UTExan said:

---

Did you miss the part where he said God loves us too much to let us live in our sinful state?

---

Edited because I misread your statement.

I did hear that and that is what I support. Pretty simple.

He also dropped a couple subtle bombs about focusing on the local church and not needing a denominational label. Sounds like laying the grounds for a split.

My former Youth Pastor posted this. It's long but interesting to hear this viewpoint. Not sure I agree with much of it, but still interesting to hear out.

https://vimeo.com/321348970

The Shank Ag said:

---

My former Youth Pastor posted this. It's long but interesting to hear this viewpoint. Not sure I agree with much of it, but still interesting to hear out.

https://vimeo.com/321348970

---

I used to respect Adam Hamilton a lot, but it was his insistence at the GC 2016 that this 2019 conference took place. After the 2016 Conference had voted down (again) resolutions toward LGBTQIAA+ acceptance into ministry/gay marriage. He demanded that bishops "find a way forward" when the conference had already charted out the way forward. Now this was probably the last gasp for the LGBTQIAA proponents. Next general conference (2020) will transfer even more delegate votes to the African/Asian and southern US where conservatives have the votes.

Something that I really don't like, which he says multiple times in that video, is that he and other money powerful churches are just going to hold the UMC hostage and not offer up any money.

I'm pretty sure that's not a pastoral decision alone, it's a Board of Trustees, Administrative Council, and Financial Council decision.


He is obviously hurt and upset by the way the vote went, and while I agree with some things he says, I can't get on board with his holier than thou attitude about the people who voted differently - it's very clear that he thinks that backwoods ignorant people.

Quote:

---

I used to respect Adam Hamilton a lot

---

After watching the video and seeing many of the proponents of "inclusion", I can say that you should keep on respecting him. The movements desire to be known by love should be commended and affirmed. I think their hearts are in the right place and have the correct desire: that everyone should be welcome. I think they are taking Jesus's teaching on the "known by love" subject very seriously. We shouldn't ignore this.

Now, they miss the mark and we should not sacrifice our duties to help each other seek holiness out a misguided attempt to love someone. I am left wondering why people seem to ignore Genesis in that men and women were given to each other. Do they believe these critical verses to our faith have context to spin away? Should they not add "neither gay nor straight" to the Galatians 3:28, since one can argue that Paul would have written this in the context? Usually context verses run into conflict with other ones and we seek clarification on that. His interpretation on women leading has merit ONLY because we have other references to women leading (Deborah is the easy one). LIke I previously mentioned, we shouldn't use the Quadrilateral to undermine one of the legs.

In any case, keep the respect and disagree. I know you probably just turning a phrase and your actual respect isn't diminished, but I thought i'd take the opportunity to keep our dissensions in the right frame.

Yes, he is being fairly arbitrary in his decision. He is basically threatening to withhold money for programs which benefit Africans because they did not vote his way. As I watched the whole video segment, he threatened to leave the denomination and help start a new one because he didn't like the vote. Then he claims that the Traditionalists formulated an exit plan to include Church property for their benefit when the plan would actually benefit the progressives more since they never had the votes to change the Discipline language regarding homosexuality. Then he minimizes Biblical injunctions against homosexual practices.
Honestly, if there was any Biblical example of gay marriage, I would have zero problems with his position.

No. I genuinely have lost respect. He is more measured in his responses than many LGBT proponents, but still levels threats. He knew the Discipline when ordained and nothing excludes LGBTQ people from attending as singles or couples. The Traditional Plan only forbids gay weddings and ordination of practicing homosexuals.

I am right there with you.

But one thing I think he glossed over too much, purposefully, is that, the church made a decision that only affects who the church and pastors can marry and where, and who can become a pastor or pastor leader in the UMC. This does not say that gays are going to hell or gays are unwelcome in the UMC.

Yes, I understand that saying, "we will not ordain a practicing homosexual" does affect gay people and probably makes them at minimum uncomfortable, if not unwelcome; but the UMC did not say that we should shun gays.

I don't want anyone to feel unwelcome or unloved in the UMC. That bothers me, deeply. However, I also feel that the church should be able to set standards as to who their hire as they see fit (all companies should be able to do this).

The church wanted to be a global church and now the people on the progressive end of it are mad that the "Africans and others are backwards and less advanced than us in America." Not really sure how you could feel that, this is basically the same thing as the Traditional Plan, except in reverse and it's easier to deal with because the majority of those churches are "out of sight out of mind" across the world.

I wish you could have heard some of the vitriol coming from western jurisdiction clergy after the vote. The sheer venom inclines me toward a split.

Hamilton is probably right there with them.

He is high and mighty and tones it down, but it's obvious he feels that anyone who is happy the Traditional Plan won, isn't compatible with him or his interpretation of the Bible.