My post on inclusive language has sparked a few comments and e-mails, some positive, some negative. This is one of those issues where a few mainline intellectuals think they're leading the way while the overwhelming majority of Christians (women included) aren't even aware that there's supposed to be a problem with using masculine language for God.
- The Wesley Study Bible is set to be released in a couple of weeks, and I've heard that pre-orders may have already started shipping. Joel Green, one of
the WSB's general editors, writes in Good News magazine about this landmark publication and what it means for Christians in Methodist/Wesleyan denominations. I'm really hoping people across our denomination will support this Bible by buying it for personal gifts, Disciple Bible studies, high school graduates, etc. It is one of the more reasonably priced study Bibles, and in a Christian publishing world where Wesleyan/Arminian thought is terribly under-represented, it is definitely a breath of fresh air. Be sure to check out our group on Facebook and join. There are almost 800 members already!
Here's a dose of reality for people who think we don't need to proactively explain the significance of our cross and flame logo. One commenter at the top of the thread writes, "What’s the deal with Christians and burning crosses? Okay, we know this history of the Ku Klux Klan. But have you driven by a United Methodist or Presbyterian church lately? BOTH those decidedly main-stream old line protestant denominations use a burning cross as their trademark." I'm not saying we should necessarily dump the logo, just that we need to make sure people know who the flame represents. I've had this same misunderstanding come up many times, especially with unchurched teenagers.- OK, I admittedly read too much into things sometimes, but I found this news article from EWTN a little disturbing. An 85 year old Austrian chemist who was instrumental in the development of the birth control pill is lamenting that his invention has brought "demographic imbalance" in Europe. Does anyone else see a little racism in this, or am I connecting too many dots? Read the article and post a comment here.
Brian McLaren tries really hard to look like he's staying above the fray and taking a middle-of-the-road approach, yet he comes down on the left side of practically every issue. He essentially declares that he's pro-choice and pro-homosexuality in a blog post. He writes that the "conversation is changing", but when I read between the lines, I don't even see a conversation that's changing, I see "case closed" and definite positions (extremely liberal ones) prevailing. But somehow, people still buy that he's a centrist. It's kind of like the old joke about Roman Catholic ecumenism: the Catholic idea of ecumenism is for everyone to become Catholic! I'm trying hard to find common ground with Brian, but he keeps jumping the shark.
Peace.
Regarding McLaren, I don't know anybody who is "pro-abortion." I don't believe there is some sub-set of women who are enthused about getting an abortion. While abstentience is perfect at preventing STDs, unplanned pregnancies and abortions, even the best families are examples that it has to be applied 100% to be effective. Reducing the number of situations where abortion may be discussed is more productive than prohibition which isn't going to happen anyway.
Regarding homosexuality, do you believe it is a "chosen behavior?" There is no reputable evidence for that. Whether we allow ceremonies in the church or gays to be ordained are different questions than whether we (in civil society) should set up some structure (civil unions or whatever) to allow committed couples to handle the various legal and medical issues that arise in our modern society.
Posted by: Creed Pogue | January 13, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Lots of people are pro-abortion, such as Obama. Anyone who is for the Hyde Amendment (part of FOCA) wants pro-life taxpayers to fund abortions for people who can't afford to pay for their unborn children to be destroyed. That's not pro-choice, that's pro-abortion.
If you were against making slavery illegal, would that make you pro-slavery or pro-choice? Seems to me it would be pro-slavery, or at least pro-legalized slavery. The same logic applies to abortion.
"Regarding homosexuality, do you believe it is a "chosen behavior?" There is no reputable evidence for that."
Actually, there is no reputable evidence that it is genetic. And even if there was that wouldn't make it morally acceptable. Don't confuse "is" with "ought."
McLaren is thoroughly liberal but hasn't been honest about it. He and others are just waiting as the church gets more and more away from the truth, then they "come out" when it is safe. They are wrong and cowardly.
Posted by: Neil | January 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I guess I don't see B.M. (no pun intended) as taking sides and closing the discussion... rather I see it from the standpoint of where many of us are, i.e. "geesh let's move on already".
Many of us are heartbroken over the rifts in other denominations and the pains in our own.
No one wants to stay in a denomination that is bickering and fighting and divisively splits it 50/50. Now we're not talking about slavery here, so don't drop that card, especially when dealing with homosexuality.
In fact I think LBGT and abortion issues are MILES apart and really shouldn't even be discussed in the same article. They are fundamentally different issues.
The bottom line that I'd like to think BM is getting at is that these issues have in fact stalemated us and prevented us from moving forward. We UM's are probably especially susceptible to the polarizing debates because of our diverse theological backgrounds. We allow free thought, conversations, and dialogue. This doesn't mean though that we can't figure out and agree on what we think is right.
I would've liked to have seen divorce as making his top 5 issues. Yes, some couples and families are able to make it through it, but many kids are scarred because of it. I would love to see more effort put into strengthening marriages.
I think we UM's need to take a look at the "big picture". What's really going on in the Bible, and what are we doing to make this world a better place, a kingdom of heaven here on earth. Us not allowing christian LBGT's to get married or to be ordained is not going to hurt me, my family, or anyone that I know. I would like to believe that it may actually help us bring more people into the church as well.
Posted by: Dave in Dallas | January 13, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Shane,
what are ya doing reading EWTN's website?
Posted by: Dave in Dallas | January 13, 2009 at 01:24 PM
I wonder how not allowing Christian LGBT people to get married or be ordained would help us bring more people into the church? If I wasn't a UM and I knew I wanted to join a church that didn't ordain or marry LGBT Christians, then I would already have plenty of options within Arminian theology (if I even knew or cared what that was). I don't see how it gives us an advantage over all the other churches that already do not do these things.
Posted by: Jerad | January 13, 2009 at 02:05 PM
"I think we UM's need to take a look at the "big picture". What's really going on in the Bible, and what are we doing to make this world a better place, a kingdom of heaven here on earth."
Yes. A couple things going on in the Bible are that marriage and sex were designed for one man / one woman relationships as well as the fact that we shouldn't kill innocent human beings (e.g., abortion). And if we followed that the world would indeed be a better place.
The most irritating thing to me about the "all conservatives care about are abortion and gays" argument is that it is false on two levels.
First, we care about a whole lot more. Go check out who starts and funds most charities. Conservatives give more money, time and even blood then liberals. We support missions. We support evangelism. We support feeding the poor. And on and on.
Second, were abortion and oxymoronic "same sex marriage" legal and morally benign throughout church history and then the conservatives came along to change them? No, it was the other way around. So the whole, "Why keep fighting it?" argument is spurious and should be directed at the liberals.
"I wonder how not allowing Christian LGBT people to get married or be ordained would help us bring more people into the church?"
Whether it helps grow the church or not is irrelevant. What is biblical is relevant. We could grow the church by offering free beer and pornography, but there might be a downside, eh?
Posted by: Neil | January 13, 2009 at 03:15 PM
Conversely, how does it provide an advantage?
And more importantly, what should be our priority - increasing our membership or staying true to God's word?
Posted by: nonyea | January 13, 2009 at 03:19 PM
(that was directed at jerad)
Posted by: nonyea | January 13, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Neil and Nonyea, my comment was directed towards Dave in Dallas who posited that excluding LGBT Christians from marriage and ordination could "bring more people into the church."
Posted by: Jerad | January 13, 2009 at 03:58 PM
The Hyde amendment is unrelated to FOCA. In fact, Obama has promised to reverse it by executive order because it PREVENTS taxpayer funds from being used for abortions. Henry Hyde was the author of the bill and he was a strongly pro-life Republican senator.
Posted by: texan | January 13, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Texan, you are right about the Hyde Amendment. Thanks for the correction. It indeed prevented us from having to pay for abortions but Obama and Co. want to overturn that.
Posted by: Neil | January 13, 2009 at 10:11 PM
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I totally screwed up that last sentence of my post!!!!
Basically I wanted to say that allowing same-sex marriage is no biggie to me anymore.
Posted by: Dave in Dallas | January 14, 2009 at 04:07 PM