says it is wrong.   Being gay is not sinful.   Neither is being in love. 

The second matter which you misunderstand is that the church is not trying to “accommodate” to society’s changing understanding of sexuality.   Sadly, the church is far behind when it comes to scientific understandings and societal acceptance of diversity.   “Standing firm” is not the attitude of Christ.   It is the attitude of the Pharisees.   The Book of Discipline was written by humans.  It was wrong when I subjected persons of color to second class status.  It was wrong when it denied ordination to women, and it is wrong on the issue of ordination of gays and lesbians.  It is wrong on gay unions.  In time, the church will catch up, though certainly not in 2004.

I pray that God my open your eyes to understand the narrowness of your vision and may fill you with the likeness of Christs love.   May God truly bless you, as he has me.

Larry

A NOTE TO READERS: While I certainly take issue with much of what he said, I did not answer Larry individually; something in my Spirit said, "No." However, I do feel pressed to say this: When Larry and others say, “'Standing firm' is not the attitude of Christ," there is a certain blindness to the point that those who stand in opposition on  this issue are not the only ones who are "standing firm." Again, it would seem that if you are in opposition, then you are the one who is not being Christ-like. ... Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in that attitude?

Just want you to know how much I appreciated the article written by someone who has the courage to stand up for moral principles in the church today. 

I just returned from a Chip Ingram seminar in The Cove in Ashville, and the theme was “The Invisible War” and how worldly beliefs are invading, not only society, but also churches. To conform, churches are trying to please all sections of society, whether it be Christ's teachings, Biblically correct, or whatever. I am a member of ____ U.M.C., and many of us are very concerned with what will happen in Pittsburgh. If we attempt to change our doctrine to please "the world," I'm afraid we are going to continue to decline rather than grow.

Adella

Dear Brother Buzz,

Having once been a member of the UMC, your article on the “Chameleon Church” hits close to home. It is indeed sad that the UMC, which was founded on the concept of holy living, is struggling with the issue of condoning homosexuality. You are correct in your article when you point out that the issue is not that we have a proclivity toward sin, because we ALL do. The real question is this, do we condone any particular sin just because our society or a majority in our Church condones it? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO. Holy Scripture is that which defines sin, not current cultural standards or our own personal predilections. Scripture is clear about homosexuality, as it is about alcoholism. These are sins of the flesh that we as individuals are called to resist, not embrace. Almighty God has provided forgiveness for those who resist and repent of these sins, but He has reserved judgment for those who practice, embrace and condone them.

The Church that condones homosexuality, alcoholism, or any other sin of the flesh is no friend of the sinner, but is rather encouraging the sinner to take a path that may lead ultimately to God's wrath and to the sinner’s destruction.

I pray that the General Conference of the UMC will make the right decisions, and that they will take a stand for the principles that the UMC was founded on; namely, the authority of Scripture and the call to holy living.

A denominational split over this issue would be a tragedy, but it may also be necessary if the General Conference rules in favor of the doctrinal change.

In regard to associating with those who practice and promote what the Scripture calls sin, it is written, [I Cor. 5:11] "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," and, [II Cor. 6:17] "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." A professing Christian who is a practicing homosexual would certainly fall under the category of those whom we are commanded by Scripture to separate from. We must embrace and love the repentant sinner, but we have a clear obligation to separate from those who practice and condone any sinful lifestyle.

Your brother,

Bruce 

Dear Brother Bruce:

Thanks for a thoughtful response. A couple of notes:

I do not believe "alcoholism" is a sin, but giving in to alcoholism would be a sin -- at least in my own case.

It would appear — at least at this point, Pittsburgh will be the proof — that it is a minority of United Methodists who seek to change the stance on homosexuality, not a majority.

Grace and peace,

Buzz

Columns

Interviews

Missions

Sermons