As many of you know the General Conference meets this week to decide something which will likely alter the course of the entire Methodist Church.
To me it seems this conversation was born out of a) be increasingly inclusive, and b) put butts in the seats of a declining faith.
The Book of Discipline is somewhat non-commital on the topic of LGBTQ issues, and even where it is clear, many churches just decide that it doesn't apply to them.
In search of something that the church took a definite position on, I searched for the Book's view on abortion. It says:
"Our belief in the sanctity of unborn life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.
But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and unborn child"
I don't intend to equate LGBTQ issues to that of abortion. However, if we're having the conversation now about LGBTQ, why won't we have that same conversation in 10 years about abortion when we're again seen as "backwards" because we don't "shout our abortion"?
To me it seems this conversation was born out of a) be increasingly inclusive, and b) put butts in the seats of a declining faith.
The Book of Discipline is somewhat non-commital on the topic of LGBTQ issues, and even where it is clear, many churches just decide that it doesn't apply to them.
In search of something that the church took a definite position on, I searched for the Book's view on abortion. It says:
"Our belief in the sanctity of unborn life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.
But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and unborn child"
I don't intend to equate LGBTQ issues to that of abortion. However, if we're having the conversation now about LGBTQ, why won't we have that same conversation in 10 years about abortion when we're again seen as "backwards" because we don't "shout our abortion"?