May 11, 2023·edited May 11, 2023Liked by Derek Petty
Wow ... Wish I could multiply the like button. Very necessary and deep discussion of this current battle for the soul of the church (individually and collectively).
FINALLY getting around to this. Derek you've hit on something big in this article and I laud you for having the honesty to recognize it, grapple with it, and share your thoughts publicly.
First: What struck me about this issue when I first heard about it was that it was *voted on*. Shouldn't there be a truth? What if the vote was held 100 years ago? What if the vote is held 100 years from now? Wouldn't the vote be different? What about *today* makes *todays people* qualified to establish doctrines of the church? I sense you're intuitively aware that that is an issue, but you haven't expressed that in an article. What is truth if it can be overwritten by a majority vote?
Second: What does love even mean? In the Catholic ideation (I don't know how Methodists think about this so forgive me if this is a tangent), love is willing the good of another. That kind of love is completely distinct from sexual gratification--so it's very confusing where this whole LGBTQ issue got off the ground. Willing the good of another involves willing the highest good, which is that they go to heaven, conform their lives to God, etc. If yesterday that meant homosexual acts were sins, then wouldn't that remain the same today and into the future? What changed, really?
Again, from the Catholic POV, Sex has three elements: Loving, Uniting, Life Giving. It is loving in that it wills the good of another. It is uniting in that it unites a man and a woman on their marriage bed. It is life giving in that it is fully open to the flourishing of life. If you will the good of another, you dont want them to sin. If you aren't married, you can't be united. If sex is incapable of producing life, it isn't loving or uniting. Nowhere in here is "expression of love for your partner" involved. Sex is a *serious thing*, it is a final act--well the opposite, it is an act of creation. If Murder is serious, so must be Creation.
In this Catholic POV, this makes other kinds of sexual sins, sins as well. There is nothing unique about homosexual people--it is their acts that are sins. Sins are things people do, not people unto themselves. So homosexual acts, solo-sexual acts, contraception, etc, these are all *the same kinds of sin* where a person or people put their own gratification above the love, unity, and openness to life that makes a healthy sexual relationship.
And because all of this is anchored in something *fundamental about the universe* it cannot change. People will make noise in the Catholic Church about this every now and again but my belief is that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from ever truly teaching error, even if people practice poorly or allow error on the margins, it will never be adopted into the doctrines of the Church.
Again--I don't know how Methodists think about all this so I would love to hear your thoughts.
The question seems to be: Do we hold to truth, even if it is hard? Or do we compromise on truth in order to try to fill the pews?
Why is *this issue* uniquely worth schism in the Methodist Church for? What is the line being drawn? What issue will be voted on next?
Anyway--just some food for thought more than anything. I hope it at least offers some good reflection, but I would love to hear your thoughts if any. I've been promising to post this comment for a long time and only just got around to it, so take your time in responding! I know i've thrown a lot out there.
God bless you, Derek! Thank you for posting this article!
Wow ... Wish I could multiply the like button. Very necessary and deep discussion of this current battle for the soul of the church (individually and collectively).
FINALLY getting around to this. Derek you've hit on something big in this article and I laud you for having the honesty to recognize it, grapple with it, and share your thoughts publicly.
First: What struck me about this issue when I first heard about it was that it was *voted on*. Shouldn't there be a truth? What if the vote was held 100 years ago? What if the vote is held 100 years from now? Wouldn't the vote be different? What about *today* makes *todays people* qualified to establish doctrines of the church? I sense you're intuitively aware that that is an issue, but you haven't expressed that in an article. What is truth if it can be overwritten by a majority vote?
Second: What does love even mean? In the Catholic ideation (I don't know how Methodists think about this so forgive me if this is a tangent), love is willing the good of another. That kind of love is completely distinct from sexual gratification--so it's very confusing where this whole LGBTQ issue got off the ground. Willing the good of another involves willing the highest good, which is that they go to heaven, conform their lives to God, etc. If yesterday that meant homosexual acts were sins, then wouldn't that remain the same today and into the future? What changed, really?
Again, from the Catholic POV, Sex has three elements: Loving, Uniting, Life Giving. It is loving in that it wills the good of another. It is uniting in that it unites a man and a woman on their marriage bed. It is life giving in that it is fully open to the flourishing of life. If you will the good of another, you dont want them to sin. If you aren't married, you can't be united. If sex is incapable of producing life, it isn't loving or uniting. Nowhere in here is "expression of love for your partner" involved. Sex is a *serious thing*, it is a final act--well the opposite, it is an act of creation. If Murder is serious, so must be Creation.
In this Catholic POV, this makes other kinds of sexual sins, sins as well. There is nothing unique about homosexual people--it is their acts that are sins. Sins are things people do, not people unto themselves. So homosexual acts, solo-sexual acts, contraception, etc, these are all *the same kinds of sin* where a person or people put their own gratification above the love, unity, and openness to life that makes a healthy sexual relationship.
And because all of this is anchored in something *fundamental about the universe* it cannot change. People will make noise in the Catholic Church about this every now and again but my belief is that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from ever truly teaching error, even if people practice poorly or allow error on the margins, it will never be adopted into the doctrines of the Church.
Again--I don't know how Methodists think about all this so I would love to hear your thoughts.
The question seems to be: Do we hold to truth, even if it is hard? Or do we compromise on truth in order to try to fill the pews?
Why is *this issue* uniquely worth schism in the Methodist Church for? What is the line being drawn? What issue will be voted on next?
Anyway--just some food for thought more than anything. I hope it at least offers some good reflection, but I would love to hear your thoughts if any. I've been promising to post this comment for a long time and only just got around to it, so take your time in responding! I know i've thrown a lot out there.
God bless you, Derek! Thank you for posting this article!