5 Comments

  1. Janeen Hill
    June 13, 2017 @ 10:16 am

    Thank you. What you describe is exactly how the church I serve has chosen to move forward. We all worshiped together before entering “crisis mode” and nothing has changed that. Our focus is on making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, and nothing should distract us from that.

    Reply

  2. David Childers
    June 13, 2017 @ 2:53 pm

    A beautiful hope, Rebecca. Sounds to me like a foretaste of the kingdom. We should look for a way that doesn’t force anyone to do what they think is wrong, nor forbid anyone to do what they think is right — as much as possible, anyway.

    Reply

  3. Dan Boyd
    June 13, 2017 @ 4:21 pm

    “It means giving up being right.” Interesting concept. Is this critical to a way forward. How is this possible in an environment when progressives are name calling traditionalists with labels of homophobic and haters. I an environment where traditionalists are name calling and labeling progressives as Biblically ignorant and lawless. Can progressives give up believing that the interpretation of Scripture in which many see allowance for celebrating and affirming same gender sexually intimate relationships is right? Can traditionalists give up believing that their interpretation of the condemnation of all forms of homosexual sexual behavior is wrong? What does self-differentiation for a congregation in which 85-90% of a congregation hold to the belief and practice of faithfulness in one man one woman covenant marriage and celibacy in singleness is the revealed Christian standard for sexual behavior look like when a Bishop appoints a unioned lesbian pastor as their pastor? Why this fascination with staying together in this imagined self-differentiation? Is it possible to refine truth and authority in such a way that persons with logically, spiritually, and relationally incongruent understandings on Christology, Pnuematology, Sexual Ethics, Truth and Biblical Authority can stay together without ever having to choose which viewpoint/understanding is right and therefore allowable? Sees to me Jesus was more than willing to let persons self-differentiate off the path of following him or believing in him. What he did not do was pretend that persons who chose not to follow him were disciples or a part of His current and coming kingdom. Could it be healthier and more faithful to give each other freedom to self-differentiate into different and disconnected expressions of the Church and the Kingdom?

    Reply

  4. Ms. M
    June 13, 2017 @ 7:02 pm

    Thank you Rebekah!

    Reply

  5. Albert Lunde
    May 5, 2018 @ 6:01 pm

    The draft Social Principles brought to the floor of General Conference in 1972 were the product of a committee trying to make a balanced statement about homosexuality after considering medical and biblical evidence available at the time. The “incompatibility” clause was an amendment from the floor by a delegate from Texas. Treating it as an immutable truth has led us down this path.
    But really our problem is not that we disagree about theology and/or human sexuality, but that we have a political process that does not permit us to compromise. Previous compromises have been voted down.
    Whether we split or not we all will have the same numbers of LGBT children. THe UMC will be backing into the future until it deals with that.
    I’ve been waiting since I was in high school for the Methodist church to realize I wasn’t a problem in need of a final solution. I’m now nearing retirement. I’m lucky to be a layperson attending a Reconciling Congregation and working in a liberal community with a human rights ordinance (which my pastor testified in favor of). Others have not fared so well.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *