What would John Wesley say?

I was peeking at a friend's blog today and he cites an article from the MN Star Tribune. It seems that the United Methodist Minnesota Annual Conference has voted to urge the larger church "to fully welcome gays and lesbians and to support gay marriage and the ordination of gay clergy." The official Annual Conference summary is here and the Star Tribune article can be read here.

It makes me sad to read this article... You see, I grew up at a UMC church. My parents were married there (long before I came along, I should note), I came to faith there, cleaning the church was my first 'job'. I worked on an advisory council to our conference on engaging youth. Life revolved around the white building at 200 Weiner Ave in Harrington.

Those of you who don't know me should understand that I was a music major in college. While in school, I had many gay friends... Many of them were fraternity brothers who I still talk with and love deeply. I hope that they would confirm that, while it is obvious I don't agree with or condone their lifestyle, I have not been hateful or uncaring towards them. They are and will always be some of my dearest friends.

However, I cannot escape the fact that I am convinced their conduct is sinful. And as someone aspiring to become a pastor, I feel almost compelled to comment on the statements of some pastors at the Minnesota Annual Conference. Quotes here are taken from Star Tribune article.

"The half-dozen biblical references to homosexuality do not reflect what we understand today about loving relationships. This is an identity, not a sin." Rev. Dan Johnson of Good Samaritan UMC

I find this kind of reasoning troubling. Reverend Johnson is willing to place his own convictions above the acknowledged, clear teaching in Scripture. I suppose the idea is that we now know more than the Bible writers did thanks to science, years of social evolution, and the like. In some cases, people offer so-called 'trajectory hermeneutics' in which we claim to know where the Bible was going and, based on that trajectory, are completing God's revelation in our time.

Even I learned, in my liberal UMC confirmation class, that the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit - not men - and therefore was authoritative. Johnson would have us set that aside in favor of our human 'higher knowledge'. Herein lies the flaw in Wesley's Method - the misapplication of reason and experience...

It's interesting that Johnson appeals, partly at least, to biology. The argument seems to be that, since we now know people are born homosexual, the behavior must be valid and not sinful. I'll ignore the debate around such data for now. Regardless, I wonder what Johnson would say re: the other people in the world who could be equally predisposed towards pedophilia or violence. If biological impulse makes right, then we have no logical basis to discriminate against other such behaviors.

"Many of us are greatly concerned about the direction the [denomination] has taken toward exclusion... We'll keep putting the pressure on." Retired Rev. Carl Caskey of Northfield

A little bit of historical revision implied here, isn't there? The traditional position of the church has been that homosexuality is a sin. That issue has been argued more than a couple times in church history with the historic, orthodox position always winning the day. The only current 'direction' of progress has been towards a rejection of the consistent teaching held by the church for the last two thousand years.

Like those on the other side, I wish we could get beyond this issue to do the things we're called to do... We are united on issues like serving the poor and sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ." Rev. Daren Flinck of Grace United Methodist

Sadly, I must respectfully and earnestly disagree with Reverend Flinck's statement. These two camps are not "united on ... sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ". And I fear that is the most terrible thing about the issue of homosexuality within the church. While Methodists and Calvinists can argue about 'free will' vs. 'predestination' and the like, we emerge from such arguments with the core message of the Gospel being affirmed unanimously. We agree that Christ was God's Son, we are wicked sinners, that Christ's sinless life and atoning death provide the only channel to God, and that we become partakers of this unmerited gift of grace through faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

The end result with issues like homosexuality is that a very different gospel emerges. The result is a gospel where God is not holy, Christ is not Lord, and the Bible is simply another flawed guidebook (among many) on the shelf. Incontrovertible biblical evidence and the entire testimony of the church through the generations is set aside for the sake of our personal impulses and desires. Impulses and desires that we, as Christians, would affirm largely spring out of a mind that is sinful and hostile towards God.

I trust that the National Convention of the UMC will not accept the recommendations that have come out of Minnesota this week. Still, I suppose there's a lot of 'reason and experience' that could happen between now and 2008.