The Definition of Love

"Crisis Over LGBT Issues Grips United Methodist Church" informs the headline at the top of page A16 in the Sunday, February 24, 2019 edition of the Orlando Sentinel. However, this is just the beginning of what proved to be an interesting series of articles. One might say that the United Methodist Church cannot be found in the Scriptures, which is true; so why should we care? The answer is that we always try to notice what those who profess to be Christians are doing because it makes an impact on the religious community.

Needless to say, whatever others are doing will not affect us because we know that denominationalism was neither authorized nor practiced in the New Testament. Most people, however, do not possess that knowledge and think that all religious groups are nice and that they all have a right to exist. Therefore, they may pay attention to what is occurring.

Jesus never authorized any sort of church government besides a local congregation having elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13). The elders of each church must give an account for the members to the only Head of the church, Christ Jesus. But manmade religious denominations have a structure which reigns over each individual church. Do they make laws they have no right to enact? If not, why do they have a "top legislative assembly"? Don't legislatures make laws?

According to the newspaper, the Methodist Church is the second largest denomination in the country with about 7 million members (Baptists remain first). They had to have a conference to decide whether or not to participate in same sex marriages and ordain homosexual "clergy." Of course, we do not ordain "clergy"—especially since the term cannot be found in the Scriptures. Furthermore, we do not need to call a meeting to decide on those issues since the Bible contains no ambiguity concerning them. Those guilty of homosexual acts, if they have already become Christians, must have fellowship withdrawn from them (1 Cor. 6:9-11). If they desire to become Christians and will not repent of this (or any other sin), then we cannot assist them in obeying the gospel.

The Episcopal Churches and the Presbyterian USA churches already surrendered to the political correctness of the age, but the Methodists had a battle over it among their 864 delegates at their General Conference in St. Louis just three weeks ago. Technically the two practices under review had previously been decided back in 1972. At that time the denomination determined that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," which, of course, reflects what the Bible teaches, but many of their ministers have violated those principles over the decades (especially of late), and "enforcement has been inconsistent." One proposal called for the removal of that language "from the church's law book…."

What an odd statement! The Methodist Church has its own law book. Churches of Christ have a law book, too; it's called The Bible; specifically, our authority is the New Testament of Jesus. Hopefully, no one will ever have the audacity to suggest removing something from this Divinely-inspired law book, although some do choose to disregard what it says.

A different proposal re-affirmed what is in their law book and sets up "procedures for churches and regional bodies to leave the UMC if they could not abide by those rules." A third alternative made no sense whatsoever. It would allow one branch of the UMC to observe the current laws, but another branch could do just the opposite. A third simply would not discuss it one way or the other. In order for that to happen, would not the current language have to be removed from the Methodist law book? Isn't the real problem that of trying to figure out what a denomination can do when part of it wants to be morally liberal and part of it wants to be morally conservative?

Another current contradiction is that one of the "senior pastors" (remember we are dealing with non-Scriptural language all the way through this article) is openly lesbian. Technically that violates the current law book. Her election result, however, was upheld, but she does not live according to the law book—either the Methodist one or God's. Furthermore, God does not recognize her "marriage," and she is the wrong gender to be a pastor, but, hey, if all the laws are objected to and thrown out, they can do whatever they jolly well please.

Imagine how this attitude would have gone over at Mount Sinai when God gave His first law to the Jews. Can anyone actually picture Aaron approaching Moses and saying, "Some of our priests think that graven images actually enhance worship; could you remove the second commandment from the stone tablet?" Then maybe Ithamar steps forward and says, "The younger generation is not really happy about keeping the Sabbath. Some fear they won't make enough money if they can't work that day, and the children of the more well-to-do have soccer matches scheduled on the plain. This law is unduly restrictive."

An anonymous soul steps forward to protest the commandment against adultery. "I've been appointed spokesman for those who are afraid to come forth, but many do not agree that adultery is a bad thing. They have been practicing it for years, although their mates do not know about it. Why is this thing regarded as wrong or perverted? Everybody's needs are being met, and no one has complained or is upset. In some cases, the spouses even know what it happening, and they have accepted the practice. After all, people are only human. We're allowed to have more than one wife; why can't we be intimate with more than one person. Adulterers are just as worthwhile as anyone else."

The Results

Apparently, the legislative body upheld its 1972 law because on Sunday, March 3rd, people expressed their contempt for the decision made. A pro-LGBT supporter mentioned that many of the dozen or so Methodist churches in the Orlando area have demonstrated the desire to befriend all those people. Then he wrote in the Orlando Sentinel:

Last week the United Methodist Church, with 7 million U.S. members, passed two measures that reject that kind of open-hearted inclusion. One denies local churches the ability to choose LGBT-friendly policies. The second punishes congregations that do not adhere to the church's position that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." Methodists, what would Jesus do? (A11).

Well, first of all Jesus might tell them to be Christians instead of Methodists and that His followers should be united rather than divided (John 17:20-21). But to answer the question of what Jesus would do with respect to this sin, here are a few suggestions.

He might define what sin is, as He did in Matthew 15:18-20. In that list, He included "fornications," which refers to homosexuality, bestiality, and any other situation between two people who are not married to each other. That homosexuality is included in the definition of fornication may be discovered by looking at any reliable Greek lexicon or by considering Jude 7. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah practiced homosexuality, but Jude refers to their immoral actions as fornication (sexual immorality in most modern translations).

Having defined sin, Jesus might have then exhorted LGBTQs to repent: "I tell you no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3).

To those who pointed out that the majority of people in today's society accept homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle, He might have reminded them that the majority of people are on the broad road that leads to destruction and that only few travel the path that leads to eternal life (Matt. 7:13-14).

One thing He would not do is to say, "I approve of your sin. Continue in it." On one occasion, Jesus faced a woman who was brought to Him, having been taken in the very act of adultery (John 8:1-11). He did not condemn her judicially because Rome did not give Him the authority to do so. But He also did not say, "I love you and understand your sin. Be at peace, My child." No, He told her to "go, and sin no more" (v. 11).

Where is the sin that Jesus approved of? When did He ever attempt to redefine sin as something a person is born with? When did God ever give anyone permission to sin? All are called to account sooner or later (2 Cor. 5:10).

Reaction

The First United Methodist Church of Orlando does not agree with the decision. The reason we know that is that they (presumably) paid for a full-page newspaper ad, which appears on the same date of March 3rd. On page A24 inside a thin black border is the heart of the message—seven words. Above the fold, it says:

God
loves
all
people.

The a in all and the p in people are red; the two lls and part of the e are orange. The rest of people is green, blue and purple. Thus one cannot miss the rainbow reference (referring to homosexuals). Below the fold is one sentence:

So do we.

The reader could figure out his income tax in the white space that mostly dominates the page. At the bottom, they list their name. Underneath is quoted 1 Cor. 13:13. Just a guess, but probably what the United Methodist Church knows about love could be put in a thimble with enough room remaining for the thumb.

Doesn't God know something about love? Doesn't Jesus, Who gave Himself as a sacrifice for our sins, know something about love? Of course God loves all people, and so do those professing to be Christians. But how is love defined? Is it turning a blind eye to sin? No. God is love (1 John 4:7-8), and He requires people to repent of their sins.

Love does what is good for others. Is accepting the sin of homosexuality and giving one's approval for its practitioners to continue in it love? In order to answer that, let's look at it from the perspective of eternity. God has defined homosexuality as sin—in every covenant He has given to man. It is not a matter that He condemned it in the Old Testament but now accepts it. It is just as wrong now as it has ever been (Rom. 1:21-27). Therefore, on the Day of Judgment, all of those who have never repented of their sins shall be condemned and cast into the Lake of Fire.

When that sentence is given, every person who practiced homosexuality throughout his or her life will suffer in torment. How many of them will think that the United Methodist Church loved them? Instead of telling them they were practicing sin and encouraging them to repent, they told them they were all right, which means that such enablers will probably join them in the flames. It may be that for eternity they will hear the pitiful lament, "You didn't love me, or you would have told me the truth!"

Without question, Jesus loves everyone for whom He died, and since He does, He speaks the truth to all. Jesus never told people what they wanted to hear; He told them what they needed to hear. People want to hear that they are going to heaven; Jesus said that few actually would. It is the loving and right thing to do to inform people of what God calls sin.