"Going"

THE DIVIDED METHODIST CHURCH

This problem must be serious to be on the front page of the Sunday paper. The lead article for January 19, 2020 had something to do with lobbyists, but immediately underneath that, the picture of a man standing in front of a church door spreads across four out of five columns. He is a "reverend" for the First United Methodist Church of Orlando but is quite vocal in the LGBTQ community. Unfortunately, the United Methodist Church is no longer united. They are at odds with each other all over the country.

In fact, the title of the article is, "A Church Divided." Prior to the beginning of the article by Kate Santich is another description of what is to follow. It mentions that "traditional" and "progressive" congregations might go their own separate ways over what the Methodists recently voted on regarding the "LGBTQ controversy."

First of all, this characterization is inappropriate. It is not a matter of traditional versus progressive; it is a matter of Scriptural versus unscriptural. When Satan told Eve she would not surely die, he was not being progressive but digressive. Progressive is a misnomer; it usually refers to transgressing the Law of God. Why is it progress when someone leads a group of people into sin?

Likewise, traditional is an adjective that frequently relates to following the Word of God. Those who object to women in leadership roles are called traditional, as are those who refuse to accept homosexuality as a way of life—or living together before marriage, etc. Those who defend fornication, adultery, social drinking, and all other forms of worldliness are progressive. It is time that members of the body of Christ quit letting others get away with this deceptive style of labeling.

The news story begins by reiterating that the "reverend" is an avid ally of LGBTQ but that he cannot "marry" a homosexual couple because it would get him in trouble with the church hierarchy (A1). Of course, this is something members of the churches of Christ have no experience with because the Bible does not describe church hierarchies like those in the Methodist Church; therefore, we do not have them. Of course, the Bible does not mention the Methodist Church, either. No denominations existed in the first century.

The religious leader in question commented, "So while I have passionate convictions on the issue, I feel my ultimate job is to pastor over all my congregation" (A1); he adds that they should not discriminate, which will receive more attention shortly. The term pastor is not being used here in a Biblical sense, either. The rest of the information is found on page A10, where a rather substantial half page is now devoted to the topic. There are about 70 United Methodist congregations in Central Florida and more than 700 in the state. Many of them are divided over homosexuality.

But why does this disagreement exist? Are the Scriptures ambiguous on the subject? No, they are not (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Jude 7; et al.). The problem is that the "progressives" have no respect for the Scriptures. Consider these words which are contained in the article on page A10 and underneath the three-column picture of the smiling "reverend" "pastor":

The global church has reached an impasse over the issue of gay marriage and whether to ordain lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer clergy.

What this refers to is a conference held in February of 2019 in St. Louis. Apparently, there were enough votes from Africa to cause this unauthorized denominational body to affirm that "clergymen" could be removed if they didn't agree with the church's stance against homosexual marriage and noncelibate LGBTQ clergy. Now a 9-page document has been compiled which explains how the "traditional" and "progressive" churches will split. The "reverend" "pastor" laments that it has come to this but feels as though it is inevitable: "We can't continue to be at war with one another."

The losing side, however, seems to come out on top. The "progressive" group still gets to be called United Methodists, and the "traditional" group gets to start a new denomination. Who won the vote a year ago? So, what will the new group call themselves, if this arrangement is approved—the Disunited Methodist Church? Other names they might consider include: The Untied Methodist Church, The United Methodist Castaways, or the United Methodist Traditionalists.

Interviewed for this news item was Steve Harper, a former UMC seminary professor. He was opposed to same-sex marriage until 2014, when he wrote two books that include a look at the subject. One of those he titled, Holy Love: A Biblical Theology for Human Sexuality. For this work he lost his "emeritus" status at the "seminary where he had taught for 30 years." That pretty much means that the "love" he talked about was neither holy nor Biblical. Harper thinks the split will bring healing to the LGBTQ who were "kicked out."

This is typical, liberal jargon. When liberals prevail, it's a good thing because people are accepted and told they are all right living in their sins. They don't care a fig about those whom they disenfranchise when they insist on having their way. He moans about how these LGBTQs were once loved, how they were sprinkled (he erroneously says baptized) as infants, went to Vacation Bible School, and participated in their youth fellowships until they said, "I need to tell you one more thing about myself." Why does he show no concern for those who gave the love, taught VBS, led the youth groups, and financed the church buildings? They have one more thing to say, too: "I cannot accept and ignore this sin."

Is It All One-Sided?

But who cares about stalwart "traditionalists"? Why should they matter? Equally myopic is the view that Harper has toward the parents of homosexuals. He and his wife hand out "free mom and dad hugs" to youths who have been rejected by their biological mothers and fathers. "That just doesn't seem right to me," he opined. Has he ever thought how much these parents grieve over their children? Has he tried to imagine how much their love of their children and the pride they probably had in their accomplishments has been betrayed by their decision to reject what the Bible teaches about their sexuality? Can it be easy for a parent to say, "I cannot in any way condone the way you are living"? What other choice does a person of conviction have?

Harper and his wife are enablers. Parents have told their children that the way they are living is wrong. Possibly, they have added that they need to repent before fellowship can be restored. But then comes along someone who tells them, "Oh, no; you're fine. It's just those bigoted traditionalist homophobes that are the problem—not you. You can join our progressive group of worshipers. We'll be happy to give you the love you're not getting at home." Every situation has two sides; the newspaper story only presented the anti-Scriptural position.

The "Senior Pastor"

Well, that last statement is not entirely true. A few sentences describe a "senior pastor" who would definitely vote to uphold the traditional view, but he falls all over himself to avoid offending the other side. When the Pulse shootings occurred, they offered their building for free to conduct funerals for the victims. He also says, "I don't want the message to be that I'm anti-gay. I'm not. We have gay members in our church, and we love them as we love everyone." Just as one wonders in what way he takes the traditional view, he explains:

"But I'd rather be biblically correct than culturally correct, and sometimes that means sticking with things that are unpopular… Being gay is contrary to being like Jesus." [The ellipsis is part of the quote, GWS.]

This is the only rationale provided for opposing homosexuality, and the reader must wait until the 16th paragraph to find it. The last nine get back on track, however.

The "Bishop's" Move: Mediation

Attention is now turned to a "bishop" (not in the Biblical sense) who has been devoting himself for four years "working on the global mediation effort to heal the denomination's divide," which sounds a lot like reconciliation (an impossible feat). A practice cannot be both right and wrong at the same time and in the same place. It is either justified or condemned.

Without any middle ground, reconciliation attempts are futile. So now the "bishop" has devoted himself to the split: What's the best way to divvy up the assets? It is easy to see where his sympathies lie. He acknowledged: "I have sensed the pain of those who feel excluded from the church's full life and ministry…." He may have felt the pain of those being forced to tolerate what the Bible defines as vile and against nature, but if so, he did not express it.

No Story Would Be Complete Without….

Rounding out this article are the comments of a "lay" lady leader, who believes the United Methodist Church is on "the cusp of historic change." That assessment is probably true. It assumes a fact not in evidence, however—that all change is good. Paul records a huge change that occurred after the Flood. People changed from following the truth to becoming idol worshipers (and practitioners of homosexuality). Because of this change, God gave them up. When the great generation of Joshua's day died out, Israel became idolatrous and was punished by God. Just because "the times, they are a-changin'" is not necessarily a cause for celebration.

This woman sounds as though she is looking forward to the "post-separation United Methodist Church" "with its progressive rules." Do you suppose they would put up a sign somewhere near the front entrance, reading, PERVERSION WELCOMED HERE?

She is a married lesbian but does not think that it's anything to make a fuss over. It doesn't even come up very often with church members. Say, what enlightened people we have become! Fifty years ago, it would have created a scandal, but now everyone is accustomed to it in certain places. Probably no one there will ever hear the words of Paul proclaimed: "I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). They will not hear it with respect to the gospel plan of salvation, with acceptable worship, with Biblical organization, or as it pertains to morality.

The church mantra there is LOVE BIG. No one loves bigger than God does, but He does not turn a blind eye to that which He defines as sin. Most of mankind has just done away with the concept because it doesn't fit in with, "Let everybody do whatever they want." That was probably the kind of thinking that led to Genesis 6:5.

Despite paragraph 16 making two mild points, the "news" story lopsidedly endorses homosexual marriage. As for traditionalists—well, who needs them anyway? They're a bunch of old fuddy-duddies who are on their way out as society continues to progress.

The last paragraph is devoted to the lesbian lay leader's comments concerning her "church." In essence, she says that anyone who has a beating heart is welcome, and if the heart is not beating, they will give you a nice memorial service. Some would prefer to be forgotten rather than be memorialized there--in a place where Satan dwells.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: