In 2018’s Marvel movie Black Panther, the staunchest supporters of Wakanda are the Dora Milaje, the bald female warriors. They are loyal servants of the throne, even when the antagonist Killmonger has usurped it. When Killmonger calls for them to live as killers—far beyond their calling as protectors—they are loyal and serve. But the picture above depicts the joy of the lead Dora Milaje General Okoye after seeing that her King T’Challa, who was thought to be dead, is alive and she is overjoyed there is another way forward for her beloved country.
This scene serves as a helpful illustration of the primary component of this plan…resurrection. A resurrection of hope, a leaving behind of the doctrines that lead to death, and a righting of the UMC that has lost its way.
What the Plan does
When it comes to February 2019, there are currently four plans on the table. Two official ones were written by the A Way Forward Commission, and two ones that came from alternative sources.
The A Way Forward Commission wrote two Plans (The Connectional Conferences Plan and the OneChurch Plan) and submitted an alternative plan that it did not write (The Traditionalist Plan). The fourth plan, The Simple Plan, is likewise an alternative plan, initially written for GC2016 by the Reconciling Ministries Network, and updated/submitted by the United Methodist Queer Clergy Caucus for 2019.
This proposal requires neither constitutional amendments nor hundreds of pages of technical translations. The Simple Plan proposes to “simply” remove the language from the Book of Discipline that excludes LGBTQ people from full participation in the church. It is the shortest legislation of the four plans.
The Simple Plan only deletes language regarding LGBTQ persons and makes no additions of language of any kind. While any language can be added on the floor or in committee at General Conference for clarity, the primary purpose is to remove the language that excludes LGBTQ persons from full participation in the church. It has a variety of effects on the levels of church involvement.
What happens to local churches?
- Local churches are no longer restricted and may host weddings for same-gender couples, in consultation with the pastor-in-charge. Final authority over decisions to host weddings lies with the pastor-in-charge.
What happens to clergy?
- Marriage is not restricted to heterosexual couples, so clergy can officiate for whomever they wish. Clergy have final authority over decisions to officiate weddings or host them at their local church.
What happens to Annual Conferences?
- Boards of Ordained Ministry may choose to no longer exclude candidates based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, and bishops may no longer restrict their election or ordination.
- Annual Conferences are no longer banned from using Connectional funds for ministries to or for LGBTQ persons.
What happens to bishops?
- Bishops may no longer be charged with disobedience for being in a same-gender relationship or for officiating a same-gender wedding or civil union.
- Bishops may no longer deny a vote on a clergy candidate for commissioning or ordination. If commissioning or ordaining a candidate is a violation of personal beliefs, they may facilitate the ordination with another bishop in the same ordination service (this currently exists in our polity anyway).
What happens to Central Conferences?
- No changes in countries that criminalize homosexuality. Central Conferences in countries where civil unions or marriages are available may choose to allow them to be officiated by their clergy and hosted by their churches.
- Central Conferences are no longer banned from using Central Conference funds for ministries to or for LGBTQ persons.
What happens to the General Church?
- General Agencies are no longer banned from using Connectional funds for ministries to or for LGBTQ persons.
Hacking Christianity (HX) Perspective
Like the warriors in Black Panther, LGBTQ clergy have served the church faithfully, many from the closet and some out in the open. They love their church so much they endure the daily trashing of their dignity for the sake of their calling. LGBTQ laity have endured decades of their marriages and long-term relationships going unacknowledged. This has gone on for 46 years. It’s time for it to end.
The Orwellian talk of “graceful accountability” in the other plans are about how to remove people from The UMC. In contrast, the Simple Plan seeks to include both the silent service of LGBTQ clergy and the outspoken Traditionalist pastors who are unwilling to affirm LGBTQ inclusion. By removing the restrictive language and not adding in affirming language, the Simple Plan allows the Discipline to be followed by progressives and conservatives alike. When all clergy candidates are asked:
Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?
Do you approve our Church government and polity?
Will you support and maintain them?”
Since there is nothing excluding or explicitly including LGBTQ persons, then both sides can say yes with integrity.
While I lament a lack of affirming language, I recognize that such language would be unacceptable to Traditionalists at this time. It took a long time for The UMC to accept female clergy and African-American pastors, so I can understand if some people are not there yet. Indeed, many United Methodists live in countries where homosexuality is criminalized (and the USA is on its way, given the retreat of personal liberty in this American regime), so the lack of affirming language will allow those UMCs not to have to explain things if their context doesn’t necessitate it.
Finally, one critique I already heard about The Simple Plan is that it strikes the whole sentence about celibacy in singleness, monogamy, fidelity, etc. People read into this different things, usually stereotypes of promiscuous gay people. But the truth is that civil marriage isn’t legal everywhere and isn’t even secure in the US with the open Supreme Court seat hanging in the balance. Leaving the sentence about celibacy in singleness opens the door for the most vulnerable folks at risk of attack should the civil laws turn, so it had to be removed. Perhaps GC will have a better way to write it, but that’s an explanation of why it was deleted.
In short, of the four plans, this one is the most progressive, and yet also the one that most honors our decades of polity in the church. It’s not an overarching revamp of everything like Connectional Conferences, it’s not a manufactured expulsion of one group like the Traditionalist Plan, nor is it a regional diversity approach like OneChurch Plan. It’s just simple and easy to pass Plan.
I hope that such a plan rolls away the stone, leads us out of death, doom, and gloom, and brings us into the light of the largest Wesleyan body to allow LGBTQ persons’ full participation in the Church. We are already the largest Wesleyan body to ordain women, and what a world-changing decision that was! May we lead with grace, honoring our diverse clergy and candidates, couples of all kinds, and step forward into whatever is next for the United Methodist Church.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Thank you for your clear presentations of the 4 ways. Well done good and faithful servant of God. I hope you get a little sleep before Sunday gets here.
It seems to me that no one is using the Bible when making these plans. What verses can you give to promote the homosexual lifestyle?
The Bible tells us that in the last days the majority of the population will be like it was in the days of Noah. Then there were only 8 people in the Ark. All the rest were given to sexual sins and the land was filled with violence. Doesn’t this look like America?
Please view my web page, http://www.alawfromedem.com. for information on how to bring all people, including the LGBT population, back to God.
If you look at God’s creations in the oceans you will see all variations of gender expression and orientations among the exquisitely lovely creatures there. So viewing them made me believe in creation and that God loves diversity and so should we.
Norma, I agree with you that God’s creation is full of wonderful diversity. I also note that, even without taking a literalist approach to Genesis 1, God created humanity separately from the creation of the rest of the living creatures, even separating the formation of those in the sea from those upon the land. In giving humanity dominion over creation, we’re granted an awesome responsibility to exercise careful stewardship over all that God created. I don’t know if I can understand how we are able to exercise adequate stewardship over something if we’re not also distinguished from that same thing. This in borne out in the fact that the image we bear is not the image of the rest of creation but that of the One who created us.
OT scriptures speak more positively about polygamy than anything same sex related. Does that mean that polygamy is God-ordained? We see polygamy within “God’s creation”. Does that mean that is what God intends for the highest of God’s creatures? We see animals sometimes eat their young. Is that what God would want His people to do?
Norma, the basis of your logic eludes me. Creation does not tell me how to live. Scripture guides me and those that I’m in community with affirm what Scripture speaks. Find yourself a church community that will help speak new life into your heart.
The only difference in the Creation Account between animals and humans is that humans are Created in the Image of God. Otherwise, both humans and animals are said to have souls or Nephesh. Adam is referred to as a living creature or Nephesh Chayah in Genesis 2:7. Animals in numerous places in the Creation story are referred to as Nephesh Chayah. So there isn’t a very sharp difference between humans and animals in the Creation story.
You’ve overlooked that God has given to humanity responsible authority (dominion) over living creatures as well as the authority to name (distinguish and differentiate after careful observation) those same creatures. That’s more than a dull difference between humans and animals.
Sounds like a common sense plan. May the delegates have the common sense to accept this plan and move forward into the 21st century in the name of make disciples throughout the world. Please, Creator, hear our prayers.
Simple but not easy to pass. Not likely to get more than 35% support. Looks like a non-starter to me. The reason for complicated plans is the wide gap between opposing factions. Compromises and reassurances must be built in.
This sounds like the only way to maintain a United Methodist Church. The simply way is almost always the best plan. Progressives will be allowed to be the Church they want, and traditionalists can be maintained. If a loving God, he surely made different colors and orientations for purpose of his own.
Thank you for the clear word and your ongoing commitment to the United Methodist church.
This simple plan is as much a fantasy as Wakanda. You’ve not only removed the terminology concerning homosexuality but also that of marriage. The confrontation is not just about words in a book.
It is most certainly just about words in a book. You are one of those who has obviously forgotten that the Book of Discipline is NOT holy text.
I’m 70, a divorced and married again female certified lay speaker. This makes a whole lot of sense to me.
A clear majority of global United Methodists affirm existing church teaching on human sexuality not out of hatred or ignorance or primitive fears. They affirm it because it’s true. It may be, as the logical conclusion of your position suggests, that the Christian church has gotten its doctrine of marriage wrong, at all times in all places by all people, i.e., Church teaching on marriage has been a one, holy, catholic and universal mistake? Thus the remedy began 45 years ago with the Unitarian-Universalist religion leading the way (though their own current flailing with finding reasons NOT to bless polyamorous relationships has diverted some of their energy), or so says the Washington Post. If we become a church that does its theology and sets its moral standards by zip code, with each congregation becoming a self-licking lollipop for area-code truth, good luck with that. A.N. Whitehead was on target: Seek simplicity, and distrust it.
By your logic, a clear majority of Christian doctrine denying women’s ordination is a one, holy, catholic, and universal truth. 2/3s of world Christianity (Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Eastern Orthodox) do not affirm women’s ordination. So how could we possibly be right to ordain women?
I suspect, Jeremy, that Bob likely isn’t a fan of the Ordination of women either.
Ha! Tell my ordained wife, ordained daughter, and 5 other extended female pastor family members about that. By the way, ample biblical precedent exists for women in positions of spiritual authority in both OT and NT, whereas on certain other issues every biblical reference is consistently adverse to certain behaviors, regardless of motive.
I agree with you on the ample biblical precedent. But that is today. That ample biblical precedent was not seen and acknowledged by the majority until 62 years ago. Many of us see ample biblical precedent for the inclusion of our lgbtq sisters and brothers. Unfortunately it seems the majority does not, yet. Will it take another 60 or 600 years for the scales to fall from enough eyes to finally see clearly enough that te whole of the canon embraces all people?
Jeremy: Is this 4th plan really on the table? I missed that event, but I am sure glad to see it. Gives me hope!
It is a submitted petition. It remainds to be seen if it will be considered by GC2019, but there’s nothing in it that I would imagine would invalidate it.
I hope it is taken up and passed.
The ways of the world can not simply be also the ways of the church. The church should be a beacon for lost people to find there way. To be taught biblical doctrine! Not simply changing some words around to suit the standards of a sinful society. We are to teach a way out of the sin. We are made in the image of God. Man & Woman to be partners, to cleave to one another and in the appropriate time to reproduce. God made Adam a helper for these things. This doctrine has not changed. It is sound reasoning. To teach otherwise in our churches or allow, I am afraid would be detrimental to our denomination as a whole.
Thanks, as always, Jeremy for your hours of thought, prayer, analysis and posting. I still want to advocate for changing the name of the so-called “Traditionalists “ to “Discriminationalists” and their plan from “traditional” to “discriminatory”. “Traditional” gives them too much in-earned authority.
Jill,
So, you can’t afford the same “loving acceptance” of we Traditionalists/Conservatives/True Believers as you afford the LGBT members? Sounds hypocritical at best and very unChristian at worst.
Maybe we should start calling Progressives liars as lying when they took their membership oath? You know, the one where you swore before God to “ . . . be loyal to Christ through the UMC, and do all in your power to strengthen its ministries.”
Doing all in your power to strengthen its ministries does not mean tearing apart the BOD, or ignoring it to do as you want. It means building up the UMC by following its core principles, including the BOD. The Traditionalist Plan maintainsthe BOD and status quo, and strengthens the UMC and its ministries. The other plans tear apart the UMC to satisfy some misbegotten social agenda that follow a secular path, not a Christian one.
Your loving brother in Christ,
Steve
Oslo your idea to “resurrect” the UMC is to
1) ignore every single Scrioture on same sex activity,
2) By the default of # 1 do away with the Disicpline’s statements on the primacy and authority of Scrioture
3) Turn our backs on our Wesleyan theology (even dumbing this down to the Quadrilateral one can’t reconcile it with our theology) in every shape and form
4) and ending our unique relationship as a connectional church.
Yeah, no thanks. Although that’s pretty much the foundation of how then Western and North Eastern Jurisdicitons have operated. How’s that working?
Would you accept the authority of the Prescriptive text Deuteronomy 21:15-17 which states that it is perfectly alright for a man to have two wives?
Mr. Wagle, surely you jest. The section you quote begins “If a man has 2 wives…..” It does not say or even hint that that is ok. In fact, those verses point out a complication caused by having 2 wives, and that is the inheritance headache caused by a situation where the firstborn son is not borne by the most loved wife.
In his Explanatory notes on Deuteronomy 21, a certain John Wesley stated “this practice, though tolerated, is not hereby made lawful.”
Thanks for the logic. The same analysis can be made of Jesus’ use of “husband and wife” in one of his speeches does not mean he defined marriage forever and ever as “man and wife.” Or as Wesley would say “this practice, though depicted, is not hereby made eternal law.”
Deuteronomy 17:17 only *commands* a King not to have *many* wives. It does not command a King to have only one wife. So this prescriptive passage fails to prescribe “One man, one woman.” Not one passage in the entire OT prescribes “one man, one woman.”
Amen!
This plan, which is indeed simple, will undoubtedly fail because it requires United Methodists to do the very thing that they cannot, i.e. trust each other and their processes, and entrust those who differ from them to God.
I don’t see how this plan will stop conferences or congregations from discriminating against LGBTQ+ people. If there’s no language specifically prohibiting that, the conferences and churches will continue to do as they please. As seen from the comments, some people still believe that homosexual relations are sinful. They still believe that if the Bible says it, there’s no going against it. Taking the language out of the BoD won’t change their minds. They will see this a the first step on a slippery slope and opt to leave the UMC, as the Traditionalists plan to do should the 2019 conference approve any other plan.
As a founder of the old Methodists for Church Renewal, I look at the parallel experience with the U.S. Central Conference. Black churches, grouped together in a CENTRAL CONFERENCE, are largely ignored until the proposed merger between (white) UMD and EUBs. Much demonstrating was called for at our Annual Conference (Ohio), and an economic and personnel plan was worked out the acknowledged the racist practices, and then made some compensatory adjustments: pensions, salaries, appointments, and Bishops.
So I like the simplicity of this simpler plan, except where is the “make right” here? We have corporately committed the sins of scapegoating, unjust economics, exclusion. If it comedown to the 5, I’ll go with the last, but expect more internal adjustments to be brought forth as we return to our Conferences.
Can someone who is knowledgeable Re the rules of General Conference please clarify what is needed to pass one of the plans? Is it a simple majority or something else? Also, if the plan only requires a simple majority and passes, but any associated amendments require a 2/3 majority but don’t pass, what then?
Thanks!
I remember those questions in my ordination interview with the Bishop in 1981. I said yes, except for the sections against homosexuality – those have to be changed, and I intend to work on that. I suppose I was lucky that my bishop understood both my point of view and the UMC democratic process about things which are not articles of faith (Wesley’s essentials). Obviously, the work continues.
Just approach this semantically, the “simplest” plan would be to leave it as is. No change would be necessary. You may not agree with the wording, and it definitely doesn’t make for a unified church, but it may be better to call this “My simple plan”. Again, this is just a semantics argument, not a position statement.
Also semantically, a “plan” is an approach to change something, not to leave it as-is. If a person’s goal was to change the UMC to be more inclusive of LGBTQ persons, then removing the offending language is far “simpler” than the complexity of the other plans.
Status quo is a plan. Lassaiz faire is a plan. A plan doesn’t require action.
Prayers for this. Or, is it too Simple for those intent on Judging more than Loving?
Judi,
Please drop the elitist attitude. As Todd notes, the Simple Plan should be to “simply” leave things the way they are and keep the BOD language. Of course, we would need to “simply” enforce the position that homosexuality is not conducive with Christian teaching and run offa slew of Bishops, District Supertindents, and clergy. But that shouldn’t be too hard. Several months of defrocking and they should be gone and we can get on with our true calling of evangelism and missions.
As to Traditionalists Judging and not loving, I take offense at your statement and attitude. Traditionalists are not judging our LGBT brothers and sisters. We are teaching them what the Bible says about their sinful behavior, and how it is wrong in God’s eyes. We aren’t judging them, we are trying to be truthful with them and for them to see the error of their ways and that their sinfulness will distance them from God vs bringing them closer to Him if they would repent of their sin. That is not judging, it is teaching, sharing, caring, and LOVING them enough to be truthful with them.
Progressives such as yourself believe that disagreeing with y’all Re the sinfulness of homosexuality means we don’t love y’all or our LGBT brothers and sisters. That is a false narrative (I.e., fake news to quote my favorite President). We believe that by agreeing with the homosexual behavior Progressives are simply trying to avoid conflict or confrontation of sharing the Good News with LGBT individuals. That is not Christian, not truthful, and not truly loving. It is shirking your responsibility by playing along to get along.
It may surprise you but I attend a very Progressive church of at least 40% LGBT members. I love all of our Church members including the LGBT ones. If I needed help, any of our members would be at my doorstep seeking to help in any way they could. In fact, I just experienced a major personal issue and one of our LGBT members was the first person I called. He took care of my issue superbly and I am so blessed to have him in my life. However, that doesn’t mean I agree with his homosexual lifestyle. It also means that even though he and other LGBT members may leave our church and the UMC if the BOD wording remains, I believe it is more important to follow God’s word than to lose their friendship. Obviously, Progressives believe differently. However, Traditionalists don’t take it personally you disagree with us, whereas Progressives take the disagreement very personally. To we Traditionalists, following God’s word as revealed to us in the Bible trumps friendships, relationships, and being reviled by Progressives. We know that truth is on our side and truth will set us free.
Your loving brother in Christ,
Steve
Avoidance by omission is not a solution. It implies consent. “Traditionalists” will never agree to a solution that does not include punishment for sexual sin as defined in the Bible.
Let me provide a slight revision to what you wrote. Traditionalists will never agree to any plan that:
1. Does not recognize homosexuality as a sin. And,
2. Does not implement consistent and strict discipline in accordance with the current BOD.
Jeremy, thanks for your helpful and thoughtful reporting on the various plans. As a scientist and a Christian, it saddens me when the United Methodist Church fails to accept that science can bring some helpful insights to our faith and beliefs. Virtually every psychological and medical organization affirms that biology is an important factor (some would say dominant) in sexual identity. Virtually every psychological organization states that reparative therapy does not work in most (not all, but most) cases and often is extremely harmful. For some people, being homosexual is just their natural self. What the church should be professing is the importance of a loving, respecting, and empowering relationship, whether that be between heterosexual or homosexual couples. Even if the Simple Plan fails, giving it visibility is important.
Granting that homosexuality is “natural self,” I would point out that blindness and deafness are also “natural.’ I would not expect a blind person to be an airline pilot or a deaf one to be a judge on The Voice — they are not made to have those privileges, no matter how earnestly they desire them. Perhaps, similarly, homosexuals are not to have the privilege of sex. If so, they would not be “practicing.” I would not exclude the blind or the deaf from my congregation, but I would expect them not to be unreasonable about their condition either. Can I not include homosexuals under the same umbrella? Is it going to far to call homosexuality a birth defect? How can I exclude someone who suffers from something that is not their fault? How can I accept their behavior when it is beyond what their limitations impose? I’m not grinding any axe here, I’ve just been thinking about these possibilities and wonder: am I off-base, or am I making sense?
Dennis,
I choose to look at homosexuality as similar to alcoholism. My father was an alcoholic. When he was dry, he was very lovable and caring. However, when he was drunk, he was nasty and vicious. He came from a family of alcoholics. The thing is, even though his childhood was ruined because of his alcoholic father and he knew he had a proclivity towards alcoholism, he still CHOSE to drink to excess.
I see homosexuality as similar in that someone may be born with a proclivity towards homosexual behavior, but they ultimately CHOOSE whether or not to engage in homosexual behavior. It is choosing to be sinful which displaces them from a strong connection to God and disqualifies them from being Godly leaders in the UMC.
Of course that is just my opinion based upon my experiences. If homosexuality is similar to blindness or deafness, these are handicaps. Just as you pointed out we wouldn’t want a blind person to be an airline pilot, we don’t want homosexuals in leadership positions of the UMC. However, they don’t recognize the limitations of their handicap.
Your loving brother in Christ,
Steve
Steve we agree. This simple plan is a plan that simply opening say’s, Let’s let sin in. The only good thing is it does not conceal what the one church and connectional plan does,,, the fact some want to let sin fully in. This has been coming on since the 1800’s when the Wesleyans and Nazarenes along with a few other groups left to start there on then misdirection of scriptural teaching. They saw this coming. LETS NOT FORGET WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ABOMINABLE SIN AND SCRIPTURE DECLARES IT, NO PROVATE INTERPREATATION CAN CHANGE THAT. As one person noted, the Bible say’s this would happen toward the end of the age, throughout the world and including in the Body of Christ regardless of the denomination. But there would also be a remnant that would stand firm. Anything less than the so called Traditionalist Plan will bring God’s wrath and judgment finally on the UMC and perhaps remove the candlestick permanently. God grace and mercy can only last for so long though it may be a long time before it runs out. I fear that day has come for the UMC/ FOOD FOR THOUGHT AS WELL, It’s not just about Marriage, or Ordination. If THAT is allowed the next step is allowing full church membership which under current wording they also really cannot be. Read the BOD. If we truly believe it is sin, then that means they cannot only serve they cannot be a member of the Body of Christ and local church. Scripture is just as plain in Paul’s writing where he instructs the church to remove and shun the disobedient professing believer from church membership. For years we have made it cheap and accepting of sin and NOT kept church discipline as scripture teaches at the forefront. This has lead us to where we are at the forgetting the former practices even of Wesley, read out history and his. Why not then just forget about sin period and just become a religious social club !! That’s where we are headed. And notice as some as said, the Bible is not even mentioned in this argument. How can we teach and preach Christ saves and changes people when we state of it’s ok to deny scripture and accept everything.
I agree with Dr. Paul Larrimore, The Traditional Plan is the only one that should be approved. All other plans have gotten away from the Bible and that will be a mistake. If I remember correctly I believe God went back and enlarged Hell. It was probably for times like this.
I like the Simple Plan. It has always been clear to me that homosexuals are born, not made. They are ‘made in God’s image’ same as the rest of the human population, and should have the same rights and privileges as anyone else. Dislike of gays derives from irrational fear of them, and a tradition of ridicule of them. A song written decades ago ‘Homophobia’ said it all. It’s in the same category of dislike for people having different flesh tone then their own: it’s nonsense. Let’s get over this loathing of gays and get on with God’s plan for everyone, and really make our UMC motto true: “Open doors, hearts, and minds.” The Simple Plan leaves the decision of acceptance or non-acceptance up to the local clergy and hierarchy. works for me. Pray for continuity and cohesion of the Great United Methodist Church. Regards/J
James,
Whereas homosexuals may be born, and made in God’s image like the rest of us, that is not the issue. The issue is their homosexual BEHAVIOR, which they freely choose to engage in. That is sin, same as a prostitute or alcoholic or child molester. They are all made in God’s image but their behavior, which they make a choice to engage in, is sinful.
So, no the Simple Plan won’t do. As long as there is any affiliation between my local church (i.e., apportionment) and an organization/bureaucracy which allows homosexual marriages, clergy, etc. neither I nor most other Traditionalists will agree to stay within the UMC. I can’t support any church “leader” who does not see that the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin and uphold their oath of ordination that confirms the BOD. The simplest solution is to leave the BOD as written and start disciplining/defrocking any Progressive clergy, DS, or Bishop who has violated the BOD or refuses to uphold it.
Your loving brother in Christ,
Steve
Just because one has more choice over behavior than Orientation doesn’t necessarily make behavior always wrong. The behavior just have to meet certain conditions to be acceptable, such as being consensual, not being idolatrous (even Heterosexual Marriage can become idolatrous- 1 Kings 16:31) and not being exploitative, etc. Ideally it would be in a lifelong relationship. Gay relationships are not always right but certainly can be holy and good.
You just summed up the whole problem in one sentence. “Gay relationships can be holy and good.”
There is no scriptural support for such a statement.
Daniel,
Sorry, but I completely disagree with your statement, “Gay relationships are not always right but certainly can be holy and good.” Gay relationships (and I am assuming these are normal Gay relationships) are never right and never holy. They are based on sin and God does not condone nor Bless sinful acts. Read the BOD. Homosexuality is not conducive with Christian teachings. There is nothing about any such relationship that is either good or holy, no matter how much you wished it would be.
Your loving Brother in Christ,
Steve
How can we separate one’s whole personhood from his/her “sin” (practicing homosexuals). This to me is a dualist view of the self. When I was a kid, every time i messed up my father punishes me by whipping my buttock, for the wrong I did. Why? Because he saw me as a one whole person (my body, mind and my behavior).
I was not happy to see plans to push discrimination out to every branch that likes it. No leadership there. In the end, locals will discriminate if they want, regardless, but at least with Simple not affirmed by the BOD.
For folks reading through these comments, I urge you to be mindful of how often the same exclusionary voices appear — seeking to overwhelm by writing the most frequently.
Many of the exclusionary comments above point to the great need within the UMC and Christianity in general to develop a healthy, respectful, and grace-filled theology about human sexual relationships that is based on Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience; that takes account of science; that sees people holistically; that begins to dismantle centuries of puritanical property considerations that shaped mores around sexual relationships. In examining the Biblical passages about sexual sins, we find that they speak to exploitative relationships where consent and mutuality are not granted to victims — whether the victims are male or female. What we never find in scripture is a prohibition against healthy, monogamous, equal, same gender partners whose shared life produces the fruits of the spirit which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Homosexuality is a gift from God. Left-handedness is a gift from God. Musical ability is a gift from God. Heterosexuality is a gift from God. Deep melanin is a gift from God.