Thirty-six retired United Methodist bishops have signed a statement saying it is time to change the church's stand on homosexuality. These retired bishops believe the church is losing members because of our position on this issue. They want the church to remove from the Book of Discipline language critical of homosexual practice and permit the ordination of practicing homosexuals. These retired bishops believe the church is out of touch with today's world.
What is the United Methodist Church's present stand on homosexuality? On the one hand we believe that the practice of homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching." That is what the Bible teaches (Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9), and the Bible is our primary and supreme authority on all matters. Our conscience is bound by the Word of God.
At the same time, the United Methodist Church affirms that all persons, including homosexuals, are individuals of sacred worth who need the ministry of the church. The sin of homosexual practice is no worse, or no better, than anyone else's sin. Homosexuals, like all the rest of us, need the forgiving and healing grace of God.
The United Methodist Church's present stand on this issue is both biblical and compassionate. The problem is that the church cannot condone anyone's sin.
It is these thirty-six retired United Methodist bishops who are out of touch. They are out of touch with the Scriptures, out of touch with God, and out of touch with the grassroots of the United Methodist Church. The numbers we might be losing from our present position on this issue is nothing compared to the numbers we would lose if we abandoned our biblical position. If the retired bishop's counsel was followed, it would destroy the United Methodist Church as we know it. Such approval would almost certainly result in schism and thus break the covenant that binds the churches of the United Methodist Church together.
The good news is the overwhelming majority of retired bishops refused to join the thirty-six bishops in their call. Bishops, whether retired or active, do not speak for the United Methodist Church. Only General Conference does, and General Conference is very unlikely to change our biblical and compassionate position on this issue.
These retired bishops seem to have a delayed conscience on this issue, don't they? Why didn't they take this stand when they were active bishops? Why did they wait until they didn't have to deal with the consequences of their actions? Was it because they valued the power and prestige of being bishop more than their consciences? They seem a bit cowardly to me, and they have done great harm to the church by stirring up this controversy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment