posted                         

quote:

---

Jury issues statement on decision in Dammann case
(5:40 p.m. PT, Saturday, March 20, 2004)

BOTHELL, Wash. — After announcing a verdict of not guilty in the clergy trial of the Rev. Karen Dammann, the jury read a statement to the court.



The statement was read by the Rev. Karla Fredericksen, a member of the 13-member jury, or trial court. Fredericksen serves at Tukwila United Methodist Church.


The full text follows (the paragraph reference in the opening sentences is to the denomination’s Book of Discipline):


The only charge brought against the Rev. Karen T. Dammann is “practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,” under Paragraph 2702.1b relating to the Judicial Complaint of Bishop Elias Galvan. While sustaining the specification that Rev. Karen Dammann is a self-avowed practicing homosexual, we, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented by church counsel to be clear and convincing that Karen Dammann has engaged in any “practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings.” We cannot sustain the charge.

We, the trial court, reached our decisions after many hours of painful and prayerful deliberation, and listening for and to the word of God. We depended on the prayers of the whole church, which undergirded our process. We depended on the leading of the Holy Spirit.

We have made every attempt to be faithful to the Book of Discipline in its entirety. We have taken very seriously the mandate to presume innocence unless there is sufficient evidence to bring a different verdict. The church’s obligation is to present clear and convincing evidence to sustain the charge. We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”

We did see in the Discipline many declarative statements. An example is: “Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination.” (Section 6 of The Ministry of all Christians, section VI, “Called to Inclusiveness,” Paragraph 138, p. 93, second paragraph)

Although we, the trial court, found passages that contain the phrasing “incompatible with Christian teaching,” we did not find that any of them constitute a declaration.

We realize that the church is divided regarding issues of homosexuality. We, as the trial court, are far from unanimous regarding biblical and theological understandings.

The beginning sentence of “Our Theological Task,” Paragraph 104, Conclusion, p. 85,
says: “Doctrine arises out of the life of the Church - its faith, its worship, its discipline, its conflicts, its challenges from the world it would serve.” In this spirit, we have engaged in this judicial task.

---

Posts: 436 | From: on the Ohio River | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Romans 1:27
Study of Homosexuality in the Church


I recently read this article and decided to use it as a basis for a bible study. I agree with the author/authors of the article in reference to the Biblical scriptures quoted. However, I feel there is a matter of GRACE that should be considered here. This is an ongoing debate in the “Christian” community that causes tremendous damage in the form of division within the Church. The issue at hand is a matter of what goes on within the Church and not outside the Church. Addressing the issue of homosexuality within the Church is what I believe Paul was doing in the referenced scriptures. After all is was Jesus that said, Matt.23:25 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.” Let us examine what is within the Church and correct it and therefore fulfill the next verse, Matt.23:26 “Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.”






Homosexuality Condemned?
(Romans 1:27)

Romans 1:27 appears to speak of homosexual relations as sinful. Is this actually the case? Would the Bible really condemn people for such acts, or is it speaking about something quite different from what we understand as homosexuality?

In our day speaking negatively of homosexuality is often declared to be evil. Several factors have led to this. First, postmodern society believes that all personal options are equally good. Thus one should take pride in one’s ethnic background or religion or sexual preference. None is better than another and no one should judge another. This postmodern view may express a truth about our relative human judgments, but does it give God’s view? What if God really does exist and has a view by which he will judge the world in the end? Furthermore, there are limits to our tolerance of cultural diversity, for we are not very accepting of Nazi culture, for example.

Second, genital sexual expression is viewed as a right and even as a necessity for emotional health. This is a new view, which ignores the fact that many who cannot function sexually (such as impotent males) can and do live full and meaningful lives. Unlike food and water and shelter, sexual expression is not a need. Nor is it a right. Many people, whatever their sexual inclinations, are deprived of opportunities for full sexual expression (think of those heterosexuals who want to be married but cannot find an appropriate spouse) and, while it may not be a desirable situation for them, it is not that they are being wronged.

Third, homosexuality has found increasing acceptance in our society. However, acceptance does not make something right. Nor does the evidence that homosexuality may be inborn make it right. Some types of personality are apparently inborn, and we think of these varieties of personality types as equally good, but alcoholism, schizophrenia and a tendency to violence may also be linked to genes, and we look at these as genetic defects. We view them as bad and try to control their expression.

Fourth, there have been attempts to label any rejection of homosexuality as “homophobic” and thus make a rejection of this lifestyle appear wrong. Such labeling begs the question. Is one “kleptophobic” if he or she calls theft wrong? It is not always an issue of fear (phobia) at all, but one of sober judgment about what is right and wrong based on a given standard. For Christians the standard has been the Bible, so that is why looking at this passage is so critical.

There are several passages in the New Testament that refer to homosexual genital sexuality: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. These build on the Old Testament attitude toward homosexuality found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. What conclusions can we draw from these texts?

First, all of these passages condemn particular sexual acts. None of them speak of homosexual desires. In the Scriptures it is not homosexual temptation that is wrong, but the actual acts themselves. This is an important distinction, for it reminds us that the Scriptures honor people successfully struggling with temptation rather than condemning them for their temptations. The man who has never been tempted to commit adultery is not more virtuous than the man who has successfully resisted repeated significant temptations. The first man is only untested in that area.

Second, we recognize that while homosexual practice does not appear to have been common in Palestine, it was a significant feature of the Greek culture. It is not that Greeks were exclusively homosexual, for in fact the general practice was bisexuality, with wives being necessary for procreation, but the use of prostitutes and boys also being more or less accepted. It is also not true that all Greeks equally accepted homosexuality. One form of it, pederasty, was debated by Greek thinkers.

Third, we notice that the explicit rejection of homosexuality is found mostly in Paul’s letters, for he was the Christian writer most in contact with the Greek world. Romans was probably written from Corinth and 1 Corinthians was, of course, written to Corinth. It is sometimes argued, then, that Paul’s concern was only with pederasty, that he was entering one side of the discussion which was common in the Greek world. However, his language in this passage is not a description of pederasty. A case can be made for making 1 Corinthians 6:9 refer to that vice, but such a case is not totally convincing to scholars in this field. What it looks like is going on in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is that Paul, living in the Greek world, needing an example of vice to use in his letter, used the vice that he found close at hand, homosexual practice, which included, but was not limited to, pederasty.

In other words, homosexual practice was not a major problem within the church. It was a problem in the Gentile world around the church. Why was this the case? Probably the reason is that the church taught fidelity to one’s wife. For example, look at the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19. When in Matthew 19:9 Jesus prohibits divorce, the disciples respond in shock that it would be better not to marry than to be stuck forever with a single woman. Rather than softening his statement, Jesus comments that it might be good not to marry and distinguishes those who cannot marry due to sexual dysfunction from those who choose not to marry because of “the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, he gave people only two alternatives: faithful marriage (and he has already made it clear in Mt 5:27-28 what he means by faithfulness) or celibacy. While Jesus does not appear to have been married, Simon Peter was. It would be Paul who would follow the route of celibacy.

Turning to Paul, we find the same alternatives offered. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-20 he rules out “sexual immorality” by which he means sexual intercourse with a person who is not one’s spouse, especially a prostitute. He makes the alternative clear in 1 Corinthians 7:9: if one does not have the gift of celibacy, then one should marry. For the same reason married couples should practice regular sexual intercourse (1 Cor 7:2-5). One can read through the whole of the rest of 1 Corinthians 7 and find only two options: celibacy or faithful marriage. These same two options are offered to the widow and to the never-married, to the old and to the young.

As we noted above, in the Greek world as in the world today there were very few who were exclusively homosexual. Most men married out of duty to their family, if for no other reason. The church had only one instruction to such men and women: your wife or husband is to be your exclusive sexual focus. Satisfy one another. There is no option of a homosexual relationship on the side. For the few who were not married the church had two options: remain celibate or marry. Again homosexual sexual intercourse is not an option. By stressing these two positive options (rather than ranting against homosexuality) the early church appears to have had little problem with the practice of homosexuality, despite its being in the world around them.

Does the Bible really condemn homosexuality? The answer is yes, it does. In every place it mentions any homosexual practice it roundly condemns the practice. In no place does it speak positively of homosexuality. Does the Bible dwell on the issue, especially since parts of it were written in a world full of bisexuality? No, it does not. Instead the Bible focuses on its alternative. It encourages sexual expression in the context of a faithful marriage, and it exalts celibacy for those who cannot or choose not to marry. Both are honorable lifestyles. There is no third way.



Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch. "Homosexuality Condemned?." Chap. in Hard Sayings of the Bible. One-volume edition. Hard Sayings series. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1996.



Saved By Law or Grace?


Homosexuality Outside The Church.


It is in my opinion that the article is dealing with the issue from the standpoint of Biblical Law. Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” It is very clear to me that homosexuality is strongly condemned by God with the penalty of death to those in which practice it. Therefore we MUST conclude that it is wrong. If we understand those scriptures in that it is wrong, then why is there so much debate over it?

First, lets deal with the Biblical Law a bit. I ask you this question, “What was the purpose of the Law to begin with”? Paul dealt with this issue throughout his letters and it was a common theme dealt with by other writers as well throughout the New Testiment. Let’s look at a few.



Translation from The Living Bible for clarity:

Gal. 3:19-24 (TLB) 19Well then, why were the laws given? They were added after the promise was given, to show men how guilty they are of breaking God’s laws. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of Christ, the Child to whom God’s promise was made. (And there is this further difference. God gave his laws to angels to give to Moses, who then gave them to the people; 20but when God gave his promise to Abraham, he did it by himself alone, without angels or Moses as go-betweens.)

21-22Well then, are God’s laws and God’s promises against each other? Of course not! If we could be saved by his laws, then God would not have had to give us a different way to get out of the grip of sin—for the Scriptures insist we are all its prisoners. The only way out is through faith in Jesus Christ; the way of escape is open to all who believe him. 23Until Christ came we were guarded by the law, kept in protective custody, so to speak, until we could believe in the coming Savior. 24Let me put it another way. The Jewish laws were our teacher and guide until Christ came to give us right standing with God through our faith.

So in this passage we can see why the Laws were given to us. It is very clear that they were given to us after the promise to Abraham. The Law came some 430 years after the Promise to Abraham. So what laws were the Jewish people using before Moses? The Bible tells us that the Law was simply given to show us the condition we are in. The Law has been misunderstood, misused, and abused since it was given from the very beginning. Paul and other writers of the New Testiment addressed the issue many times. One instance of the purpose of the Law’s Purpose is found in the following scriptures:

Romans 7:7(TLB) 7Well then, am I suggesting that these laws of God are evil? Of course not! No, the law is not sinful, but it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known the sin in my heart—the evil desires that are hidden there—if the law had not said, “You must not have evil desires in your heart.” 8But sin used this law against evil desires by reminding me that such desires are wrong, and arousing all kinds of forbidden desires within me! Only if there were no laws to break would there be no sinning.

9That is why I felt fine so long as I did not understand what the law really demanded. But when I learned the truth, I realized that I had broken the law and was a sinner, doomed to die. 10So as far as I was concerned, the good law which was supposed to show me the way of life resulted instead in my being given the death penalty. 11Sin fooled me by taking the good laws of God and using them to make me guilty of death. 12But still, you see, the law itself was wholly right and good.

So we see that the Law was given to show us just how much a sinner we are. When I said earlier it was misunderstood this is what I was talking about. We think that by keeping the Law we attain some sort of righteousness with God. The Church, as a general rule, believes this today. It believes that to be a Christian or “Saved” we must keep the Law. This I believe is the source of all the debate. This is not what the Gospel teaches at all. In the frame of mind of keeping the Law, then we have the debate of Homosexuality being condemned. It is in my opinion that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin condemned by the Bible. Why is there not a debate pertaining to theft, murder, dishonoring of parents, adultery, or any other sin, raised to the magnitude of this debate? Homosexuals are condemned very strongly by the church today and often times keep them from accepting the Gospel of Christ that they might be saved.



The Perfection of the Law


Let’s look at the perfection of the Law for a moment. In James 2:10 we read:

James 2:10-11 (TLB)10And the person who keeps every law of God but makes one little slip is just as guilty as the person who has broken every law there is. 11For the God who said you must not marry a woman who already has a husband also said you must not murder, so even though you have not broken the marriage laws by committing adultery, but have murdered someone, you have entirely broken God’s laws and stand utterly guilty before him.

So if we use the Law to condemn Homosexuals then are we guilty of it ourselves? Did not we just read that if we keep all the Laws but slip in one of them then we are guilty of them all in God’s sight? Who is it that can keep every single one of God’s Laws? I have been dealing with the issue of Homosexuality outside of the church. In the next portion we will deal with the issue within the church. The above yellow highlight deals with the Law as well and I think it is misleading to some degree. There is a distinct difference between being tempted and lusting after something or someone. If there is homosexual lust within a person then, the person is guilty of the act even if it is not fulfilled physically. We can see that in the scriptures as well. Jesus addressed the issue of lust in the following verses:

Matt. 5:27-28(TLB)27“The laws of Moses said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say: Anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. This particular verse is not addressing homosexuality directly but the context can be applied to the homosexual lust as well. So we can be guilty of the breaking Gods laws even if we do not physically follow through with the act. The results are the same.



Homosexuality Within The Church
The issue of homosexuality within the church is my greatest concern. If the church takes the standpoint of it is not wrong then the church is in great error. As we saw, it is wrong. The tragedy I feel is that homosexuals are being allowed in key roles within the church. They are allowed to be pastors, teachers, and preachers to our own destruction. In these roles they teach by word and deed that the Bible is not correct in its condemnation of homosexuality. This is blasphemy in my opinion. According to the Bible, there must be repentance at our conversion. Repentance is a change in our way of thinking. If one is a practicing homosexual in leadership of the church then we must ask the questions, “Is there repentance?” and “Was there true conversion?” Could the Holy Spirit truly be leading the people in these positions? Furthermore, they are teaching the congregation this area of lifestyle is accepted by God and that the Bible is in error leading many astray. If this is the case, then the issue is of the “Law” and not “Grace”. The only way to live in and by Grace is to understand the Law. As the scriptures teach us, it leads us to repentance and Christ.

If a person is a murderer and realizes it is wrong and yet continues to willfully murder, has he/she changed? Or has that person in effect rejected the Law in rebellion and rejected the gift of God, which is grace also. If we are trusting in anything other than what Christ has done for us on the cross then our faith is in vain. According to the Bible the only way to God is through faith in Christ. So we must ask the question, “Can the Holy Spirit be leading the persons homosexual lifestyle?” If the answer to that question is “No”, then we must conclude that the person has not accepted the gift of God, which is grace. Yet today’s church allows such people to become its leaders and teach all manner of errors from these positions.

In Conclusion
Our mission, as Christians, is not to condemn the homosexual. The condemnation comes from God if they continue to reject the ‘Truth’. We should be taking the “Truth” about the issue to them in Grace and Love. In doing so we are possibly gaining the person for Christ. However, in condemnation, they often turn away from the truth. In acceptance of their lifestyle, they see no need for the ‘Truth’ and go to their destruction. This is our great commission given to us by Christ, Mark 16:15-16 (TLB) 15And then he told them, “You are to go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere. 16Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. But those who refuse to believe will be condemned. We were not commissioned to go out and condemn people but tell them the Good News or Gospel.



Rev. Greg Turnage
February 3, 2004
Copywrite Pass-It-On Ministries
2004 Pass-It-On Ministries

---

Posts: 527 | From: Montana, USA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged |