Primary Elections
There are two big races in the primaries in the part of Arizona where I live. One is the governor's race. There are several Republican candidates vying to face Democrat incumbent Janet Napolitano in the Nov. 7 general election. Frankly, I don't like any of them. I haven't decided which one to vote for in the primary, but I'm almost certain to vote for Napolitano in the general election. She's a moderate, she's vetoed a ton of really scary bills from our really scary legislature, and she's been good for the state.
The race I'm really not sure about is Congressional District 8, currently held by the retiring Jim Kolbe. I love Jim Kolbe, at least as much as I can love any politician, and I'm bitterly sorry to see him go. He's a moderate conservative in a time when conservativism has run amok. Naturally, there are a lot of people running for his seat on both the Democrat and Republican side. I can't vote in the Democratic primary, so I haven't really taken a good look at those candidates (although I used to work with former news anchor Patty Weiss, so I'm curious about her campaign). On the Republican side, I've narrowed it down to two: Mike Hellon and Steve Huffman. Huffman has Kolbe's endorsement, which says something to me, but I really like some of the things Hellon has said about the dangers of basing laws on religion. I haven't decided which one I like better. Or really, as is usually the case, which one I hate least. What I really wish is that there was an "Anybody but Randy Graf" option. The thought of him as our congressman makes by blood curdle.
In other news, I wanted to call attention to two recent editorials I really liked. One was from my favorite, Leonard J. Pitts, on Biblical literalism and how impossible it really is. Amen, Leonard! The other is on why Prop. 107 (the marriage amendment) is such a bad idea. Writer Dr. Ivy Schwartz really nailed it.
posted by Bad Methodist @ 7:29 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I would agree, you are a bad methodist and shouldn't even be affiliated with the Methodist Church. I can respect anyone's opinions-but when they are liberal in a conservative denomination it makes no sense to be a part of it.
You've lost the belief in absolute truth...and that's sad.
Homosexuality is a sin-just like everything else listed with it in the scriptures...no one argues with the others though....
It seems so many are sliding down the slippery slope and are soon going to fall off the cliff and have nothing beneath them at all to stand on because they won't believe in anything.
I wish I could meet and talk with you because we don't have many like you in the Midwest other than people who have no background at all and stumble across the "whatever I think is best works for me" ideology.
We in the Midwest are doing are best to hold down to the TRUTHS that have so easily existed for thousands of years and yet so many want to warp in the last few decades.
Thankfully the UMC as a whole is very strong in keeping up with the true conservative beliefs that a small minority in the UMC disagree with.
Furthermore ALL churches should reach out to homosexuals, drug addicts, prostitutes, thiefs, liars....everyone.
We're all sinners and the church is a place for sinners.
However, the church is also a place where we uphold each other and are accountable to help each other overcome our sin-be it homosexuality, greed, or anything else.
Love the Sinner...Hate the Sin.
Growth can't occur in one's life if they aren't pushed to overcome what they so often struggle with...this of course takes time and a love message-not a hate message.
Interesting that you choose to remain anonymous. Not very proud of your views?
The "majority" in the UMC is centered mostly in the Southeast (and somewhat in the midwest) while the "small" minority covers the rest of the nation. It is not a small minority, it's a rather large one. Nearly every UM Church in my jurisdiction is a part of it.
Thanks for the links to the articles.
I guess your anonymous commenter believes people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death.
I guess your anonymous commenter also believes the laws of this country should be in 100% accordance with Christian Biblical passages, First Amendment be damned.
You're not a bad Methodist, you're a model of what other Methodists (and Christians in general) should be. You're also a beautiful human being. Thank you for being you and for doing what you're doing. Please keep it up.
I was listed as anonymous because I do not have a blogger.com account and thus can only leave notes as anonymous.
All I was stating is that you admittedly don't agree with many things that the UMC does have as official statements and therefore are a misrepresentation of what a UMC is, which you are well aware of by the fact that your blog is titled 'bad methodist.'
I said I can respect your position and then talked about how to bring people to Christ and help them overcome their troubles (which all have) be it homosexuality, greed, pride, or adultery. That's the ultimate goal. Unfortunately-people try to
But then you slam me when all I stated was that your beliefs don't match up with the UMC. If I was part of the Roman Catholic Church and didn't believe what they did and you said I shouldn't be affiliated with the Catholic Church then I wouldn't get mad.
I don't know why I'd be ashamed of my views....they've been established for 2,000 years as the guidelines for being a follower of Christ by Christ...so I think they're pretty good. I don't have all the answers...but Christ gave us plenty to follow.
If the liberal UMC was larger then it would make changes at General Conference. Fortunately, the "conservatives" help us hold true to what Methodism was founded on...thanks in part to John Wesley. If official doctrine of the church did change (in big things like absolute truth, gay marriage, Scripture above Tradition above Reason above Experience)then I would gladly remove myself from affiliation.
Yes, the far west and far east of the United States does have more 'liberal' UMC's then elsewhere, but it is still a minority in the USA.
I wonder if you'll manipulate everything I say again...I hope not...I think we'd be able to be civilized.
I never wish to be divisive...but Truths cannot be compromised.
I wrote a message about love earlier...and I mean it....but to not guide others to the truth because we want all to be comfortable with however they want to be is clearly wrong.
Open discussions are always healthy...but I don't know the point of doing it over a blog...if there is any...you won't take anything I said seriously.
But if you want to discuss over email then maybe that'd work. I'm not going to leave it for everyone to see because I can't hold conversations with everyone....but perhaps one.
Your email?
1. I didn't slam you. I commented about your choice to remain anonymous when most posters (agree or disagree) at least sign their name or a screen name after you basically told me I shouldn't be a part of this denomination. I confess it was knee-jerk--I don't appreciate being told I don't belong in the denomination I love, even as I fight to change it. And I was a little taken aback that the comment appeared in a post that had nothing to do with theology but rather was about political candidates, as if my choice of candidates for governer and congressional representitive of Arizona makes me unsuitable to be a Methodist. I was disturbed by that, but I apologize for the knee-jerk response.
2. It's untrue that I "don't agree with many" of the UMC's positions. I agree with all but one: its position on homosexuality. "Bad Methodist" is tongue-in-cheek.
3. Those who disagree with the church's stance on homosexuality are in the minority, yes, but not a "small" minority as you claim. It's a large minority and one that is growing. I fully expect change within the next decade, although I'd like to see it sooner.
4. The Wesley Quadrilateral holds that Reason and Experience are EQUAL to Scripture and Tradition. It's a four-legged stool. Reason and experience are necessary for interpreting Scripture, and not everyone comes to the same conclusion about what Scripture means. The church has long supported that. It is only in recent years when forces outside the church (namely the Institute for Religion and Democracy) have pushed the UMC toward the right. The rules in the Discipline about homosexuality are only years old, not centuries old. I want the church back how it used to be before the IRD started mucking around with it.
My comments in no way reflect your specific blog entry. I just commented based on your profile information and this was your latest blog at the time.
Homosexuality is continuing to get more and more publicity and I just wanted to gain understanding of why you believe what you believe.
Sorry if it came out of left field.
I was wondering if you could state your official stance on why you believe what you believe on homosexuality. Have you already done that on a previous blog or anything?
And since Scripture is the primary part of the Wesleyan Quad (Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’” (The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2004, p. 77) I would like it to be primary in your answer.
(Kept within their subordinate role, tradition, experience, and reason illuminate and apply scriptural truth. However, we cannot build a theology upon any of them. We must grasp the priority and primacy of Scripture. We cannot have a dual authority or theological pluralism.
Unless we contend for the sufficiency of scripture we will eventually be proving our positions on the basis of tradition, which can lead to legalism; experience, which tends toward charismaticism; or reason, which leads to a gnostic rationalism).
I want to see that your main points come from the word of God first and foremost.
I believe the rules for homosexuality are written in the Bible, not any discipline of the Wesleyan or UM Church.
Homosexuality had not been as big of an issue in the past and was pretty much a given that it was a sin...when it became a hot topic the need was there to make an official stance.
I look forward to reading your belief statement on homosexuality so I can try to understand your point of view.
I just posted a very long separate post about some of the Scriptural basis of my beliefs. Thanks for inspiring it!
http://bad-methodist.blogspot.com/2006/09/scriptural-basis-for-what-i-believe.html
Post a Comment
<< Home