When They Say "Full Inclusion" Do They Really Mean Full Inclusion?

Dear North Texas Annual Conference:

The following clergy of the North Texas Annual Conference support the decision of the 2016 General Conference to empower the Council of Bishops in leading the United Methodist Church beyond the current tensions rooted in our disagreements over human sexuality. We are grateful for the acknowledgment that “our Discipline contains language that is contradictory, unnecessarily hurtful, and inadequate for the variety of local, regional, and global contexts.”

As the Council of Bishops explores “options to help the church live in grace with one another—including ways to avoid further complaints, trials and harm while we uphold the Discipline,” we pray that members of our Annual Conference will demonstrate a spirit of unity and diversity even when we are not of one mind. We know that brothers and sisters in the covenant of ministry will face difficult choices in the coming months and years. As they do, we desire to prayerfully and actively work toward full inclusion in our annual conference.

We hope you will stand with us in claiming the power of religion over the form of religion. “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?” ---- text of a letter signed by a large number of clergy of the North Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church and dated June 1, 2016

On June 1st a letter was sent to the North Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. It was signed by a large number of clergy who serve within that conference. As you can see from the text, the clergy are urging support of actions taken by the recent General Conference meeting held in Portland OR.

The main focus is about including a group that falls into a category known as LGBTQ – a group that has been at the heart of much controversy in recent decades. The initials stand for: lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, and Q, a letter more recently added, represents queer or questioning. It has been said by a representative of a human rights organization that either use of the Q is acceptable.

This group of North Texas conference clergy emphasizes that they “desire to prayerfully and actively work toward full inclusion in our annual conference.” But do they really mean full inclusion, or is it limited to those identifying within the LGBTQ groupings?

Surely you are aware that there are persons who are sexually oriented differently than those already mentioned and identified.

For instance there are persons who are sexually oriented to have sexual escapades with very young children. That is their big enjoyment when it comes to sexual activity and the “icing on the cake” in these activities is to video tape the proceedings for even later enjoyment!

There are those whose orientation involves sexual activity with animals. Look at John Doe with his Holstein heifer and notice that John not only enjoys sexual relations with his heifer, but is hoping for the day when our culture will take the next giant step and a Supreme Court ruling will declare that it is now “legal” for men and women to marry their pets with which they are sexually involved!

But hold on – growing in popularity is the practice of “swinging” – mainly married couples get together and exchange partners for sexual enjoyment. Some will even go so far as to say that their marriage was falling apart and they were on the way to divorce court when they got an invite to a swinging party! And that is what saved the marriage with the couple saying their marriage is now stronger than ever!

How about the guy who is oriented to raping young women – that is his specialty! He confesses that there is no greater enjoyment than to force a young woman to have sexual relations when she doesn’t want to!

So when you say you want “full inclusion” within the United Methodist Church, are you willing to include persons such as those just listed above in addition to the LGBTQ crowd?

Their reasoning is the same in that they also claim they were “born that way” and their orientation is as legitimate as those making similar claims within the LGBTQ group.

What’s this? You object on moral grounds to those previously described? How can you? What is your source of moral authority for taking that position? You can’t appeal to the Bible because the same Bible that you claim condemns some of those sexual activities mentioned above also condemns same-sex intimacy, referring to that activity as an "abomination!"

You object by claiming that God does not accept such things as sex with small children, or with animals, or multiple partners which violates the covenant of marriage, or forcible rape. Well, if He accepts and gives approval to same-sex intimacy, why would He not give His stamp of approval on these others? After all, variety is the spice of life, is it not? Don’t forget we are “born that way” aren’t we?

So will “full inclusion” be really that or are we going to still marginalize some when it comes to their sexual orientation and just include some others? Will you shut the door in John’s face when he comes to worship with the “love of his life,” his heifer, Penelope, which he hopes one day to marry?

Do not use the term, “full inclusion,” if you do not really mean it!

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. [Luke 17:26-30 (KJV)].

Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. [Isaiah 58:1 (KJV)].

B.O., Obscure Scriptures and Jesus!

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." --- Senator Barack Obama at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio on Sunday, March 3, 2008

B.O. is literally taking the "bull by the horns" when it comes to the same-gender coupling issue. He is supportive of those who have an agenda which includes the goal of civil unions and ultimately legal marriage between same-sex couples. The bottom line is that he will seek (if elected as president) to repeal the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and press for full equal rights and privileges of same-sex couples such as heterosexual married couples now have, including the raising of children.

Here is a part of his "open letter" on LGBT issues:

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system."

Ooops! I forgot to tell you to sit down before reading B.O.'s intentions on matters pertaining to those practicing same-sex intimacy -- sodomy and lesbianism!

In an attempt to Biblically defend his position, he refers to the Sermon on the Mount as to preference as opposed to what he refers to as an "obscure" reference in the book of Romans.

As a typical politician and others rejecting the truth would do, he refuses to face the plain fact of what is revealed in Romans 1 -- a bunch of people chose to turn their backs on God and walk in defiance of His revealed truth -- consequently it is noted 3 times that God "gave them up/over" to pursue their destructive ways of life with the end result being, "...who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:32).

B.O. made reference to the Sermon on the Mount which was declared by Jesus. Let's take a look at a few of those statements:

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden....Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled....Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" --- Matthew 5:11-14, 17, 18; 7:13-23

There is the claim by those supporting the sodomite/lesbian agenda that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and never condemned it in any manner. True He did not use any term that refers to same-sex activity, but He covered it very well in one statement which B.O. and his supporters would never admit -- it's that statement, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." All possible sexual activity was covered under the moral law. Everything was condemned except sexual intimacy between a husband and wife within their covenant of marriage!

Hey! Don't get upset with me about it -- you'll have to take the issue up with God -- after all, He's the One Who laid out the ground rules on the subject of human sexuality!

B.O. indicated that he prays to Jesus every night. In light of referring to some of God's Word as being "obscure" and by implication, you just ignore it, the question can be legitimately asked, just who is this Jesus that B.O. talks to? There is more than one Jesus, didn't you know?

In connection with this critical issue see:

• Watch Out for That Other "Jesus!"
  
• God Dressed Up in Flesh, Bones and Blood!
  
• Jesus Meets the "Committee!"
  
• NOTE: A link at the bottom of each of those areas will bring you back to this place.
  

Now do you see why it can be asked just what kind of "Jesus" it is to whom B.O. talks?

And in light of 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 can it really be said that any section of God's Word is "obscure" -- maybe at times a bit hard to grasp, but never "obscure" -- especially in those areas that are more plain than the proverbial "nose on one's face!"

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man! --- Isaiah 5:20-23