A Response to Bishop Hagiya

by Dr. Maxie Dunnam

Editor’s note: On February 3, 2014 Bishop Grant J. Hagiya of the Greater Northwest Episcopal Area published a post on his blog titled “A Way Forward,” in which Bishop Hagiya reflected on the actions of Bishop Melvin Talbert and the ongoing debate about the United Methodist position on same-sex marriage. Dr. Maxie D. Dunnam’s response below is in relation to that post. 

MaxieDunnam_300What constitutes true marriage? Does marriage really have to be between a man and a woman? Or is love between any two adult partners all that is needed?

Ironically, there is significant confusion in our United Methodist Church. A number of our ministers have performed marriage ceremonies between same sex couples, knowing this is a violation of our understanding and doctrine of marriage. At the 2012 General Conference (the only body in our church that speaks for the whole church), the policy forbidding the blessing of same-sex unions was challenged but upheld. The conference delegates also upheld the church’s official doctrine declaring support for “laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

At this same 2012 General Conference, it was reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman, stating: “We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Additionally, the UMC’s Judicial Council ruled in 2009 that church law prohibits clergy from performing same-sex marriages or commitment ceremonies. Thus, the denomination does not sanction civil union ceremonies or weddings conducted by UMC ministers or in UMC churches, despite appeals from some regional congregations and clergy that it does so.

Though numerous clergy have violated the position of the church on this issue of marriage, recently it reached an almost unbelievable level of violation, requiring that the Council of Bishops had to deal squarely with the issue. Retired Bishop Talbert disregarded the request of the Resident Bishop of North Alabama, Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett,  and performed a blessing of the wedding of a same gender couple in Bishop Wallace-Padgett’s area. The Council of Bishop’s Executive Team had also asked Bishop Talbert not to be involved in this same gender blessing, but Bishop Talbert, acting, he says, out of his personal convictions, went ahead with the blessing. It was an action that the Council of Bishops could not ignore.

Two issues were at stake: One was the issue of the bishops’ covenant with each other, as what it means for a retired bishop to disregard the request of an active bishop in whose area of responsibility an action is taken. The second issue was the Council of Bishop’s action when a bishop commits an act of blatant  disobedience of the Discipline which in  his consecration to this office he pledged to uphold.

This action of Bishop Talbert heightened the tension inside and outside the church, with responses coming from every direction. Last week, Bishop Grant Hagiya, Bishop of the Greater Northwest Episcopal Area, wrote a blog suggesting “a way forward” in dealing with the tension and what is an obvious threat of schism. Three items in his blog were of special interest to me.

First of all, according to the Bishop, the Council chose to deal with Bishop Talbert’s violation disregarding the request of a fellow residential bishop not to come into her area, not with Bishop Talbert’s performing a same gender wedding.

Second, Bishop Hagiya responded to the whole issue by acknowledging that we United Methodists are divided in our understanding of the nature of Christian marriage, and pleading that we live civilly with our differences. The way he stated this was shocking to me.

“As I have stated many times in the past, I acknowledge my human sinfulness, and do not presume to believe that my position is the unequivocal truth. I cannot know God’s Truth on this issue, and can only stand on my limited conviction of what I believe. I will not force my convictions on those who believe the opposite.”

My question to the Bishop is, given your admission that you “cannot know God’s truth on this issue,” why can’t you trust the Church?  And if you can’t trust the Church on this issue, how do you determine when to trust her and what you can trust her with?

Bishop Hagiya confessed that he believed the issue of Bishop Talbert violating the governance covenant was more important to the Council than his violation of the Church’s understanding of marriage. I hope he is wrong in that assessment of the mind of the Council.  Who are our chief shepherds and teachers in United Methodism? Our pastors and bishops. What is the purpose of the General Conference and the Discipline of our Church?

We don’t need theology based upon our opinions. As Martin Luther once   pointed out, the human heart is an idolatry factory. If we are going to be  the Church, what we need is Biblically informed theology so that we can stand against the tide of secularism as the “people of God” set apart to represent God’s Kingdom.

It is clear: most Christian authorities and bodies view marriage (also called Holy Matrimony) as a relationship instituted and ordained by God for the lifelong relationship between one man as husband and one woman as wife. They consider it the most intimate of human relationships, a gift from God, and a sacred institution. This is what we say we believe as United Methodists. Protestants consider it to be sacred, holy, and even central to the community of faith. Catholics and Orthodox Christians consider it a Sacrament. Biblically, it is to be “held in honor among all….”[Heb. 13:4]

Jesus Christ underscored the importance and sacredness of lifelong marriage in his own teachings. He stated that God had created mankind as male and female, [Genesis 1:27] and that in marriage “‘the two will become one flesh’. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”[Matt. 19:5b-6]

This is the corporate, and continuing witness of the Church. We need to keep in mind that how we think must not be restricted to random feelings and even individual interpretation of Scripture; We need to be in harmony with the whole Body of Christ and all the saints now and forever.

I have appreciated my relationship with Bishop Hagiya through the years, having served with him in different areas of the Church’s life. I experience him as a deeply committed Christ follower. I am certain he is earnest and sincere when he says,

We cannot resort to beating each other up because we are on opposite sides of this issue. We need to model the unconditional love of God in Jesus Christ in our relationships. This means we need to do the hard work of sharing openly how we disagree, not to try to convert the other, but to work to a greater understanding and acceptance of our differences. This is what it means to be unified in Christ Jesus: It is not a bland acceptance of everything, but to hold together even when we vehemently disagree with each other.

Thus my third concern. We have worked hard in sharing openly, we have conferenced (albeit, I’m not sure how holy), we have had special task forces to work on our unity–all of this processed by the only body in our church that can make official decisions about who we are and what we believe (the General Conference), yet he (even as a bishop) seems unwilling to trust the church in its decision making. Seemingly, he is saying he will not trust the church and abide by the church’s decisions until the church decides to affirm his own personal beliefs about marriage and ordination. In all due respects, this does not seem like a way forward to me.

I submit that Bishop Scott Jones of the Great Plains Conference is forging a better way forward. In a January 15 gathering of all ministers (elders, deacons, licensed local pastors, and associate clergy members) of his conference, he addressed the challenge our church is facing. He insisted there were three non negotiable and basic characteristics of unity: doctrine, our mission (to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world), and the UMC’s Discipline. He said, “power is lodged in our conferring together” While there will inevitable be disagreements with General Conference decisions, Bishop Jones explained that the denomination’s connectional, discipline-shaped identity means that “we are [nevertheless] loyal to the decisions we make together” and the process by which we make them.

Again, I ask Bishop Hagiya, why can’t you trust the Church?  And if you can’t trust the Church on this issue, how do you determine when to trust her and what you can trust her with?

Too many in Methodism, Protestantism & evangelicalism think of the marriage issue, as nearly all issues, as one of private conscience plus the Bible.   But we as Christians cannot think and reason apart from the universal church.   We need a reminder of how we are to think in sync with the whole Body of Christ and all the saints now and forever.

Special Contributor to UMR

Special Contributor

This story was written by a special contributor to The United Methodist Reporter. You may send your article submissions to

Special Contributor to UMR

Special Contributor

This story was written by a special contributor to The United Methodist Reporter. You may send your article submissions to


  1. Thomas Coates says:

    You hold all the power Dr. Dumman, as a white, heterosexual, conservative male with the BoD on your side — but God’s justice rolls like water. There’s so many ways to refute what you say, from your references on Luther (don’t forget Protestantism — from Luther to Wesley — was founded on ecclesiastical disobedience), LGBTQ rights is equal issue in justice (overlapping and intersecting with race and gender). If you only knew the suffering of LGBTQ people — in the US and in Africa, where the UMC is silent — I believe you’d change your heart, this debate is far from academic, but people’s lives.

    • MethodistPie says:


      • There are, indeed, two issues at stake. The two issues at stake are love of God and love of neighbor. These two are preeminent in scripture, tradition, experience and reason. As the Church failed to understand love and justice in the past, it is failing to perfect itself in its understanding and practice of love today. I am bound to uphold all of the Book of Discipline and in order to uphold the loving and just portions I frequently violate the prohibition on same sex marriage.

    • Nothing to do with gender, nothing to do with being conservative, nothing to do with location, nothing to do with feelings you or others may have. it has everything to do with Gods plan for marriage and its purpose, and that purpose is a reflection of the church, and Gods plan for unions that shows his intentions of how we should obey him not seek some leave of acceptance from those around us by trying to make the abnormal normal, if you intent to live a life of sin that is your prerogative, but to deceived the church into thinking this is an issue of human rights, or equality is nothing short of what happened in the garden…..did God really make them male and female. I attend a Methodist church but am not Methodist by denomination, but I worship at that church because I believe them to be bible believing Christians, who have a sovereign God and as such live in a kingdom not a democracy where that democracy gets its values from the culture.

  2. Pastor Joseph Grasser says:

    With all do respect the Church has been wrong before regarding the civil rights of African americans and the ordination of women. The majority is not always right. Unjust laws must be protested and changed.

  3. Schism exists. A “unity at any cost” approach (for both sides and moderates in between), leaves a connection increasingly shattered by rhetoric that compromises “the Mission”.

    It is time for a prayerful and honest separation. Wesley never “forced” his views upon anyone. When he discerned that Methodism could not operate within the Anglican Church in America, he proceeded with the Mission. I fear leaders ( using the term loosely) are more committed to protect their personal salary in the theocracy, and in the Bishops case, the “golden umbrella” of a life long salary – then the pretense of positions they promote. “Strengthen what remains….or the lampstand will be removed.”

  4. It amazes me that Rev. Dunham is always ready to trust the “church” when the position of the church reflects his own. However, what do you do when the position of the church differs from the revelation God is giving you. Do you stay true to the long held doctrine or do you accept the Word God is giving you today through vision and revelation?

    Sometimes we need to remember who it was who called us as members and as ministers and hold dear to that One above all things and institutions.

  5. John JP Patterson says:

    The Greatest of All the Commandments
    Biblical Obedience is a call for us to claim our identity as it relates to the Bible, to speak truth to power, and decide that laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer persons and allies in the life of the Church are immoral and unjust and are no longer deserving of our loyalty and support. It is a call to declare our beliefs and start doing the right thing.

    Jesus was asked by a scribe, “Which is the greatest of all the commandments?” Jesus simply said, “There is only one God. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” It is time for us as people of faith to live into those commandments. It is time to see ALL human beings as our neighbors.

    That is Biblical Obedience.

    – Bishop Melvin Talbert

    Please help create space at the table for all God’s children.
    Become a Reconciling United Methodist (RUM), Today!

    • John, so what does it mean to “love?”
      John 3:16 “for God so loved the world that he gave is one and only son.”
      This is God’s love. So what did Jesus come to do? Look at the next verse
      17″God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
      If we truly love our neighbor we will lead them to Christ to save them from eternity in consuming fire.
      Love is not about the acceptance of what a person does or desires to do.
      Jesus did not approve of the sins in John 5:14 and 8:11. He did not accept the behavior of the Rich Ruler. Many disciples left him in John 6:60-66 because his teaching was difficult.
      Entrance into Wesley’s societies was simple the desire to We are to “flee from the wrath to come.” Our task as disciples of Christ is more about saving souls for the Kingdom than what we think their rights might be in this world.

    • Become a Transforming Congregation Methodist today!!

  6. The irony of irony in this situation is the author is a man who didn’t trust the church on the issue of racism and spoke out against the church by signing a declaration in Mississippi.

    • Andrew C. Thompson says:

      Shawn – I’m not sure what you mean by your comment. You may have been misinformed on the history of the “Born of Conviction” group and its stand for racial reconciliation. One of the group’s main points was that they were, in fact, upholding the position of the church. Here’s a link to their original statement if you’d like to read it: http://wesleyanaccent.seedbed.com/files/2014/01/BoC-text2.pdf

  7. Gary Bebop says:

    It’s curious that some pastors use these forums to tout disobedience as the new law of the church. In doing so they mangle history to suit their purpose and turn biblical witness upside down, falsely claiming transcendent justification for their weltanschauung.

  8. I am indifferent to whether or not same-gender couples are united in a civil ceremony, or even by a pastor whose church sanctions such ceremonies. I do however question the need of a person to declare their support for same-gender unions in order to love their neighbor. If we place conditions on what constitutes love of neighbor, can it still be called love? Finally, even though I am indifferent on the subject, I am a staunch believer in following laws or rules without letting personal judgment of what the law should be (e.g. what the speed limit really should be as the ticket is being written). Until the BoD is changed, the only honorable thing to do by an elder who wishes to perform same-gender unions in violation of their ordination vows, is to surrender their UM clergy credentials and seek the credentials of a denomination that allows same-gender unions.

    • Phillip McDaniel says:

      Thank you Bruce for you succinct response. I for instance disagree with the statement from, ‘We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.’ Why? Because I believe the state should have no role in marriage as it is a religious institution which should remain completely untouched by civil government. However I submit to such stances precisely because I have agreed to. There can’t be more than 1 in a million United Methodist whom agree with the whole of the Book of Discipline. Whenever the day comes that I can no longer submit to denominational authority I will do as you suggest. However I fully support the back-and-forth and discussion currently taking place within the church from laity to all levels of clergy, just not the actions of some whom reject, even flaunt, church authority. Given your stance on obeying all laws I do however believe we are in almost total disagreement on that point as I freely submit to church governance, I choose it. However civil authority is forced upon me with guns. Two entirely different experiences. 😉 I love the church! I tolerate civil authoritarianism.

  9. When someone steps forward and proves that Jesus Christ DID NOT MEAN the definition that he gave marriage by reaffirming God’s created order for marriage there in Matthew 19 with his discourse on divorce, then this schism is over. However, that’s about as likely as me proving that God did not mean what is contained in the Ten Commandments. And, loving our neighbors as ourselves does not have anything to do with the definition of marriage that Jesus gave. He taught both truths, and Jesus never taught anything that removed another of his teachings.

    For those UMC Bishops, preachers, and lay people who advocate same sex marriage, step up to the plate and take on Jesus with your revelations. Prove him wrong. Produce irrefutable evidence that Jesus was wrong with the definition of marriage that he gave as written in Matthew 19:4-6.

    • WAD– As one who supports the right for same gendered couples to marry– I am NOT taking on Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6. I am taking on YOUR INTERPRETATION of his words in this part, and in other parts of Scripture. I am doing this in the same way that abolitionists were not refuting “slaves, obey your masters”, but of the abusive, constricted, and narrow interpretation by the church in the 18th and 19th century.

      • Jesus said, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate”.

        Now Bruce, if you are NOT taking on Jesus’ words but are, instead, taking on my interpretation of these words as abusive, constricted, and narrow, please provide YOUR INTERPRETATION of these words of Jesus and bring me up to speed.

      • Wes Andrews says:

        Bruce seems to forget that it was Jesus followers who fought to abolish slavery based on the justice truths and themes in Scripture. While Christianity tolerated the evils of culturally based slavery, Christianity also corrected itself by re-conforming to the truth of Scripture. Christianity was on the “wrong side of history” when it fought against slavery, but eventually slavery was abolished.

        Christianity is accused of being on the “wrong side of history” when it fights for the unborn, but eventually the taking of innocent human life will eventually be abolished. Empowerment of women doesn’t require affirming the lie that allowing the killing of their unborn is a “right” and is the path to liberation.

        Many “regressives” like to lean on Scripture at one moment by quoting “love your neighbor”, and the next completely ignoring other Scriptural themes about sexuality and marriage. Then when they have in a discussion/debate with people who are consistently committed to the truth of Scripture, they call us bigots, and these nonsensical categories like homophobes, heterosexists, etc. No one is “afraid” of homosexuals.

        I don’t hate people who live together nor am I “afraid” of them even though I believe Scripture teaches that sexual experience should be within the safe context of marriage between man and a women.

        I don’t hate people who lie, but I believe that Scripture teaches against lying.

  10. Thank you Bruce! Best answer I’ve read so far, and my sentiments exactly.

  11. Just another bigot defending bigotry. Nothing new here.

    • You are pitiful Jay. Wonder why our denomination will be gone in ten years? Because of agenda folks like you who have to be obsessed with your own reasoning and experience rather than making disciples. How many liberal churches are growing? The evangelicals are paying the bills and I feel apathy towards them as you miss the point and we go down the drain. You have the right to your opinion but I bet you serve a church who can’t fill the seats.

    • Bigot? You’re saying Jesus was a bigot when he reaffirmed God’s created order for marriage?

    • From the comment policy: “we cannot allow language that demeans or demonizes others”.

      Ummm, wouldn’t calling Maxie Dunnam a bigot fall under the “demean or demonize” category?

  12. Carl Black says:

    Such strong feelings, yet so few hearts radically submitted. I am beginning to doubt this will be resolved in my lifetime because there are so many who have to be “right” about this issue. I think pride is the dominant sin here. (and don’t presuppose what my position is – it doesn’t matter!)

    • Phillip McDaniel says:

      While I can’t see through this fog nor ‘divine’ the future I offer a word of encouragement. We are no different from any of God’s people in any other time. Church life has always been a struggle, sometimes for physical life, sometimes for reform, and sometimes for denominational survival. May I suggest a wonderful book by John R. Claypool, ‘The Hopeful Heart’. It’s wonderfully impacting as he states, ‘hope is to the human soul what breath is to the human heart, we simply die without it’. Don’t lose hope. No matter what comes of this decision don’t make more of it than it is.

  13. I appreciate the thoughtful response of Dr Dunnam. I agree with him on every point. What advocates of change don’t seem to get is that the majority of the UMC has ruled on this matter in our normal way of making decisions. We have affirmed that ruling over and over. The majority of the church will not change its opinion just because opponents of the position throw fits. And the fit-throwing is not going to make us change our minds, but just dig in a little deeper, and fortify those positions even more.

    • Maxie Dunnam speaks eloquently with a voice of reason.

      Brad, no matter how the majority feels, the loudest and most strident voices will be the ones who are heard and who will interrupt the dialogue that seeks a solution. Progressives will keep pounding away ever and ever louder. They, along with many who serve on the council of bishops, worship at the altar of political correctness, feminism, and ethnic diversity…………………………

      • Wes Andrews says:

        One thing that Dr. Dunnam is not is a bigot. I would put that on those who reject Scriptural view of sexuality and marriage. Dr. Dunnam has done more for the renewal of individual faith and the expansion of the Body of Christ than most anyone I have ever known.

  14. Interesting that proponents for gay marriage assume that marriage is between two people, and opponents say marriage is between two people of different genders. Both assume “two people” to be the norm. What then would our theological/biblical response be to those who want to expand the marriage covenant to include three or more people? Is there something in marriage that must inherently include only two people in the relationship?

    • The secular redefinition of marriage here in the USA opens the likelihood of numerous configurations of marriage going forward. How can the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, deny these inevitable various configurations under the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

      • I meant to say after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act under the equal protection clause of the Constitution and, consequently, endorsed the redefinition of marriage, how can it, in the future, deny other definitions of marriage under those same equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution?

  15. “Maxie Dunnam and those who so courageously stepped up to fight racism and discrimination set the standard for future pastors as for faithfully living out our call to share the Gospel,” said Rev. Shane Stanford, Christ Church’s senior pastor who grew up in Mississippi. “I am a pastor today in large part because of their commitment.”

    Seems as if you, Dr. Dunnam, once placed “faithfully living out our call to share the Gospel” a matter of conviction above the laws of the State of Mississippi. Can you not, therefore, understand Bishop Hagiya’s position as a matter of his conscience. It was not General Conference’s weak vacillating statement on racial equality that prompted you and your colleagues to take a stand, which ultimately drove you out of your home state, but your commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

    I highly respect you for this and for the work you did on the Board of Discipleship,enriching our prayer life and teaching us to move from self-centeredness to church’s focused on intercession on behalf of others. My congregation in California is a remote prayer center, and I am an evangelical Christian, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute as well as United Seminary in Dayton. My dear brother and champion of Christ, I would urge you to reconsider what God may be doing in the church, notwithstanding what is happening in the world. I know that the tenor of your whole life demonstrates that you do not equate the vote of General Conference on any matter as a sign of keeping covenant faith with the “Church Universal.” Love you brother and pray that we may get through this as one church.

  16. I am 29 years old and I am gay. I joined the United Methodist Church in 2008. I really just wish this debate would end. Actually to be completely truthful, I don’t even feel that this is a debate. A debate entails that both sides have mutual respect for each other, even though they have differing opinions. This “debate” can never have that. Why? Because the side that wants to keep the anti-gay stance in place is doing so based on flaws; the flaw that there is something inherently wrong with being gay. When you think there is something inherently flawed about me, I feel that there is no way that I can be respected. Imagine if we had a belief that black people or women were inherently flawed because they are not white males; that somehow they are inferior to white males. Not that long ago, widespread parts of the Christian Church in America held such sentiment. Do you think black people and women felt respected back then? That is not a position of respect. It is denigrating and diminishing of people’s humanity. I wonder if we have learned our lessons from that dark period of American and Christian history? The people who advocate for sustaining the anti-gay policies are doing the same thing. I don’t feel respected. I don’t feel Christ’s love. All I feel is diminished and completely denigrated by the statement that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”

    The number one thing that I think Christianity offers to humanity and the world is life. In my opinion the greatest Scripture in the Bible is when the author of John records Jesus as saying that the he came to bring life and to bring life abundantly to people. Christ was not about rigid rules that diminished human beings. He frequently broke Jewish laws when it was oppressive and when it limited the potential to maximize life in human beings. Remember that story about eating on the sabbath? Remember when he pardoned the women caught in the very act of adultery? The people in his day were clinging to their ancient forms of “Book of Discipline;” Jewish law. Yet Christ pushed through to show the whole world what really mattered in life, which is spreading life. We are doing a disservice to Christ when we diminish people’s humanity. The current policy does that. This is going to go on and on until the UMC and the Church as a whole realizes that gay people are not just going to go away and disappear. We have existed throughout all of human history. We deserve respect as human beings. Anything less than that denigrates people because one cannot be separated from his sexual orientation as much as a person cannot be separated from his race or gender.

  17. I believe you all are debating the actual issue and not the questions Dr. Dunnam presents which is when do we allow leaders to subjectively disobey the governing body of our church? I’m beginning to see this in the national leaders and now in our own church has it become so pronounced. Do we not have a process by which we discuss issues? At the end of the day we still have rules and structure to live by? John Wesley might not have forced his views on others but our leadership having taken an oath of support the mission and doctrine of the church do not have such luxury to randomly choose what they support and what they don’t.

  18. What the church should be speaking out against, and something that is far too often overlooked, is this whole idea of defining one’s identity in their sexual practices. Scripture does not define a person by their actions, but sees much more value in a person; they are made in the image of God and can recieve assurance that they are a child of God through faith in Christ. Jesus related to the sinners because he saw beyond their actions/sins and, while not condoning everything they did or how they expressed themselves, looked at who they really are; a child of God. Society has placed pressure on people to define their entire identity through their sexual actions by either claiming to be gay or straight (with the types of categories constantly expanding); if they don’t do this, then they are not human. It’s almost as though we have created different “species” of human beings based to who they sleep with…and the church has adopted this stance when Scripture sees identity as defined by something of greater worth.

    Scripture sees sex as something beautiful but powerful (hence why it calls for intercourse only between committed husband and wife). Yet, despite its beauty and power, one does not need to participate in sex to be human. What if our BoD, while emphasizing that sex is a gift for the marriage relationship between man and woman, which is the Scriptural/classical/traditional understanding of sex (and ANYTHING outside of that missing God’s mark), speaks against the use of sexual activity to define one’s identity? By doing so, I think we would be adding a prophetic voice to the conversation that is not there…just my two cents on all this.

  19. Thank you Maxie. You are truly a prophetic voice in a upside down world.

  20. Please show me irrefutable biblical proof that God ordains homosexual marriage. I have only seen verse after verse condemning it (New Testament and old). What if the loving Biblical way is not to perform gay marriage? What if “faithful are the wounds of friends but the kisses of enemies are profuse.” ? I believe that this white heterosexual man is far more loving to our LGBQT community than anyone who is crusading for their marriages.

  21. I would challenge this bishop to consider his own words and trust the church. As Martin Luther also noted, councils can err. The true protestant revolution came as the Church evolved into a collective instead of a hierarchy. Now every soul had a Bible and was the church. To trust the Church then is to believe that the Spirit of God is moving in every individual and not just in hierarchical structures. Our task is to support each other in our individual and common quest to be faithful in all that we do. Rules that attempt to channel the wind, only limit our ability to respond to it. If we loved one another and the church, we would remove the shackles and let the spirit of God lead each individual to be faithful to do what God is asking them to do. Strangely, in this varied individual response, we would be more likely to accomplish God’s plan collectively. Isn’t that what happened in the protestant reformation? Weren’t more souls eventually touched through diversity than through authority? Tell me that I must recant and follow the rules of the church, and I will respond that I must follow God, and I can not do otherwise.

  22. Jeffery, I know the heat from the fire of this debate must be uncomfortable. I’m truly sorry that the message of the church is so confusing to you. I do not believe you ar “flawed”. I do believe you are blinded and deceived. You aren’t the first. Scripture tells us the heart can be very deceitful. Where sin is involved (and homosexual practice as well as prohibited heterosexual acts is sin) it creates chaos in our lives. God loves us so much He has placed boundaries in our lives to keep us safe from the devastating effects of that sin. Believing we are doing nothing wrong will not protect us when we disregard His word. I can believe no harm will come if I touch a live electric wire, but the reality is that it could destroy me. The same is true of sin. The church will do you no favors by telling you that you should celebrate that sin. Look around at the levels of drug and alcohol addiction in your culture. Look at the numbers of friends who live with devastating STD’s. Look at the numbers who are lying in early graves. God has reasons for placing that fence around us. It is not to harm, but to protect. Love calls us to turn away from those things and trust the power of the Holy Spirit to help us overcome the temptations that we face. There is ample
    Testimony from those who have found this to be true. The heat of the debate has sidelined this message as some are determined to set aside God’s Word in favor of cultural definitions and in doing so, place many souls at risk. God bless you as you seek for His Kingdom.

  23. The state of being joined as a whole, unity. The UMC has for more than 40 years shown it is united in belief and support of the BOD. Rebellion against that unity can never yeild anything other than disunity. Such behavior alone reveals the intent of the actor(s). May God have mercy.

Speak Your Mind

The United Methodist Reporter wants to encourage lively conversation about The United Methodist Church and our articles in the belief that Christian conversation (what Wesley would call conferencing) is a means of grace. While we support passionate debate, we cannot allow language that demeans or demonizes others, and we reserve the right to delete any comment we believe to be harmful or inappropriate. We encourage all to remember that we are all broken and in need of Christ's grace, and that we all see through the glass darkly until that time we when reach full perfection in love. May your speech here be tempered with love, and reflection of the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. After all, "There is no law against things like this." (Galatians 5:22-23)


%d bloggers like this: