The denominations may be different, but the rules being broken and the tactics being applied are the same. Both the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) prohibit their ordained leaders from participating in the performance of same-sex weddings. All ordained officers have agreed to submit to and be governed by the mutually agreed upon constitutional standards of their respective denominations, unless apparently, their personal conscience dictates otherwise.
That embrace of anarchy is demonstrated regularly in the PCUSA by advocates for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) concerns. And the tactics used in the PCUSA are mirrored in the UMC. And they do not seek to hide their offenses, in fact, the use of press releases is now common practice.
One case in point, on Sept. 25, the Communications Director for the Reconciling Ministries Network issued a press release that begins:
UNITED METHODIST BISHOP TO OFFICIATE SAME-SEX WEDDING
On October 26, 2013, Bishop Melvin Talbert will be performing a holy wedding ceremony in Birmingham, Alabama for Bobby Prince and Joe Openshaw, two members of The United Methodist Church (UMC). Talbert is a retired bishop in The UMC.
Openshaw and Prince seek to build their lives together and have the church present in that life. They believe that commitment to love in marriage helps bring them toward the fullness of their individual humanities. They believe that marriage strengthens their relationship in ways that benefit the entire community. They have been together for 12 years.
Openshaw was born into the Methodist faith, and Prince has been Methodist for a number of years. They are members of Discovery UMC, located near Birmingham.
For many reasons outlined in their story, they wanted to get married—not just legally (which they did in DC), but in a religious ceremony. Their story can be found at: www.rmnetwork.org/openshaw-prince
Note the emphasis on what the two people want and what “they believe.”
No mention is made of what God has clearly revealed He wants nor is their mention of the Methodist “disciplines,” which are abundantly clear on the subject.
The following excerpts are taken from the 2012 edition of The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church.
Paragraph 161 B) Marriage – We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Paragraph 161 F) Human Sexuality – We affirm that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons. We call everyone to responsible stewardship of this sacred gift.
Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
We deplore all forms of the commercialization, abuse, and exploitation of sex. We call for strict global enforcement of laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children and for adequate protection, guidance, and counseling for abused children. All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence. The Church should support the family in providing age-appropriate education regarding sexuality to children, youth, and adults.
We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.
Additionally, much like the PCUSA, the UMC has ecclesiastical court cases related to these issues. But none of that is stopping individuals like former Bishop Melvin Talbert from planning to commit ecclesiastical treason.
The motivation to perform this particular same-sex ceremony on Oct. 26 is that the UMC will be hearing several cases that week (Oct. 23-26 in Baltimore) related to the open defiance of UMC clergy to the church’s standards.
As posted on the PCUSA website, September 30th,
“Facing a wave of open defiance to church law, the top court of the United Methodist Church is set to consider rulings challenging church teaching on homosexuality.
The United Methodist Judicial Council will decide whether church ministries can advocate for the acceptance of homosexuality, whether ministers can officiate at same-sex ceremonies and whether a regional conference can urge members to ignore portions of Methodist law.
The parallels to tactics in the PCUSA are impossible to ignore as is the assault on natural marriage on all fronts.
21 Comments. Leave new
“Treason?” “Assault on natural marriage on all fronts?” Your blustery rhetoric aside, it is true that many are standing for love and standing with our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters. Yes, we will sign those marriage licenses. If we must, we will challenge unjust laws and speak truth in love to those who assault these God-blessed marriages and face the consequences of doing so. Whatever it is you good folks at the Layman choose to do about it is your choice.
Scornfully re-purposing language to justify acts of rebellion emboldens our radical clergy, but when it comes to their superior patrimony and their pensions, they want the language of written rules enforced to the letter. We see through their impertinence to it self core.
There is at least one untruth in the above article.
“The motivation to perform this particular same-sex ceremony on Oct. 26 is that the UMC will be hearing several cases that week (Oct. 23-26 in Baltimore) related to the open defiance of UMC clergy to the church’s standards.”
This wedding was planned well before the docket for the UMC cases was released. The motivation is to show our friends and family our love and commitment and that we want our family to be recognized. /the reason October 26 was chosen is that is the date that all of the key players (Bobby, Bishop Talbert, other clergy who will be involved and me) had available.
Rev. Shuck, please do not lie. God does not bless the so-called “marriage” of two people of the same gender. He condemns all homosexual acts as sin (Gen. 18.20-21, 19.4-9,24-25 [cf. Jude 7], Lev. 18.22, 20.13, Dt. 23.17, Judg. 19.22-25, Rom. 1.24-27, I Cor. 6.9-11, I Tim. 1.9-10); it does not therefore follow that He blesses a man-made covenantal union between two people that purports to legitimize them.
When God created our first parents, He said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife (not his spouse of indiscriminate gender), and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2.24) And likewise, the Lord Jesus cited this very passage, saying to the Pharisees, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mt. 19.4-6)
Similarly, when He created our first parents, God said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1.28) Indeed, when speaking about divorce through the Prophet Malachi, He said, “Did (the LORD) not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.” (Mal. 2.15) And it should be patently obvious that no offspring, Godly or otherwise, can possibly come from a homosexual union.
Indeed, just as the things created and established by God here on earth are patterned after things in the heavenly realm as shadows and copies of the things to come (Heb. 8.5, 10.1), the Lord patterned the covenant of marriage here on earth after the relationship of God to His people, or of Christ to His Church (Is. 54.5-8, Hos. 2.14, 3.1, II Cor. 11.2, Eph. 5.22-33, Rev. 19.6-9, 21.2,9-11, 22.17), where the husband, not the wife, represents God or Christ, and where the wife, not the husband, represents the people of God or the Church. These roles are invested with their meaning by God, not by man, and it is not man’s place to redefine them. Homosexual “marriage”, therefore, is an abomination before the Lord, for in it, “women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” (Rom. 1.26) representing the Church forsaking Christ and marrying herself; “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error,” (Rom. 1.27) representing Christ forsaking the Church and marrying Himself. It is an abomination (Lev. 18.22).
To stand for the legitimization of homosexual unions as “marriage” does not constitute “standing for love”, as you put it. “God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous,” (Heb. 13.4) and homosexuality, as is evident by its context in the texts cited above in this post, is a form of sexual immorality. To suppose that God will not judge homosexuals who do not repent of their homosexuality (and to be sure, one is a homosexual when one either engages in homosexual intercourse or intends to given the opportunity, and not simply because he or she suffers from homosexual desires; and when one repents of the homosexual acts, one is no longer a homosexual; see I Cor. 6.9-11), one is deluding oneself, and to believe that God will bless homosexual unions as “marriage” is blasphemous. God will not be so mocked, and the false teacher will be judged (Rev. 19.20).
Now, my own brother is a homosexual and is in a homosexual “marriage” with another man. Should I “stand for love”, as you put it, and support this union? God forbid, for then I should prove myself not worthy of Jesus Christ and unable to be His disciple. For as the Lord Jesus Himself said, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Mt. 10.37) And again, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Lk. 14.26) Does this mean that I should hate my brother? Again, God forbid, for, “if anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (I Jn. 4.20-21) But loving my brother does not entail loving his sin that continues to separate him from God. If I love my brother who is engaged in sin, then I am obligated to pray for him, that the Lord would convict his heart of his sin, and to seek to lovingly correct him, that he should turn from his sin and live and not die in his sin (Ezek. 3.16-21, 18.1-32, 33.1-11, Mt. 18.15, Lk. 17.3-4), to be forever the recipient of God’s wrath poured out on the ungodly in just recompense for their sin (Mk. 9.48, Rom. 1.18-2.9, II Pet. 2.9-10, Rev. 21.8, 22.15).
Again, Rev. Shuck, I beseech you to repent of your lies regarding how God views homosexuality. That you have believed the lie that you are perpetuating does not excuse you from His judgment. “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. Pay attention to yourselves!” (Lk. 17.1-3) And again, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (Jas. 3.1)
Martin Luther said,, “Be a sinner and sin boldy.” Progressives have taken this statement to heart. Not only do they boldy and without shame seek to marry two persons of the same sex (forget about the “peace, unity and purity” of the church) but they also want to tell the world of their anarchy. What progressives don’t understand and apply to their lives is the second half of Luther’s statement……”and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” The Gospel is about Jesus’ victory over sin and death and the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives. Progressives don’t understand and probably don’t care that the Holy Spirit can change the affections of a person who has an attraction to the same sex. These men and women would rather go and marry persons of the same gender rather than do the loving and gracious work of pastoral ministry to help those with SSA come under the Lordship of Christ and walk with them as they move away from homosexual expression. Oh how easy it is to be a Progressive. At least they do well the first half of Luther’s admonition.
Congratulations and best wishes to Messrs. Openshaw and Price!
My husband and I just made our marriage legal last weekend, so it is wonderful to see so many others in the PCUSA and the UMC who also stand for love!
Also, thanks to the Layman for reminding us again of the Stand for Love campaign & URL. This is at least the third or fourth story about the campaign that the Layman has done. It is great to see you mentioning it so often. (It is particularly interesting that you give the URL, since in the past the Editor has deleted my comments when I did exactly the same thing. But, perhaps that rule has been set aside.)
Note: Making marriage legal is, well… exactly the opposite of “anarchy.” I hate to be Conan the Grammarian here, but you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I hope those championing the cause of same-gender marriage on the bases of obedience to conscience and of fighting unjust laws on the premise of Biblical fidelity remember their arguments as made here and in other venues. Why? Because when the PCUSA officially sanctions such relationships and ceremonies and makes it a chargeable offense for teaching elders to oppose them in any way (as will be done eventually, be it months or years from now), these arguments will be the same ones I will use when I refuse to officiate a same-gender ceremony. Let’s see how respectful of these arguments my presbytery will be. My prediction? Not very. So remember, friends. The traffic goes both ways across this bridge.
Though this is probably not the ideal place to ask a forthright questions and expect and civil answers, and I apologize for the length…
Mr. Brown, I’ve seen you make a similar comment on any number of related stories at this site, and I’ve never replied because these sorts of back-and-forth comments tend to degenerate quickly (see, for example, the entire internet), but I’m moved to ask: Do you actually believe that those of us advocating for LGBT ordination and same-sex marriage have been treated respectfully? Really?
Because if so, I’d suggest you re-read this particular post in which the motives of the two men in the UMC were questioned (wrongly, I might add, as we see from the comment below from one of them, and I won’t hold my breath for a retraction), Godly relationships are called “anarchy”, standing up for one’s conscience is called “treason”, rhetoric like “assault” and “natural marriage” are used, and the specter of court cases is raised yet again.
Respectful? Really?
Why should you expect better treatment than we have received? What makes you so special? Honestly. I have learned that it is probably too much to ask of a comment on an internet site to ask for a little introspection, but maybe not. I try to be optimistic.
I can only speak for myself, but I was fully prepared to submit to discipline because of my “out of order” ordination and my marriage. A stand of conscience is probably going to be costly, or there isn’t much point to it, is there? I have not been secretive about my ordination or marriage, both are well known (making a public comment about my ordination on the floor of GA as a commissioner and making mention of my marriage many times on several widely-read PCUSA blogs, for example.) I have openly challenged those who would make a McCarthy-esque “black list” of those of us who have been ordained and married. No charges have been filed against me personally. I have a theory as to why, but I’ll not expound on that here, I’m trying to be less cynical these days (It’s important to be a gracious winner.) but I was prepared to answer charges if they were brought. I never asked that people ignore what I have done because “the traffic goes both ways across this bridge.” I came out about my ordination and my marriage. Immediately. Honestly. And I’ve never asked for special treatment.
That said, I too hope we treat you better than we have been treated, and can show the church a more excellent way. Again, speaking only for myself, but if your congregation and Session don’t have a problem, I’m not sure why it is any of my business. These are local issues. And I really mean no offense, but I can’t imagine why I would ask you to officiate at my marriage, knowing that you would refuse.
So if the charges come, let me know, I’ll be happy to speak up for freedom of conscience, even if that conscience tells you to do something I believe is contrary to your ordination vows as a Minister of the Word and Sacrament. I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend your right (and your Session’s and Congregation’s right) to say it. But I won’t speak up for what I perceive in your comments as belief that you shouldn’t be bound by our discipline. I’ve never believed that, nor have I ever argued that, nor is that what I’ve lived out.
If only we got such a fair shake from your friends, eh? When you ask for “respect”, remember, the traffic goes both ways across the bridge. Or to put it another way: you reap what you sow.
I pray we treat you better.
Willfully disobeying the laws of the denomination that these ministers and elders have freely taken a vow to obey is not love. It is selfishness that hidden behind self-righteousness along with hate toward their fellow members of their denomination that do not agree with them. It highlights inhospitableness toward others that will not change as Schuck and his friends demand. Their actions have broken the unity of the UMC and PCUSA. A loving person would freely go to another denomination like the Metropolitan Community Church instead of willfully, hatefully disobeying the denomination laws.
We worship a god that is alive and sooner or later, if He has not already began, there will be a very harsh judgment on those who spit on His word and make His sheep go elsewhere for pasture. One reaps what one sews and the church is no difference. My the PCUSA and the Methodist churches wake up before it is too late.
Do we not all sin, in one way or another? is, in fact, the obvious sin of certain sexual practices, greater or less than the other sins of which we are all guilty ? Are not the Ten Commandments the most sacred statements of all in describing sin? Mentioned therein is adultery, greed, envy, etc. –
Therefore, should we not try to discern Jesus’ response to sin – in whatever form it takes – as : Repent!
Go, and Sin No More!
Scripture is very clear on the subject of sin. The consequences of the lifestyles described in the age of Lot are unmistakeable. Sin cannot be denied . It cannot be defined away.
SIN IS. In one way or another, we all sin. We are guilty.
To be eligible for leadership in our church requires that we acknowledge sin. And repent of that sin.
Repent. Go. Continue to repent. And GO. You may be deserving of the Grace of God, but you are not deserving of leadership unless you GO , REPENT, and SIN NO MORE.
Alan,
It’s amazing what uncivil posts are made in the name of civility! Why be snarky? The point I made was a valid one. It did not refer to your particular situation in any way. I simply want people to treat me, in terms of the official discipline of the church, with the liberality that others are asking for and, as it turns out, that you admit in your post you have received. I also strongly doubt that I will be treated in this way. I will continue to make this point as long as I believe it is necessary.
If you have been spoken to in an ugly or mean-spirited manner through the years, I am sorry. That is never appropriate. I have experienced that as well. On the floor of presbytery, I was described as a homophobe and a bigot who would not allow gays to visit his church after I had spoken against Amendment 10-A. I had spoken at the request of presbytery staff who wanted me to represent the “against ordination” viewpoint as debate started. My remarks were reasoned and non-inflammatory. The responses were not. It got emotional and ugly quickly. Not exactly a shining moment in Presbyterian polity.
I’m glad you would speak for me during my trial in favor of my privilege of conscience. Yet what you give with the right hand you take away with the left. You would never be in favor of me flouting the rules of the church. Yet you, as you yourself state, have gone through a public period of being out of compliance for a significant time, and you have not been disciplined in any official way. You will not permit me to have what you have been given. And it’s not just you. No one is being disciplined, to my knowledge, despite the fact that the “laws are still on the books.” You may be willing to pay the price for your civil disobedience, but many of your compatriots are not and think the whole idea is absurd.
What do you bet that I will not receive such forbearance, the forbearance you’ve received, when that time comes in a few months or years? When I will not particlpate in an ordination or installation because of conscience? When I will not perform a marriage because of conscience? What do you bet I will be charged, and rightly so by your reasoning? I may even be sued for being in violation of civil discrimination statutes. Yet you have been left alone, and are being left alone, and will be left alone to pursue your ministry and your relationship publicly and openly. You have even served as a commissioner to a General Assembly from your presbytery. Not exactly the characteristic of someone who’s disenfranchised and marginalized, now, is it?
So no, I don’t want to be treated as “special.” (How condescending is your remark! I don’t think I’m the one in need of some introspection here.) While you’ve never asked for “special treatment,” you have received it. I simply want, when the time comes, to be treated as you’re being treated now by the official disciplinary machinery of the church. But if your thought is representative of how others are intending to act once the changes you seek are fully in place, then I won’t be.
Mr. Brown, thanks for your reply, which was far more cordial than I expected.
There was nothing snarky about my comment, nor condescending. I think you are reading into it a tone I did not intend. What I perceived as your sense of privilege, assuming that you should be treated better than we have been treated, did indeed call for my serious question: Why should you be treated better than we have been?
While it is true that I myself have not directly been the object of charges, I am astonished that any reader of the the Layman could be completely unaware that such charges have been filed repeatedly against large numbers of people in exactly my position. In fact, charges were filed against my pastor over my ordination. I assure you that I know any number of people who have indeed been through the entire PJC process from beginning to end. They did not ask to be excused, as you have done, and they were not excused as you suggest — you seem to be revising history, either intentionally or out of lack of knowledge.
So, no, the people you address in your original comment, “I hope those championing the cause of same-gender marriage”, have not been given special treatment.
Maybe you simply do not realize that this is the treatment you’re really asking for:
If you want to be treated as we have been treated, you are asking to have your principled stances called “anarchy”, mocked and derided, called “unnatural”, an “assault”, and “treason” (in just one article, and this one more polite than usual.)
If you want to be treated as we have been treated by the official disciplinary machinery of the church, then what you are really asking for is nuisance lawsuit after nuisance lawsuit after nuisance lawsuit brought against you by the keystone kops of polity. When these suits were not successful it has been mostly, in my opinion, due to the total and baffling incompetence of the accusers and their lawyers (here’s a few highlights: six people sign an accusation against a pastor and none of them bother to show up to the trial; charges dismissed because the accuser never answered phone, letter, or email after s/he filed the charges so an investigation couldn’t proceed; filing deadlines missed over and over. Or how about the charges filed against my pastor over my “out of order” ordination? That took a full year to clear up. The problem, Mr. Brown, is that my pastor at the time wasn’t pastor of our church when I was ordained, I had never met him, and he lived 4 states away. I was ordained by a completely different person than the accuser alleged. Crackerjack legal work, eh? Of course, all this gross negligence is covered up and called a vast liberal conspiracy by various para-denominational organizations and their newsletters.)
So if you’re asking for the same treatment, shall we count the number of times Lisa Larges was brought to court (what was it? 4? 5?) Or Janie Spahr? (I’ve run out of fingers to count on for her.) How much time and money do you think all that cost? Or the dozens of others who have been brought up on similar charges again and again over the last three decades? Can we, do you think, get back the entire year that my pastor was blackballed from all Presbytery duties, responsibilities, and committees and Presbytery held the renewal of his contract hostage because of the pending nuisance charges regarding my ordination? Could all of us involved in that case, one day, do you think, get an apology from the Presbytery for the insulting ways we were treated by the Exec.?
Or maybe, Mr. Brown, if you’d like to be treated as I personally have been treated, we could all get together and vote to outlaw your marriage.
And your word for all that is “forbearance”? Forgive me for thinking you have a rather peculiar understanding of that word.
If I misunderstood that you appeared to be asking for a get out of jail free card for disobeying the discipline, but what you’re actually asking for is to be treated exactly the same as we have been, then I apologize. But be careful what you wish for. Honestly, Mr. Brown, I do not think you really want to be treated as we have been. It isn’t even clear to me that you understand how we have been treated in any authentic way. If you are under the mistaken impression that this has all been a big barrel of laughs for us, then I hope you will seek out brothers and sisters who have been through it, and maybe they can disabuse you of the notion.
However, what I wrote before is still true: I pray that you are treated better than than we have been treated.
But if you are not, then I hope you will stand your ground as we have done, and submit to the discipline as we have done.
Then maybe you too will be used by the Spirit to teach the denomination a hard lesson that it needs to learn. Just as we have done.
In the midst of this controversy, I keep waiting for any one of these ministers to “fire back” if you will, with their scriptural foundation for their actions. I am hoping and praying that they will realize that, having nothing from scripture to support their position, they might just walk away from the discussion. Every single claim made in Loren’s comment is firmly backed up by God’s word. So, it is actually God that would be argued with, so to speak. I really wish people could realize that—to have an opinion on the subject, or to engage in acts contrary to God’s word is one thing. But when you are a minister helping people feel okay with their actions, it is a big responsibility. Perfect scripture—James 3:1.
Alan,
Not to belabor the point any further, for this discussion point has come and gone. But I simply want to say that I believe the two of us could, in all probability, have a civil and reasonable discussion face to face on the merits of PCUSA trends. We would disagree sharply, I’m pretty sure. But we probably could talk well and perhaps understand one another better than we seem to be doing here.
To reiterate, I’m not asking to be excused. I’m wondering aloud if the same forbearance currently given (this phrase is important–I’m not denying things have not been said and done in years past; I’m arguing that right now, we have laws in our Constitution that are not being enforced) to those who say they’re being obedient to the dictates of their conscience will be offered when the tables are turned.
I will assume your closing paragraph is sincere. If I am called on the carpet as current trends become legislated and codified, I pray I have the courage of my convictions when the time comes.
Well said. GOD’s word is clear on the subject.
Some follow-up: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/10/gay_pastor_united_methodist_ga.html#incart_river_default
This is due to the fact that babies grow very fast and within a matter of months their clothes fail to fit them.
Again, if you are riding you should always be prepared and by wearing the proper equipment you can greatly improve the
outcome of any mishap on the road. The Entertainers collection, now that’s some REAL Babygear Fun, and how.
This is for the soile ause of giving their users the very best search results they are seeking for, so when you are carrying out Search engine
optimzation on a web site, that you are convincing the search engines the internet site is definitely
an ideal match forr whaever the consumer is seeking
for. If the site map is larger than 100 or soo links, you may waznt to break thee
site mapp into separate pages. This will help prove the legitimacy of your company to online searech
engines.
The particular wallpapers comes in 320
I’ll immediately snatch your rss feed as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service.
Do you’ve any? Please allow me recognise in order that I may just
subscribe. Thanks.