Theologicamol Questions

[dave from knoxville]

Although I think we can all admit that God can write good cool jazz; he just distributes it through his anointed vessel, Kenny G.

[Steve of Bloomington]

Although I think we can all admit that God can write good cool jazz; he just distributes it through his anointed vessel, Kenny G.

I had a coworker once who told me he was going to take 'Christian Saxophone' lessons.

I thought that was pretty dumb, everybody knows Charlie Christian played guitar.

[Kim Kelly]

Yeah, I was just being a wisenheimer.

Are we still talking about Christian rock? I wouldn't call Nick Cave a Christian rock artist, but he is a Christian, and he does rock. He incorporates a lot of biblical imagery into his songs, and he believes that any true love song is a song for God.

I think you might enjoy this song, Pastor Josh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0-cncMpt8

[chrysta]

Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting.  Anyone else?

There's also Knights Of The New Crusade. They're on Jello Biafra's label, so I dunno if they're the real deal or satire, but they've got the garage punk thing going for them, anyway. Terre T's played them on the Cherry Blossom Clinic, and if memory serves Tom had one of their CDs on the prize cozy during a previous Marathon.

[Kim Kelly]

I've heard the Knights of the New Crusade are the real deal, but that could just be bull. I liked them when "My God Is Alive! Sorry About Yours!" came out. Specifically "E Is for Evil."

This video, however, does them no favors. Look, if you're a devout Christian, for the love of GOD -- and I'm not being ironic using that phrase, alright -- please don't use homophobic slurs and even hint just a little bit that we're going to hell, okay? I think it probably turns a lot of gays, lesbian, bi, and trans people away from religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZYW3FP-nd4

They do have that great Wild Billy Childish garage revival sound though.

And on a related note: Pastor Josh, I'm interested to hear your perspective on your Church's view on homosexuality, especially after reading the various excerpts and quotes at ReligiousTolerance.org. I understand your congregation is pretty progressive. I mean, I've walked behind Methodist congregations in Pride parades, and it's great to see both adults and young people dancing and having a good time. But how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality -- and I'm assuming you're in line with many of the Methodist pastors who wholeheartedly accept GLBT people -- with your denomination's official stance? Do you think it's likely they'll reverse their views soon? And would you say there are more progressive congregations than conservative across the UMC? I understand there have been multiple pastors who have conducted commitment ceremonies and have been reprimanded or worse by the Church. Would you say there are more pastors out there who would gladly perform commitment ceremonies but don't out of fear of facing a church trial?

[Pastor Josh]

And on a related note: Pastor Josh, I'm interested to hear your perspective on your Church's view on homosexuality, especially after reading the various excerpts and quotes at ReligiousTolerance.org. I understand your congregation is pretty progressive. I mean, I've walked behind Methodist congregations in Pride parades, and it's great to see both adults and young people dancing and having a good time. But how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality -- and I'm assuming you're in line with many of the Methodist pastors who wholeheartedly accept GLBT people -- with your denomination's official stance? Do you think it's likely they'll reverse their views soon? And would you say there are more progressive congregations than conservative across the UMC? I understand there have been multiple pastors who have conducted commitment ceremonies and have been reprimanded or worse by the Church. Would you say there are more pastors out there who would gladly perform commitment ceremonies but don't out of fear of facing a church trial?

First off, my congregation is not progressive.  In fact, they're very conservative, and many of them are biblical literalists.  They are really good people, and almost all of them value love above law, but I have a friend in town who is gay, and he, his partner, and their daughter have been looking for a church.  I"ve told them that I would love it if they came, and I would stand up with them against the congregation if need be, but that I could't promise them a good reception.  I think they would be welcome, but the issue is so, well, weird I guess is the word.  Otherwise rational people go apeshit over this.  Many UM congregations are very progressive, though, and, as in most denominations that require pastors to get a certain level of education, on average the clergy are more progressive than the laity.  Now, to be clear, our denomination's official stance is that all people, specifically including homosexuals, are beloved children of God and are of infinite divine worth and cannot be excluded from the life of the church except in the areas of marriage and ordination.  However, the denomination holds that biblically speaking, homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuals cannot be admitted to the order or ordained persosn.  (We have a lot of greedy, mean-spirited bastards in the order of ordained persons, which are by any standards far more condemned in the bible than homosexuality, which I would argue isn't condemned at all, but for some reaon thay can be ordained.)  What is really holding us back is that we are a world-wide denomination and we have a large contingent from Africa who tend to be very, very conservative.  (Never mind the fact that the bible mandates slavery, and that bit of human-rights violating scripture didn't work out so well for Africa that maybe we could reconsider this one.)  We are taking steps to declare the United States a Central Conference, which would allow us to make rules for the UMC in the US that differ from the Book of Discipline.  Every other nation I know of with a UM presence is a Central Conference, so to me it seems condescending for us not to be one.  It's like claiming we're default United Methodism, and anyone who isn't like us is something different.  Good, old fashioned, American hegemony.  Not surprisingly, liberals are unquestioningly in favor of it and conservatives are unquestioningly opposed.  I think this will have happened by 2016 at the latest.  Anyway, I understand why someone would perform a committment ceremony at the risk of his or her job.  However, I would not, but not because I fear reprisal from my superiors.  (I could give you a little bit of biography to support that.)  I wouldn't beacuse if I do not become and then remain an ordained United methodist pastor, then I cannot vote to reform our denomination.  Every progressive voice lost to acts of civil disobedience is one more unopposed conservative voice, and we need all the help we can get.  Sorry for the long answer, but it's a complicated question.  There's still more I'd like to clarify, so feel free to pose any follow-up questions.

[Denim Gremlin]

And on a related note: Pastor Josh, I'm interested to hear your perspective on your Church's view on homosexuality, especially after reading the various excerpts and quotes at ReligiousTolerance.org. I understand your congregation is pretty progressive. I mean, I've walked behind Methodist congregations in Pride parades, and it's great to see both adults and young people dancing and having a good time. But how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality -- and I'm assuming you're in line with many of the Methodist pastors who wholeheartedly accept GLBT people -- with your denomination's official stance? Do you think it's likely they'll reverse their views soon? And would you say there are more progressive congregations than conservative across the UMC? I understand there have been multiple pastors who have conducted commitment ceremonies and have been reprimanded or worse by the Church. Would you say there are more pastors out there who would gladly perform commitment ceremonies but don't out of fear of facing a church trial?

First off, my congregation is not progressive.  In fact, they're very conservative, and many of them are biblical literalists.  They are really good people, and almost all of them value love above law, but I have a friend in town who is gay, and he, his partner, and their daughter have been looking for a church.  I"ve told them that I would love it if they came, and I would stand up with them against the congregation if need be, but that I could't promise them a good reception.  I think they would be welcome, but the issue is so, well, weird I guess is the word.  Otherwise rational people go apeshit over this.  Many UM congregations are very progressive, though, and, as in most denominations that require pastors to get a certain level of education, on average the clergy are more progressive than the laity.  Now, to be clear, our denomination's official stance is that all people, specifically including homosexuals, are beloved children of God and are of infinite divine worth and cannot be excluded from the life of the church except in the areas of marriage and ordination.  However, the denomination holds that biblically speaking, homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuals cannot be admitted to the order or ordained persosn.  (We have a lot of greedy, mean-spirited bastards in the order of ordained persons, which are by any standards far more condemned in the bible than homosexuality, which I would argue isn't condemned at all, but for some reaon thay can be ordained.)  What is really holding us back is that we are a world-wide denomination and we have a large contingent from Africa who tend to be very, very conservative.  (Never mind the fact that the bible mandates slavery, and that bit of human-rights violating scripture didn't work out so well for Africa that maybe we could reconsider this one.)  We are taking steps to declare the United States a Central Conference, which would allow us to make rules for the UMC in the US that differ from the Book of Discipline.  Every other nation I know of with a UM presence is a Central Conference, so to me it seems condescending for us not to be one.  It's like claiming we're default United Methodism, and anyone who isn't like us is something different.  Good, old fashioned, American hegemony.  Not surprisingly, liberals are unquestioningly in favor of it and conservatives are unquestioningly opposed.  I think this will have happened by 2016 at the latest.  Anyway, I understand why someone would perform a committment ceremony at the risk of his or her job.  However, I would not, but not because I fear reprisal from my superiors.  (I could give you a little bit of biography to support that.)  I wouldn't beacuse if I do not become and then remain an ordained United methodist pastor, then I cannot vote to reform our denomination.  Every progressive voice lost to acts of civil disobedience is one more unopposed conservative voice, and we need all the help we can get.  Sorry for the long answer, but it's a complicated question.  There's still more I'd like to clarify, so feel free to pose any follow-up questions.

yeah but I mean two dudes kissing? that's gross! am I right people?!

[jed]

Pastor Josh,
I don't know many UMs. In fact, I met one for the first time yesterday. This guy was dropping all these names of books and programs I've never heard of and assuming that I knew what he was talking about (40 days of community, Dream Center, Christian Believers...). Do you guys do a lot of denominationally-initiated programs or is it just this UM church?

Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality?  And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?

[Gilly]

Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality?  And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?

Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.

[Steve of Bloomington]

Two women kissing, though: HOT!

And on a related note: Pastor Josh, I'm interested to hear your perspective on your Church's view on homosexuality, especially after reading the various excerpts and quotes at ReligiousTolerance.org. I understand your congregation is pretty progressive. I mean, I've walked behind Methodist congregations in Pride parades, and it's great to see both adults and young people dancing and having a good time. But how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality -- and I'm assuming you're in line with many of the Methodist pastors who wholeheartedly accept GLBT people -- with your denomination's official stance? Do you think it's likely they'll reverse their views soon? And would you say there are more progressive congregations than conservative across the UMC? I understand there have been multiple pastors who have conducted commitment ceremonies and have been reprimanded or worse by the Church. Would you say there are more pastors out there who would gladly perform commitment ceremonies but don't out of fear of facing a church trial?

First off, my congregation is not progressive.  In fact, they're very conservative, and many of them are biblical literalists.  They are really good people, and almost all of them value love above law, but I have a friend in town who is gay, and he, his partner, and their daughter have been looking for a church.  I"ve told them that I would love it if they came, and I would stand up with them against the congregation if need be, but that I could't promise them a good reception.  I think they would be welcome, but the issue is so, well, weird I guess is the word.  Otherwise rational people go apeshit over this.  Many UM congregations are very progressive, though, and, as in most denominations that require pastors to get a certain level of education, on average the clergy are more progressive than the laity.  Now, to be clear, our denomination's official stance is that all people, specifically including homosexuals, are beloved children of God and are of infinite divine worth and cannot be excluded from the life of the church except in the areas of marriage and ordination.  However, the denomination holds that biblically speaking, homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuals cannot be admitted to the order or ordained persosn.  (We have a lot of greedy, mean-spirited bastards in the order of ordained persons, which are by any standards far more condemned in the bible than homosexuality, which I would argue isn't condemned at all, but for some reaon thay can be ordained.)  What is really holding us back is that we are a world-wide denomination and we have a large contingent from Africa who tend to be very, very conservative.  (Never mind the fact that the bible mandates slavery, and that bit of human-rights violating scripture didn't work out so well for Africa that maybe we could reconsider this one.)  We are taking steps to declare the United States a Central Conference, which would allow us to make rules for the UMC in the US that differ from the Book of Discipline.  Every other nation I know of with a UM presence is a Central Conference, so to me it seems condescending for us not to be one.  It's like claiming we're default United Methodism, and anyone who isn't like us is something different.  Good, old fashioned, American hegemony.  Not surprisingly, liberals are unquestioningly in favor of it and conservatives are unquestioningly opposed.  I think this will have happened by 2016 at the latest.  Anyway, I understand why someone would perform a committment ceremony at the risk of his or her job.  However, I would not, but not because I fear reprisal from my superiors.  (I could give you a little bit of biography to support that.)  I wouldn't beacuse if I do not become and then remain an ordained United methodist pastor, then I cannot vote to reform our denomination.  Every progressive voice lost to acts of civil disobedience is one more unopposed conservative voice, and we need all the help we can get.  Sorry for the long answer, but it's a complicated question.  There's still more I'd like to clarify, so feel free to pose any follow-up questions.

yeah but I mean two dudes kissing? that's gross! am I right people?!

[Pastor Josh]

Pastor Josh,
I don't know many UMs. In fact, I met one for the first time yesterday. This guy was dropping all these names of books and programs I've never heard of and assuming that I knew what he was talking about (40 days of community, Dream Center, Christian Believers...). Do you guys do a lot of denominationally-initiated programs or is it just this UM church?

Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality?  And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?

Most denominations have all these dumb programs.  I've not heard of any of those, however.  Some of them are all right, but do we really need them?  The reasons most churches are declining is because we've decided to be more like Rome in the passion narrative than like Jesus.

For your second question, that's a good distinction.  Thank you for pointing it out.  Yes, we supposedly would ordain a celebate homosexual.  The actual phrase in our Book of Discipline is that we won't ordained "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals".  I have friends who claim to no longer be practicing; they've pretty much got it down.  But that doesn't fly with our Boards of Ordained Ministry.  We haven't had an internal court case to actual define what that means, however.  And yes, we do ordain women, which, with due respect to Gilly, is as unbiblical as ordaining homosexuals.  The exact same arguments were made, just as arguments against legalizing interracial marriage are identical to arguments against gay marriage.  Homosexuality is not really a major sin biblically speaking.  Only three verses in all of scripture reference it, and, as I said earlier, I'd argue that what we mean by homosexuality and what they mean are completely different things.  As Jim Wallis has pointed out, sixty percent of all the things Jesus said were about money, but we don't hold pastors accountable for selling everything they own and giving it to the poor, for instance.  If we're going to use the bible as authority to exclude people, the exact opposite of Jesus' teachings, then we need to be consistent about it.  It's one of the reasons I respect Fred Phelps, hateful vile scumbag that he is, more than, say, Pat Robertson.  At least Phelps is biblially consistent.  As someone (PZ Myers, maybe?) pointed out, if you don't think that men who commit homosexual acts should be put to death, then you are not interpreting the bible literally, so you can't use it as an excuse to justify your own hatred.

[dave from knoxville]

Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality?  And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?

Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.

Dear Gilly,

That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.

dfk

[A.M. Thomas]

Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality?  And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?

Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.

Dear Gilly,

That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.

dfk

Can anyone post the particular verses that (ostensibly) condemn homosexuality?  Thanks.

[Gilly]

These are the King James Version translations. The original Hebrew and Greek texts are a little more vague and those are the passages that are really in question.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

I Corinthians 6:9   "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:9-10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

Jude 1:7: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

[Gilly]

Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality?  And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?

Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.

Dear Gilly,

That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.

dfk

It's so important of an issue right now and it upsets me that almost everyone who has something to say about doesn't really know what they are talking about. If a person is going to be passionate about an issue at least know the details and I see both sides of this debate arguing with no real knowledge of the issue at hand.

Pastor Josh, I haven't read anywhere in the Bible that a woman teaching is a sin. There were many women leaders in the Bible and not one bad word was spoken about them. It wasn't until Paul wrote his letter to Timothy that the Bible mentions the role of a woman and not only does it come off as advice, he contradicts himself because in his various other letters throughout the New Testament he proclaims man and woman as one and the same, recognizes a woman as a deacon and leader and another woman as an apostle.