As predicted (see the article from May 31, 1998), homosexual marriages will be receiving more and more attention in the near future. According to an Associated Press article, titled “Group of Clergy Bless Same-Sex Unions,” in The Dallas Morning News on January 17th, next year California will vote to decide whether or not they are legal (8A). The initiative found its way to the ballot courtesy of a Republican senator, who will hopefully be defeated at the earliest opportunity. Who knows how California, which hosts Hollywood, will vote?
This article highlights two problems: homosexual “marriages” and “ministers” who support it.
With tears and a kiss, two women exchanged promises in a “holy union” ceremony blessed by more than 90 United Methodist ministers in a dramatic mass defiance of a church law against same-sex marriages (all information is located on page 8A).
However the United Methodist Church may define a “holy union” ceremony, it is anything but that in the sight of God. They may have practiced such folderol in Sodom, also, but God did not bless it. Any homosexual union is unholy. Can anyone not on hallucinogenic drugs imagine two men or two women coming to Moses and asking for a “holy union” ceremony? If so, his reply would undoubtedly have been, “Sure, why don’t you stand near the ‘unity’ candle and we’ll see how God blesses this ‘union.'” In the New Testament era, Paul, in a demonstration of what it means to be “sanctified” and “called to be saints” points out that current church members had repented of the practices of homosexuality and sodomy (1 Cor. 1:2; 6:9-11).
Neither Jesus nor the apostles authorized such ungodly, unholy behavior. To pretend that persons of the same sex can enter into marriage, which God designed for a man and a woman, is sacrilege. All the participants are just as obnoxious (if not more so) as those who defied God at Babel (Gen. 11). That soon-to-be-confused crowd was guilty only of rebellion; this mangy multitude in Sacramento was not only united in abject disobedience (of the most perverse kind) to God–they had the effrontery to ask His blessing! Participating in such a ceremony is equivalent to raising their fists in angry protest against the very holiness of God.
Behind them on the stage, the ministers lined up on the risers and chanted a blessing that could cost them their jobs: “O God, our maker, we gladly proclaim to the world that Jeanne and Ellie are loving partners for life together.”
“Hey, fellas,” someone should have said, “Don’t expect any Divine thanks for your actions.” God has a Divine proclamation for these wolves in gay robing: “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41).
One of the “wedded” women said, “I hope you can see there’s a lot of love for us. The closet is dark and damp and unhealthy. I hope those of you who are in the closet can find a way to come out.” There is, however, another dark place that is far worse than a closet. And although it is not damp, it is really unhealthy. It is too bad that some have no fear of God and His wrath. Jude said that Sodom and Gomorrah were set forth “as an example” of the “vengeance of eternal fire” (v. 7).
The focus of this newspaper article is that these United Methodists ministers are violating “a church law.” Although such is the least of their problems (since God, rather than church law, is the real judge), consider what this statement means.
1. Who gave these men the right to pass a church law? Does this very fact not tell us that the Bible is not the authority for United Methodists? If it is, why are men passing laws? Were not the ones God put in the Scriptures considered sufficient?
2. Who is the head of the United Methodist Church? The Scriptures teach that Jesus is the head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23), but who is the head of theirs, and how did he get to be that way?
3. Come to think of it: Why is there a United Methodist Church at all? Did Christ authorize it?
No, the problem is that they departed from the Scriptures a long time ago when they recognized as authoritative something other than the Word of God. When men depart from the Bible in the area of organization, can we really not expect that there will soon emerge a body of men to govern, pass laws, and determine what their doctrine will be?
The thousand people in attendance are hoping that charges will be filed against them so that they can challenge the church law. In the church of the New Testament, they would simply have fellowship withdrawn from them for their heresy, and that would be that. But denominations are different from the Lord’s church. They have an unauthorized hierarchy that collects and disburses funds. The governing body also holds various other powers (not granted in the Scriptures), such as sending a man to a congregation or withdrawing him from it and sending a replacement.
Another departure from the Word is seen in this statement:
“In our church, unfortunately, I’m allowed to come into their home and bless their house, bless their car, bless their tractor and even bless their dog, but I am not allowed to bless them.”
Is he serious? Can anyone envision Paul blessing a tent or Peter blessing a mule? Do members of the United Methodist Church really invite their “pastors” over to bless their dogs? Do they get paid for such “services”? One can certainly see the need for church laws to regulate just this one area of their “work.” What do they do if they have termites or mice–come over and curse them? And what do they do if someone has a troublesome neighbor? Do they pray that he will move, get cancer, or convert to Methodism?
In 1996, the church’s legislature, the General Conference, took a stand against clergy around the country who had been quietly performing same-sex couple blessings. It added these words to the Methodists’ Book of Discipline: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”
Once again, we do not read in the Scriptures about General Conferences with legislative powers. What does the phrase, in our churches, mean? Do they not mean their church buildings? They sound as though the physical properties are their churches. This too is a concept foreign to the New Testament. The church consists of individuals, who are living stones in the temple of God (1 Peter 2:5). People should not be confused with literal bricks and mortar.
The minister who performed the same-sex ceremony in Sacramento said that he did it as an “act of ecclesiastical disobedience.” Sure, that sounds bad, but what does it mean? Since the phrase is not Biblical, we can only guess that what he meant was that he was defying the chain of ecclesiastical authority within the United Methodist Church. He could really amaze them by deciding to be governed by just the New Testament! Of course, the drawback would be that he could not abide by the Word of God and do “holy union” ceremonies for special people. Many religious groups are so entangled in their non-Biblical baggage they have difficulty seeing their way out.
Ironically, at the close of the article, one “reverend” Methodist minister commented: “This is not about sexuality. This is about the authority of the Scripture.” Actually, it is about both. The Scripture teaches about sexuality. It defines what is right behavior; it sets the bounds of acceptable behavior to God (Heb. 13:4). It specifies what behavior transgresses God’s holy laws.
But since the man brought up the authority of the Scripture, perhaps he can tell us by what authority he calls himself a Methodist. The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26). When did the name Methodist originate? Were any in the New Testament called Methodists? By what authority is there a Methodists’ Book of Discipline? Is not the New Testament sufficient? Peter said that God had given us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), and Jude confirms that the faith was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). Why do we need something additional? If their Book agrees with The Book, it is not needed; if it disagrees, it is wrong and should be disregarded; if it is additional material, who is the source of it: God or man?
And speaking of authority, where is the authority to honor one’s self with the title of “Reverend”? Jesus specifically taught against this type of self-exaltation in Matthew 23:1-12.
The worst part of this whole sordid mess is that these people are engaging in this unauthorized, immoral behavior in the name of religion–shamefully, in the name of Christ. Undoubtedly, they think their actions will be a great drawing card to those not as yet professing Christianity. They probably see themselves as the epitome of love and tolerance. But it is a grievous mistake to think that genuine love accepts sin and that tolerance means fellowshipping even Satan (the author of false doctrine and immorality).
Brethren in Corinth were willing to fellowship the man living with his father’s wife–until Paul told them to withdraw fellowship from the man due to his sexual immorality. He rebuked them: “Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6). Since we are called to be “holy ones,” we can neither practice moral corruption nor fellowship members of the body of Christ who do so.
Yet when those who are lost look around at various religious groups who profess to be Christian, what do they see? They see groups like the United Methodists, who fellowship abortionists (as the United Methodist Church in Denton does), homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, gamblers, and those who imbibe alcoholic beverages. So exactly how are they any different from those who are in the world? Sinners do those same things; so what motivation is there to “play church”? They have no light or holiness to offer. They claim to be “Christian,” but they remain in darkness, doing the things of darkness–and falsely using the name of Jesus in connection with their corruption.
How awful and lamentable it is to think that those trying to leave darkness may only find religious groups who have never themselves found their way to the light. They will talk to them about grace and faith and becoming Methodists, but they must remain silent about sin and repentance. If Christians can have abortions and be homosexuals, what can sinners have to repent of?
With religions like these, people are likely to think that Christianity is just a fraud. One can engage in any kind of sinful behavior but remain a member in “good standing” in some religious groups. Such is not the holiness of Christianity; it is the deception of sin. Such doctrine was never inspired of God; it is the teaching of wolves.