This is a current discussion, you may have noticed, in the UMC. I thought I might just think aloud for a moment and ask you for your thoughts. There are several reasons one can argue for inclusion (the term used to denote ordination to LGBT, etc… inside the UMC). There is usually one used to argue against inclusion — “the bible.” How to not argue for: Please do not suggest that because society is moving in this direction, we should too. The Church is no beholden to society, else we could argue against inclusion and instead for cleansing (i.e.,
Rather than respond directly to the well thought out and intelligent post by Kevin M. Carnahan, I have chosen rather to attempt a humble presentation of a differing view. It is my hope that what it lacks in scholarship, it will make for in your understanding that it is born of a sincere faith in Christ, a deep love of God and a deep love for people. By way of credentials, I have none save a love of God through Christ and a love of people. I am not as well studied as Kevin, nor am I as well
I wanted to highlight this particular post again because I hope to raise some discussion about it. Those who believe Scripture condemns homosexuality often accuse those those who do not of theological liberalism and throwing away the Bible. Yet, that is not the case. I believe that as a Christian, Scripture is an authoritative guide; however, we must use it reasonably within the framework of our theological tradition and not simply how we desire to read it. No doubt there would be some in this society that would suggest that the text is being incorrectly read. These verses, they
Posted by Milton Almeida Read here It proves nothing but the fact that the gay community is not the “Borg”… the Collective Intelligence, as widely believed. Some do think on their own!
This is going around – Thoughts?
I dind’t say it! Don’t kill the messenger! “Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character Queer theorists – that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders – have tried to take the post structuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule.
Allow me to be the “contrarian”, but before labeling the author of this article and its main thrust, “anti-gay” or “homophobic”, fundamentalist or a “fun the mentalist”, please, please consider his proposition. Then, call it whatever your emotion prompt you to call him. Read here. “Of Consciences and Cakes: A Response to Kirsten Powers”