by Sandy » Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:47 pm
It sounds like this comes down to "don't force my church to do something it doesn't want to do," whether that's to be "welcoming and affirming" or to hold to a traditional view. What it sounds like to me is that there are some district superintendents in the UMC who are sensitive to the perspectives of the congregations in their district and are able to find pastoral leadership that fits well with each local church. That might avoid a lot of the problem.
The biggest problem with the whole issue is that even in "liberal" or "progressive" denominations and churches, it is difficult to push against a position that has traditionally and historically been held by the church. The progressive or liberal view must step away from widely accepted views of Biblical authority and interpretation to arrive at their conclusions. Even though there are many churches and denominations that don't subscribe to inerrancy, there are far fewer who will go so far as to say that the writings of the Old Testament, or those of Paul carry less inspiration, weight and authority than the rest of the Bible. I don't believe even the most liberal Methodist church in the world would accept a pastor who continued to be involved in an adulterous affair without repenting and stopping it. And as far as Jesus goes, well, his view of sexuality considers any physical relationship outside of marriage as sinful. The Methodist church's statement of faith doesn't include inerrancy, but it does include statements about the authority of scripture that are counter to the interpretation Adam Hamilton, in one of Keith's posts, used to make his point. I can observe that, even among many of the UMC's clergy in the United States, there are wide gaps in the views on this subject and how the church should handle it.