UMC church upholds traditional marriage

As a follow up on last week's post regarding the UM church.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy
April 30, 2008                                                                              

United Methodists Vote to Uphold Traditional Marriage
“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church.”

—Executive Director of UMAction Mark Tooley

Ft. Worth, Texas–On Wednesday, April 30 around 5:30 p.m. the United Methodist General Conference delegates voted on what is considered one of the most controversial issues before the world-wide church body. The delegates voted down the committee report that would change The Book of Discipline to explicitly condone homosexual practice. The Minority Report that was passed by a vote of 501-417 affirms not only that marriage is between a man and a woman but that marriage is a “covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.” The conference, United Methodism’s chief rulemaking body, is a denominational gathering that occurs every four years and brings together delegates from around the world.

Mark Tooley, Executive Director of IRD’s UMAction Committee, commented:

“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church. Those who demand acceptance of homosexual behavior maximized their campaign this year knowing it was their last chance to win in United Methodism.

“The African and other over-seas delegates represented the margin of victory for the current church stance on marriage and sex. This year they comprised almost 30 percent of the total delegates thanks to their church growth and membership decline in the U.S.  The internationals may comprise 40 percent in 2012.

“Africans and other international United Methodists in coalition with Evangelicals in the U.S. are working for a renewed denomination faithful to historic Christian teaching, and culturally transformative instead of culturally accommodating.”

Comments

[Anthony Simons]

I am glad to read that UMC voted to side with God's Word instead of today's culture. However, it is very unfortunate that the Episcopal church as already fallen into the sands of relativism and cultural correctness. With my now deceased grandfather as a retired minister in the Episcopal church, I grew up as a baptised and confirmed Episcopalian. My grandfather often said things to counter the politically-correct culture and believed in telling it like it is. Sadly, I left awhile back after the liberals, including the bishop, successfully excommunicated my dad and tried to stifle my family's speech including mine when it came to defending the Bible and what God says about homosexuality as being sin. How so very tolerant of the liberals! hmmm The worldly infiltration in many of America's churches today make me sick!!!

Indeed, the only hope the Anglican Church has in representing the Truth is in the African and other overseas churches who stand by the principles of God's Word. Although, it is encouraging that orthodox, US Episcopalians are splitting and forming another body parallel to ECUSA and are hoping that the Archbishop of Canterbury will recognize them as the official Anglican church in the USA. However, it is highly doubtful, of course, because the archbishop is liberal.

The Episcopal Church - Another tragic victim of the culture dictating the church rather than the other way around :(

[Anthony Simons]

Just to clarify - UMC is not the Episcopal Church. Just thought I would shed some light on another mainline church struggle.

[Kenn Gividen]

"The worldly infiltration in many of America's churches today make me sick!!!"

I've notice that liberals almost never found churches, religious groups or religious schools. They almost always infiltrate and "enlighten" established ministries.

The Metropolitan Community Church is one of very few exceptions. That liberal denomination only has 250 affiliate congregations spread thin across the globe.

[Chris Douglas]

That's interesting, Kenn. I think it's quite the reverse... I think it could be more persuasively argued that a liberal founded Christianity only later to have much of it taken over again by conservative pharisees.

[Micah Clark]

Hey Chris, that's pretty funny.

The "liberal" who "founded" Christianity . . . Umm, let me see, that would be Jesus Christ who said in Matthew Chapter 19 that marriage was one man and one woman, just as God had created it when asked by those "conservative pharisees" who harmed the faith later by "taking over again" and repeating Christ's teachings on marriage.

Nice try . . . stick to politics or better yet, do something really meaningful with your time . . . study the Bible.

[Kenn Gividen]

Whats a liberal?

In Australia the Liberal Party leans toward the libertarian/conservative line. Classic liberals were libertarians, before the term was hijacked by the left wing.

While the pleas to "define your term" is usually an avoidance strategy, in this case it applies.

We do know that the "liberal" founder of Christianity said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." It's hard to suffer (permit) children to do anything if they're killed in abortion mills.

As Micah notes, the Jesus of the New Testament recognized nothing more than male/female marriage. Is there another record of Jesus recognized by orthodoxy?

[Chris Douglas]

Proceed to verse 10, Micah, wherein the disciples ask question whether it is expedient to marry.

Christ's response is "Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

A gay man is not able to receive this precept to marry and find contentment with with a woman, nor a gay woman able to receive and find contentment with a man.

Jesus Christ had an understanding that you utterly lack.

But we've been through all this before, you and I, Micah. In my opinion, you are among those who have crippled the word and made it repulsive to too many decent and educated people, who cannot reconcile their innate, God-given sense of justice and decency towards others with the prejudice and discrimination you have made a career of purveying. Some 89% of Americans according to recent scientific polling think gays should have equal opportunities in terms of jobs, but not you and your peers. You are content to be among those who cast out demons in the name of the Lord, revile, and persecute.

[Chris Douglas]

And Kenn, Jesus had no interest in orthodoxy. That was the lesson of his curing on the Sabbath against the law.... and his declaration that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

Orthodoxy has no place in Christianity... or for that matter in the Republican Party (let alone the Libertarian) or America. It is antithetical. It is precisely the re-imposition of the Pharisees, the flat-earth society, the miasmists, the segregationists, and the anti-miscegenationists.

[Kenn Gividen]

You're playing word games.

The pharisees had missed the "weightier matters of the law" which Jesus named specifically as "judgment, mercy, and faith."

"These ought ye to have done," he said, "and not to leave the other undone."

His objective was to conserve the essence of the Old Testament law. In that sense, he was a conservative.

If one thinks of the Old Testament law as being orthodox (as opposed to the Pharisaical addendums), He didn't come to destroy orthodoxy but to fill it.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matt 5:17)

[Chris Douglas]

Too of us are playing word games, including yours that no religion was ever founded by a liberal, but merely by conservatives whose work was taken over by liberals. That's like claiming the American revolution was a product of conservatives. The law and order conservatives were the Pharisees, inhumane and judgmental, and Christ took issue with both characteristics.

Certainly, every move forward draws upon important themes of the past. In this, conservatism and liberalism are intertwined.

[Kenn Gividen]

"no religion was ever founded by a liberal"

Did I say that?