Considering Charlotte - Progressive Triumphalism and Sexual Licentiousness

[@Agben35]

So much respect for these guys. Thank you Jeffrey for leading this effort.

[@jerrybell1050]

I continue to be positively surprised by these conversations. It's reassuring that not everyone has the same point of perspective but they each of you can trust and respect the other. That's something this world has lost.

[@plainspokenpod]

Among the working class, I still see a lot of this. It is the learned fragile ones who cannot generally do it anymore.

[@kerrybowers865]

Excellent podcast Pastor Jeffrey and much thanks to Odell and Lonnie for their insights into the issues.

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

As a Lutheran (ELCA), have said this about my apostate denomination: I agree with O'Dell in that my denomination has a thoroughly broken "theology of marriage" and suddenly we have extended the estate of marriage to new people. Sadly, I do not see "more preaching" on marriage... I will, sadly, disagree with Lonnie...the move to extend "marriage" to "Same-sex couples" will inevitably lead to "Poly-marriages." It's unavoidable. The very same logic that led to this "redefinition" will lead to further "redefinition." The ultimate goal of the "modernist" has always been to destroy and abolish "Marriage" as it has been understood by the Church as a procreative, stable, and complimentary relationship between man and woman. It's not a "slippery slope" but rather the "marching down the field." I do think we need to be clear about the difference between the dangers socially and the dangers facing the Church, though. A "Drag Queen Story Hour" at the local library may be offensive, but I can opt to not take my children there. When we start getting "Drag Queen Pastors", on the other hand, where are our children to go, short of leaving the Church? I'm not saying that you shouldn't be bothered and active in your local (public) community, but the Church is our special battleground and concern.

[@deanwheeler4304]

I as clergy, and my congregation, left the ELCA 20 years ago. Sad.

[@mikehunter6975]

Actually, there are drag queen story hours in the UMC. Not just a few churches, but many. A lot in the south. Not just “local” libraries. Also, the UMC is ok with drag queens being candidates for ordination when they get through all that’s is required. It will get more prevalent.

[@omniamethodist]

We ARE still under the moral obligations of the OT....just not the penalty. God's moral expectations DO NOT change ....both OT and NT. Both Lev and Romans 1.

[@omniamethodist]

It is not necessarily Afro-phobia. It is phobia of CONSERVATIVE Africans.

[@michaeltingle3789]

Jeffrey,as a 79 year old man I totally agree with you about the fear you have for your children. I have the same fear for my great grandchildren. This century is going totally nuts. Also praying for SE OK because of the weather you have been experiencing.

[@elsiecunn]

The Côte d'Ivoire Annual Conference voted this week to leave the UMC this week.

[@mistersteve5354]

Excellent program! You guys just keep pushing that high bar higher.

[@thomkohl2353]

Fascinating discussion! I love the respect and friendship you three have embraced. Thank you for showing how we should all interact.

[@mikehunter6975]

Always appreciate these conversations and everyone’s perspectives.

[@dougcarroll19]

Hi Jeffery. I would love to hear a segment on "upper middle class Christianity."

[@plainspokenpod]

Oh, man, I don't know. If it were a monologue it would be like two minutes before I started frothing at the mouth. I bet there's an expert I could get on the channel if I get it big enough. I'll try and file this request away. I don't know if you know who Rob Henderson is, but he is the main guy I'm drawing on with this class stuff. Well, and Batya Ungar Sargon. They are both fantastic. They aren't believers, though, and they are too big for me to get ahold of.

[@omniamethodist]

Love Lonnie but he completely sidestepped your Mysterious Union argument of Christ (male) and His Church (female).

[@davewhite756]

If you wanna be coptic be coptic

[@Anonymous-cm9md]

Very helpful when you gave the association between the commandment not to commit adultery and the rationale for concern of what goes on in peoples’s private sexual lives and the impact on society. And Jesus did not abolish one iota of the law, he fulfilled the law and the prophets. Both the OT and NT is not about us, it is all about who God is, what He has done, what He is doing, and what He will do. So God’s word is for all people Jew or Gentile. There will be representatives from every tribe and nation ruling in the new heaven and new earth under Christ.

[@plainspokenpod]

John Wesley made a distinction (he wasn't the first one to do it) between the ceremonial law and the moral law of the OT. He said the ceremonial laws were abrogated by the Christ event, but the moral laws still stood. As one who believes that God maintains all his covenants, I believe there is still a role for ceremonial law, though not for the Christian. I think there is room to have varying opinions/approaches with respect to OT law, but the extremes of 100% Jewish obedience or 100% dismissal are quite obviously wrong. Arianism was one of the first heresies. We would do well to know and protect our history.

[@Anonymous-cm9md]

Sanctioning sin is not a progressive triumph, it is regressive and destructive.There is more than “dissatisfaction” because the UMCH has pulled way from basic morality not only in its sexual ethic views but also in the way traditional Methodists were underrepresented at the conference, especially our African brothers and sisters who could not be there.

[@russ254]

50:13 UMC: “upper middle class” 😂

[@culmo80]

"The code of Leviticus does not apply." So what? God is immutable. God does not change. God didn't say to the ancient Jews "no, don't do this, and then turn around and say "nah, never mind, go right ahead!" Here's the thing people get wrong about Old Testament Law. They aren't all the same. You have ceremonial laws and laws pertaining to a very specific time period, such as the marching order for the tribes in the wilderness or how Temple worship was to be performed. This also includes laws for how rabbis should live and whatnot. This further includes the laws for various sacrifice--those were fulfilled by Christ, by the way. Then you have social laws: things like farmers should leave a part of their yield out in the fields so sojourners and the poor would be able to find something to eat. Things like mandating that a rooftop ought to have a parapet on it so as to prevent people from falling off. And so on. These are situational. If you don't own a farm, you can't exactly leave part of your harvest out in the field. Finally, you have the moral laws. These are the laws that are timeless. How do we know they are timeless? Take murder. What happened when Cain killed Abel? Yeah, he was punished, but not with death. And this occurred long before anyone set chisel to tablet. These moral laws also include sexual behavior because God has an order for all things. And that last part is what the modern "centrists" get wrong. Disordered love is only masquerading as love. We all sin. We all fall short. But we should not be celebrating sin. We should not be encouraging something God has called an abomination.

[@eileenthrift8259]

I see where we diverge from the progressives in multiple ways. Their desire to totally ignore the OT, that is problematic on multiple fronts. First, it is the OT prophets who prophesy the coming of the Messiah and their prophesies prove Jesus is the Christ. As Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt 5:17 Another, seems to be the progressives are confusing "love" with the sexual act. Unfortunately, people can, and do, engage in sex without any "love" for their partners. Of course, one can "love" someone without having sexual relations with them. Abstaining from having sex until one is wedded in "holy matrimony" is the Christian ideal. It may seem old fashioned, obsolete, or counter cultural but it is what the Lord requires. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. " John 14:15

[@dalethomas5392]

Lonnie seems to specialize in being vague and engaging in special pleading. He wants to draw the line for sexual relations at 2 because to go beyond 2 is "harmful". But not only does he not provide any rationale for his claim that it is harmful, but he doesn't even provide any kind of meaningful definition of "harm/hurt". Nor is he able to deal seriously with those who would claim polyamorous relationships arent wrong and/or harmful. I think he would benefit greatly from watching Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson's 2014 presentation on marriage at Stanford University's Anscombe Society. (It's on YT.) Finally, (as Ive pointed out ad nauseum), in rejecting the objective sexual dichotomy of human beings as being normative for sexual relations, he can't objectively ground his limitation of sexual relations to 2 and only 2 people. Why? Because the limitation itself is grounded on the objective sexual dichotomy of human beings. He effectively saws off the branch upon which he sits. One might also press Lonnie on whether or not he is fully supportive of the B's of the LGBTQ+ crowd. If he is, then in what sense does he actually hold to his limitation of 2 and only 2 persons?

[@marksaylor252]

Around 24:00, Lonnie sounds pragmatic when saying that you should not do something because someone will get hurt. While that may be true, that's not how we are to follow God's plan for human sexuality from Genesis, reaffirmed by Christ in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. We obey the will of God revealed in His word, not measuring whether or not someone will get hurt. No wonder he doesn't see the slippery slope.

[@matthewhartzell7890]

I gotta say. Lonnie seems to be allowing the same wolves in the door

[@rpierce0419]

Is there a link to this op-ed? Google search doesn't turn anything up

[@darthnocturnis3941]

Perhaps I misunderstood what Odell was saying, but I didn't quite agree with what he was saying regarding the Gentiles and the Old Testament. In my understanding of Acts 15, the Gentiles were exempt from becoming Jews (in summary), but not from the Old Testament as far as it pertained to sexual immorality, idolatry, and respecting life. Reading Paul suggests the same; our understanding of holiness is drawn from the Old Testament and not an abstract paradigm of the New Covenant. Did I misunderstand him?

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

So, a serious question... IF Leviticus doesn't apply (since it wasn't speaking to Gentiles), then what do you do with "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"? (Leviticus 19:18) Serious question.

[@deej7928]

I think that the main difference between Progressives vs Traditionalists is a fundamental difference in their respective intent in studying scripture. Example: studying it to find loopholes or justification for their behavior vs. studying for understanding of GODs ways Because when GODs law is written on the heart, morality and ethics in daily life are not that difficult to understand.

[@eileenthrift8259]

​@deej7928 I agree. Those who claim to be Christian do not seem to understand they must take up their cross and follow Jesus. Follow Jesus completely, turning away from the old self and becoming a new person in Christ. Or, as you said, not looking for "loopholes".

[@lynettearmstead3417]

wonderful discussion

[@deanwheeler4304]

I agree with Lonnie that affirming homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a slippery slope. The slippery slope is the claim that Scripture affirms homosexuality. This is a lack of historical biblical approach which once the removed lets in anything.

[@plainspokenpod]

It's fun to see the ways in which folks agree and disagree along the way.

[@dalethomas5392]

It also needs to be said that O'Dell is basically espousing Marcionism. I don't think he is actually a Marcion, but rather that his take espoused herein on the OT and how it relates to Christians - Jews and Gentiles - was sloppily put.

[@ericirwin4385]

Ok . The UMC is lost and adrift from orthodox Christianity. The question is: Are there more GMC congregations than available pastors or the other way around. If there an abundance of congregations that left the UMC to remain faithful to the Bible's clear teachings that need pastors.. the GMC must develope an express way that circumvents seminary to develope pastors for local churches in the USA.

[@terrypolen4241]

Please

[@Anonymous-cm9md]

Isn’t Africa made up of 54 nations? In what sense could it be monolithic?

[@plainspokenpod]

In the sense that certain ideas only make sense in very specific contexts. What Americans believe can only be believed in a certain state of detachment from material constraint. Africans are not so separated from natural human life as North Americans generally are. Pretty much none of them have a welfare state or a laptop class like we have here. So all ideologies that take root in Africa do so either because they conform to constraints that they really do almost all experience, or they are implanted by people outside of the continent who then facilitate situations in which Africans leave the African continent for a time to be indoctrinated and then re-implanted. That is the project of the UMC at this point, and it remains to be seen how deeply the West can root itself there. As the materials conditions of Africa continue to improve, I actually think Western cosmopolitan synthetic culture can eventually gain many strongholds in Africa. If they do not prepare, then there will indeed be a future day on which Africa is no longer a monolith standing against Western opulence and depravity. Until that day, they really do seem to be much more uniform in a certain set of presuppositions about what is right and wrong, natural and unnatural. They have plenty of other things they disagree about throughout the continent. American neocolonialism and liberalism seem to be seen pretty much the same way throughout the continent at this point.