{"id":399,"date":"2020-06-27T15:37:46","date_gmt":"2020-06-27T15:37:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/?p=399"},"modified":"2024-01-17T15:01:38","modified_gmt":"2024-01-17T15:01:38","slug":"part-8-of-a-10-part-series","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/?p=399","title":{"rendered":"The Reasons the Pro-LGBTQ Faction of the UMC Uses to Support Its Position – Part 8 of a 10 Part Series"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

INTRODUCTION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the first article, I defined Bible engagement, and the necessary steps to determine if a situation is a Bible engagement crisis.  In the second article, I explained why the Bible mandates that a Christian practice Bible engagement that satisfies the biblical standard.  In the third article, I discussed 2 Timothy 2:15 to develop a foundation to comprehend the biblical standard for Bible engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the fourth through sixth articles, I looked at six actions found in verses 14 and 16-24 of 2 Timothy 2 that define actions contrary to those comprising \u201crightly handling the word of truth.\u201d   In the seventh article, I advanced a clear definition of the biblical standard for Bible engagement.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this eighth article, I explain what I can best ascertain comprises the \u201cunderstanding and interpretation of Scripture\u201d of the pro-LGBTQ faction.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE UMC SPLIT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A very public Bible engagement crisis manifested itself in the early January, 2020 agreement in the United Method Church to formally separate over the issue of same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexual clergy.   The written plan called \u201cProtocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation\u201d would need to be approved by the 2020 General Conference in May before taking effect.  Had this plan gone according to plan, the UMC would have already approved the split, but the COVID-19 pandemic intervened and so things were put on hold.   Even though the formal split has been delayed, the Bible engagement crisis remains. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pro-LGBTQ faction claims their position is biblical in light of the opening statement in the Protocol, which reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Whereas, The United Method Church and its members \u2013 after careful reflection, discussion and prayer \u2013 have fundamental differences regarding their understanding and interpretation of Scripture<\/u><\/strong>, theology and practice;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUPPORTING GROUNDS OF THE PRO-LGBTQ FACTION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I could not locate a single document that listed the reasons the pro-LGBTQ faction uses to support its position.  To gain an understanding of the reasons, I considered two primary pieces of evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first was the substance in a video presentation entitled \u201cA Plea to the United Methodist Church\u201d and posted on August 20, 2019 by Bishop Richard Wilke.  The details of the presentation are from what I believe is a transcript of the video reported in UMNews.org per an article of August 21, 2019 entitled \u201cGay Daughter sent bishop back to Scriptures.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second was a series of blog posts by Rev. Adam Hamilton, the founder of a large pro-LGBTQ UMC church in Kansas City.  These posts comprise: (1) a March 11, 2014 blog entitled \u201cHomosexuality, The Bible, and the United Methodist Church\u201d (hereinafter Hamilton #1), (2) an April 27, 2016 post entitled \u201cThe Bible, Homosexuality., and the UMC \u2013 Part One\u201d (hereinafter Hamilton #2), (3) a May 9, 2016 blog entitled \u201cFive Things the General Conference Could Do Regarding Same Gender Marriage \u2013 Part Two\u201d (hereinafter Hamilton #3), and (4) a May 20, 2016 blog entitled \u201cA Hopeful Path Forward? \u2013 Part Three\u201d (hereinafter Hamilton #4]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the above materials, it appears the pro-LGBTQ faction uses at least the following approaches and arguments to support its position.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Euphemistic Characterization of the Physicality of Homosexual Activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pro-LGBTQ faction tries to normalize homosexual activity via euphemistic characterizations of homosexual sexual conduct.  For example, in Hamilton #1 and Hamilton #2, Rev. Hamilton characterizes homosexual activity as \u201csame-sex sexual activity,\u201d \u201csame-sex intimacy,\u201d   \u201csame-gender relationships,\u201d \u201csame-gender marriage,\u201d \u201csame-gender sexual acts,\u201d \u201csame-sex acts\u201d or \u201csame gender sexual relations.\u201d   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pro-LGBTQ faction describes a homosexual relationship in the most flattering terms with a focus on selfless love and stable commitment.  For example, Rev. Hamilton describes homosexual couples as those \u201cwho love one another selflessly\u201d and have \u201clove and commitment.\u201d   See Hamilton #2.  Bishop Wilke describes a homosexual relationship as: (1) a committed relationship, (2) a relationship in which his daughter wanted to loved and accepted and in which she was happy and whole, (3) a loving, faithful relationship, and (4) a faithful, stable, and loving relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cGod made me this way\u201d Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Bishop Wilke, a person\u2019s sexual orientation is how God made them.  In other words, God made a practicing homosexual to have a homosexual orientation.   The implication from this argument is that it is acceptable if a person lives in such a way consistent with how they believe God made them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Downplaying the Authority of Scripture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pro-LGBTQ faction minimizes the importance of Scripture that addresses homosexual conduct.  Bishop Wilke argues that a \u201cbig-picture grasp of the Bible\u201d renders the \u201cfew passages\u201d that address homosexuality as \u201cinsignificant.\u201d   The implication is that the biblical teaching about homosexuality is \u201cinsignificant.\u201d  Bishop Wilke says that the passages of Scripture pertaining to homosexual practice are \u201ca few misunderstood passages of Scripture.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rev. Hamilton seems to take the same approach when he writes \u201cthe handful of passages in the Bible that seem to speak to some form of same-sex sexual activity.\u201d  (See Hamilton #1).  In Hamilton #1, Rev. Hamilton presents a hermeneutical approach that pigeonholes Scripture into one of three \u201cbuckets.\u201d  According to Rev. Hamilton, the three buckets into which Scripture falls are: (1) Scriptures that express God\u2019s heart, character, and timeless will for human beings, (2) Scriptures that expressed God\u2019s will in a particular time, but are no longer binding, and (3) Scriptures that never fully expressed the heart, character or will of God.  According to Hamilton, the issue is \u201cwhether the handful of scriptures that condemn same-sex sexual activity belong to bucket one, two, or three.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an effort to validate discarding the prohibition against homosexual practice, Rev. Hamilton points out that the early church decided, \u201cthat circumcision was no longer required of Christians, or that Christians were no longer bound by much that is found in the Law of Moses.\u201d  Per Hamilton #2, the pro-LGBTQ faction does not adopt an evangelical hermeneutical approach: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

But in truth, I don\u2019t believe that we are picking and choosing. I think we\u2019re appropriately interpreting; we\u2019re asking the question, \u201cWhat was the historical and cultural setting of these words, and do they appropriately express the heart of God for us today?\u201d And how do Christians make that determination?  We consider the words and actions of Jesus, we think of what he described as the great commandments, and we consider the major themes of Scripture. Then we bring our intellect and experience of the Spirit to bear on our reading of Scripture.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Bishop Wilke adds emotion to the analysis in his effort, \u201cto reconcile my commitment to scriptural authority with loving and accepting my daughter.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rev. Hamilton highlights ways in which the UMC\u2019s understanding of Scripture has changed over time with respect to slavery, women\u2019s voting rights in America, and women pastors in the UMC.   He observes that given time, the homosexual issue should become \u201ca non-issue, as even most evangelical young adults in the United Methodist Church see this issue differently from their 40- and 50- and 60-year-old parents and grandparents.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Hamilton #4, Hamilton urges finding a \u201cgenuine compromise\u201d on the issue a majority of United Methods can live with.  He characterizes the UMC as taking the \u201cmiddle way.\u201d He defines the \u201cmiddle way\u201d as , \u201ca church that values and holds together in tension ideas and impulses that seem like opposites.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Reason Behind the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bible presents the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:16-19:29.  According to Bishop Wilke, it is \u201ceasy\u201d to see that the sin of Sodom was not homosexual activity, but the inhospitality of the people of Sodom because they wanted to rape and humiliate the angels visiting Lot citing Ezekiel 16:49 Luke 10:12.  (See Wilke presentation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Irrelevance of the Levitical Holiness Code<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the pro-LGBTQ faction, the context of the Levitical Holiness Code shows it was peculiar to the times to separate the Jews from the surrounding pagan nations.  Bishop Wilke says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This code was designed for the specific purpose of setting the Jews apart from the Canaanites. It was not intended as a universal morality. It was peculiar to the Hebrews \u2014 and to the times. It reflected one side of the constant tension in Judaism, as well as in all religions, between exclusion and inclusion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Today, according to the pro-LGBTQ faction, neither Jews nor Christian obey the Holiness Code.  Three examples of \u201cdisobedience\u201d are: (1) Christian eat shrimp, (2) Christians do not stone those who commit adultery, (3) Christians do not justify killing children for talking back to parents.  (See Wilke presentation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reference to Leviticus 20:13, Hamilton #1 reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Whether you believe in two buckets or three, the question remains, Which bucket do the five passages of scripture that reference same-sex intimacy fall into?<\/em>  Consider Leviticus 20:13 in which God is said to command: \u201cIf a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.\u201d  Anyone who has a child that is gay would rightly ask, \u201cDid God ever really command that gay and lesbian children be put to death?\u201d  They might also ask, \u201cDoes God really see my child, or the love they share for their partner, as an abomination?\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What Paul Knew or Didn\u2019t Know About Homosexual Sex<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Bishop Wilke, in reference to Romans 1:24-32, Paul was familiar with only two kinds of homosexual activity (1) wealthy Greeks would buy young boys as slave and sexually exploit them, and (2) part of the Greek-Roman world would go to male and female prostitutes as a form of fertility or mystery cult worship.   These actions bear no resemblance to \u201cthe loving, faithful relationships\u201d of homosexual relationships.  (See Wilke presentation). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contemporary Rejection of what Paul Wrote about Women<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hamilton #2 points out that the contemporary UMC has moved away from what Paul taught about women\u2019s role in the church:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Further if we consistently applied these same assumptions to what Paul teaches about women in the New Testament, the female members of the United Methodist Church would pray with their heads covered; they would remain silent in the church; and they would not be permitted to teach in any church gathering where men were present. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Rev. Hamilton seems to equate condemning homosexual practice to maintaining the above restrictions regarding a woman\u2019s role in the church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contemporary Rejection of Slavery in the Bible<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hamilton #2 points out that the contemporary church as moved away from condoning slavery.  He appears to equate condoning slavery to condemning homosexual practice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

If Methodist Christians consistently held that everything in the Bible is God\u2019s Word and that it is unchanging \u2014 and by this they meant that what the Bible allows we must allow, and that what the Bible forbids we must forbid \u2014 we\u2019d still support the practice of slavery today.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Jesus Focused on the Marginalized in Society<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jesus focused on the marginalized.  Jesus placed kindness and acceptance over custom and social norms.  Jesus emphasized hospitality.  (See Wilke presentation).  Bishop Wilke cited two exemplary texts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again and again Jesus placed kindness and acceptance over custom and social norms. \u201cLove one another,\u201d he commanded, \u201cas I have loved you.\u201d He also emphasized hospitality: \u201cWhen you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind. And you will be blessed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I can best ascertain, the pro-LGBTQ faction use the following categories of approaches or arguments to support its position: (1) euphemistic characterization of the physicality of homosexual activity; (2) the \u201cGod made me this way\u201d argument; (3) downplaying the authority of Scripture; (4) the reason behind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; (5) the irrelevance of the Levitical Holiness Code; (6) what Paul knew or didn\u2019t know about homosexual sex; (7) contemporary rejection of what Paul wrote about women; (8) contemporary rejection of slavery in the Bible; and (9) Jesus focused on the marginalized in society<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the next article, I will address each of these basic approaches or arguments by the pro-LGBTQ faction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please send me any comments to steve@stevebelsheim.com<\/a> or use the comments feature of the blog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NOTICE OF PERMISSIONS – I am mindful of and respect the rights other authors and publishers possess in their works.  I thus try my best not to violate any copyright rights other authors and publishers possess in their works.  I have tried to give credit where credit us due.  The below copyright permission statement is the result of my best efforts to understand that limited usage or \u201cfair use\u201d is available and to secure direct permission for specific works.  Scripture quotations are from the ESV\u00ae Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version) copyright 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  The brief quotations from other resources are fair use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INTRODUCTION In the first article, I defined Bible engagement, and the necessary steps to determine if a situation is a Bible engagement crisis.  In the second article, I explained why the Bible mandates that a Christian practice Bible engagement that satisfies the biblical standard.  In the third article, I discussed 2 Timothy 2:15 to develop […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[319],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lgbtq"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=399"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2178,"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399\/revisions\/2178"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}