While human sexuality may be the presenting issue for many, it's one that we can't disconnect from our differing views of the Bible and theology. We're called to be people of truth, grace, and love in our witness.

Topics Addressed

Click questions to see answer.

An update on bishops leaving the denomination because of the internal conflicts.
Does the presenting issue of human sexuality exists on its own or is it directly connected to much larger issues?
What do we believe as United Methodists?
Explain, "The church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers the practice incompatible with Christian teaching."
Explain how heterosexual sin is also incompatible with the Christian life.
Explain the difference between same-sex desire versus same-sex practice.
Why would we not be accepting of persons who may sin in a different way than I do?
Why is this a sin?
Is Scripture clear that homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian life?
How can the church love well someone who is same-sex attracted?
How can we witness to the LGBTQ community in our city?

Grant Caldwell: Before we begin on "Are We Really Better Together?" and the chapter at hand, there's been some developments, specifically within the United Methodist Church, from two bishops, Bishop Webb from Upper New York and Bishop Jones from Texas. Would you explain what Bishop Webb and Bishop Jones shared and help us understand how that impacts us in this discussion?

Rev. Paul Lawler: I am aware that many people may ask the question, how does what's happening in the United Methodist Church affect me? And that's an excellent question. But I also think it's important that we pause and recognize the depth to which the conflict in the United Methodist Church is actually affecting leadership.

Oftentimes, we'll hear the Council of Bishops, our bishops in the United Methodist Church, issue proclamations or make statements and what's important for us to understand, we have United Methodist bishops who are retiring early because of the conflict in the United Methodist Church.

So, if I may quote a couple of excerpts, first, Bishop Webb, who is the bishop of the Upper New York area, and I'm going to read a couple of statements from his letter that he released on August 15, 2022.

"I've made the decision to retire from the act of episcopacy on December 31, 2022." [Further down in the letter] "I've not made this decision lightly, and it is the right one for personal and spiritual reasons. The divide within the United Methodist Church has lessened my joy for this role and changed my sense of whether my gifts, convictions, and leadership as a residential bishop are best for the United Methodist Church in the future."

Then we have a second bishop who, earlier this summer, on July 17, 2022, followed the same pattern, and he wrote the following.

"Yesterday, I submitted my letter to the South Central jurisdiction and the Council of Bishops requesting that I be granted retirement from the episcopacy or active episcopacy as of December 31, 2022." [Further down in the letter] "I have prayed and thought about my future on that day. As of the day I'm willing to stay as bishop of the Texas Conference for two more years, but increasing disobedience and escalating conflict in the denomination has made my service as a bishop of the whole church seem much more problematic. My further reflection has led me to believe that my best service to Christ for the next two years is in retirement."

I think it's important for the reader to be aware that the conflict is so deep and so painful that it affects the Council of Bishops at a level where you have persons who have served faithfully in leadership say, "This is no longer tenable that I cannot continue to serve in an environment where there is disobedience and conflict."

The language they're using isn't disconnected thoughts of, "Well, it's time for me to retire, I'm retiring." You can see the heart of what they're saying. This is a matter of joy and faithfulness that has been changed through this division.

I think it's tempting to see that what we're walking through as a local congregation is disconnected or separate from what's going on in larger pictures. I also think it's helpful to hear from these bishops that this divide has gone all the way up and shaped so much that bishops that have served faithfully for decades are at the point where they can no longer move forward in this current body.

With this divide, we get to the issue that seems to be getting the most attention, at least publicly, in regard to the current state of the United Methodist Church.

Pastor Paul, I've heard some say that we're only splitting over human sexuality. In fact, there are some that might have skipped the first two chapters and even the first two podcasts to jump here. My question for you, as we begin and as we begin to start having conversations about human sexuality, is this something that can exist on its own, or is this something that's directly connected to our previous two chapters and conversations?

If we get into conversations around human sexuality today through the lens of the church, they are definitely related. If the listeners jumped in and began with this conversation and did not read/listen to the previous two, I want to encourage you to go back and read/listen to episodes one and two to understand the broader complexity of what we're navigating as a denomination.

So, are these things intrinsically connected? That views on sexuality can't exist on their own, and they have to be based on biblical authority? Is that how it's being phrased as we look at conversations on disaffiliation? Is disaffiliation being approached as something that's related to larger issues of division, or is it being approached only based on human sexuality?

Let's frame that in the following terms of responding to your question. Let me read to you just the opening line of Paragraph 2553, which is what the General Conference adopted at the call General Conference in 2019.

"Because of the current deep conflict within the United Methodist Church around issues of human sexuality, a local church shall have a limited right under the provisions of this paragraph to disaffiliate."

Now, the paragraph goes on to give more description of that but let me go back to Bishop Webb and Bishop Jones. The reason they've stated that they're retiring early is because of the ongoing conflict is that this is not a healthy witness.

We have 2,000 years of Christianity, and we have the majority of the church around the world, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and the overwhelming majority of denominational expressions around the world who hold to an understanding of human sexuality through a biblical lens.

There are facets and portions of the church that want to go in another direction, and that is what we call the presenting issue in the United Methodist Church. But our real issues of conflict are a series of things that we actually covered in parts one and two that set up the presenting issue that gets most of the press.

As was shared previously, it's a matter where to say that this is not an issue would be untrue; it is an issue.

That's right. It is an issue.

But it's not the only issue. In fact, it's one that builds upon other issues that are in play and leads us into being a divided church and a hurting church as this book opens.

Let's look at this issue specifically and the chapter devoted to it. Let's begin in the same way that we began our previous discussion with the Bible. What do we currently believe as United Methodists? This is another thing that I hear a lot from others, this conversation is framed about the things that we're against, but the chapter starts by saying this is what we're for as Methodists.

Before I quote what we believe as United Methodists, I want to affirm that this is rooted in biblical revelation.

Here it is, "All people are of sacred worth." Another way of putting that is that everyone is made in the image of God. We have a mind, a will, emotions, and those are all a part of the image of God within us. We not only have a responsibility, but we also have the gift as Christians of loving all people no matter what a man or a woman or a person may struggle with. So, that's something as a follower of Jesus, we live emphatic lives around the expression of love and care for all people.

In terms of this discussion, that has high relevancy at an hour like this. I love what was written in this chapter, and I'm going to quote it. "If you cannot love somebody because of his or her sexual practices, you have a bigger problem before God than the person you cannot love."

They'll know we're Christians by our love, and that should personify a person who is in Christ. So, I think it's important to begin there and recognize that this is not about demeaning or devaluing the worth of any individual.

This phrase, "All persons are individuals of sacred worth," proves to be a foundation of the Imago Dei that doesn't just lead to the conversation at hand but leads to many of the stances that we take on Scripture. That this idea of worth shapes how we relate to each other and how we relate to the world around us. It guides us in our thinking and how we approach these tougher issues of life.

Looking at pages 44 and 45 say, "The church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers the practice incompatible with Christian teaching." What does that line and that phrase mean with our beliefs?

To start, I think we need to understand the picture that the Scripture paints of the gift of human sexuality. It is a gift from God. It's not only a gift from God through the lens of procreation; it's a gift from God through the lens of bonding between a man and a woman.

We recognize in the book of Genesis when the Lord's declaring that He's made them male and female, and the two shall cleave together, leave their father and mother and cleave to one another. In Hebrew, both contextually as well as the Hebrew word used there for cleave, there is this inference of a clinging that is emotional, spiritual, as well as physical. The picture there is that God is ordaining something that is sacred, but it's not merely around procreation. The Scriptures say to be fruitful and multiply, but God is also ordaining something that is picked up in the New Testament that the apostle Paul illustrates as an icon of a deeper reality.

Dr. Tim Tennent picks up on this in his book, "For the Body." If you go to your computer screen and you open an app, you click an icon. When that app opens, a whole new world is opened. It might be a whole new world of banking where you have access to all your financial data. It may be you're trying to book a hotel in a city somewhere around the world. But a whole new realm has opened up.

Well, marriage is an icon and it opens up an understanding of a whole new reality and this is what Paul says in Ephesians 5. He is explaining to us that, when we read the terminology of Jesus and His bride, Jesus and His bride are not an illustration to help us understand marriage or the relationship between clinging emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Paul states that marriage is an icon that opens up a whole new realm for us to understand the reality of Jesus and His bride.

What I'm illustrating is that, when we see the New Testament affirm marriage between a man and a woman, we recognize that this is to illustrate an eternal reality of Jesus and His bride. This is a deeply sacred, beautiful, and illustrative image that God's given us for that icon to open up our understanding.

The second thing that I think that's important for us to validate is that the New Testament paints a picture of what marriage is. It is always between one man and one woman. We not only see this in the epistles illustrated, not only in Ephesians 5 but in other places, as well as in the words of Jesus.

In Matthew 19, Jesus is quoting the passage in Genesis, a man leaving his father and mother. The two shall cling together, husband and wife, and become one flesh. The point is that the Scripture, shall we say, not just highlights but lifts up this image and reality that ultimately points to a greater reality. When we try to define it as something other than what Scripture defines, we are creating a different icon and a different picture than what Scripture has illustrated.

I'm tracking where you're going, but I want to make sure we touch on this because it might be a question that's popping into people's minds right now. This icon is so clear in Scripture; it's so glorious in Scripture that it's worth saying that heterosexual sin that falls short of that beautiful picture is just as much incompatible with the Christian life.

That's right. Now that you brought that up, Grant, and I think it's very wise that you did, if we're students of Church history and we're students of our present reality, heterosexual sin is a far greater issue than homosexual sin in terms of critical mass and how it affects culture and even how it can affect a local church. So, we are well aware that the church has and does navigate sexual brokenness on a multiplicity of levels.

My wife, Missy, and I have worked with human trafficking victims for well over a decade. We've seen up close and personal the devastation that takes place in person's lives because of sexual brokenness. For many human trafficking victims, this is not black and white, but we find, anecdotally, the majority that many of them were abused sexually as children, taken advantage of at very vulnerable times in their lives, and this damaged their souls.

Dissociative behavior or coping mechanisms that are dissociative kick in and stymie emotional development, which is the very pattern that makes a person vulnerable to being manipulated into being trafficked.

Now, our topic's not human trafficking, but what I'm trying to illustrate is the level of brokenness in our culture. When men are being abusive to persons who are vulnerable, this, too, is a symptom of sexual brokenness within a culture.

I'm glad we're going here because I think it's important for us to all realize, and this was mentioned in the chapter, that one of the reasons we want a clear and healthy, loving perspective on human sexuality is because we also want to be loving agents of healing in all the brokenness that's represented within our culture, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.

With this statement, the word "practice" is used. Help me understand the difference between same-sex desire versus same-sex practice.

Let's talk about Jesus for a minute. I love what the Scripture says in Hebrews, "Jesus is our High Priest." He was tempted in every way as we are, yet He was without sin. The reason I think it's important for the reader to be reminded of that is the phrase "in every way."

What's important is that if a person is experiencing or has experienced, whether it's heterosexual temptation or homosexual temptation, that does not mean you are more flawed than someone else. Jesus identifies with you; He's been tempted in every way. He didn't cross the boundary, but He's been tempted in every way.

I want to highlight that as we go into this discussion, no matter where the reader is, you need to recognize that the great Shepherd Jesus sees you and loves you and cares about you. He has a heart to redeem and restore.

But when you ask the question about the distinction between activity and desire, it's not a sin when you're experiencing temptation. If you feel a desire rise up in your soul, that's not a sin. The sin is when we cross the boundary, and that would be true of heterosexually, whether it's pornography or when you cross the boundary and have an affair or have sex outside of marriage. But it also would be true in a same-sex relationship. If same-sex relations actually become an activity, we've crossed the boundary.

The Greek word for sin, one of the words is hamartia, which means to miss the mark. Based upon Scripture, out of God's love and heart for us, those things are not the mark. When we miss the mark through engaging in activity, then that's when we've engaged in sinful behavior.

Now, when that happens, it doesn't mean God stops loving us, God wants to draw you to Himself, and He wants your heart to come home and to turn your back on those things. I express those things because as somebody's reading today in the fight somewhere as we navigate this issue, out of love, I must express those things as well.

This states, "All persons are individuals of sacred worth, and the church doesn't condone the practice of homosexuality and considers it incompatible with Christian teaching." I think holding those at the same time communicates this idea of worth and value and an intent from our Creator towards flourishing. Therefore, because of that, there are aspects of truth that we speak to that do not lead to flourishing.

That's right.

It doesn't take away worth, value, love, and actually, these things cause our Savior to identify and love us at deeper points but are things that we hold with truth and grace together.

Grant, if I may, I so appreciate what you said. A part of what's at stake right now, I get questions like this from time to time. "Pastor Paul, I struggle with all kinds of sins. Why would we not be accepting of persons who may be sin in a different way than I do?"

Now, please understand it's a false dichotomy. That's not really the question that we're navigating. What we're navigating as a church is whether or not we're going to codify a new definition of marriage or whether we're going to codify that certain sexual activity is not addressed clearly by Scripture as being inappropriate or sinful. That's the distinction.

Whereas we would not codify that it's appropriate for us to practice patterns of jealousy with one another or codify that it's appropriate for us to practice another pattern that would be sinful or inappropriate. That's really the root of our discussion around human sexuality, that's what makes it distinct.

That's where the chapter goes next. I feel like the authors do a great job of asking the question, and I think, as you just touched on, many people are asking why this is a sin.

The first answer is that this is the only sin the church is being asked to accept, affirm and celebrate at this point. That this is the sin that the authority of the Bible itself is at stake, and the healing ministry of the church itself is at stake.

Would you add other reasons beyond that, or would you think that those three are the main three reasons why this issue is being brought up?

You're right, but I might just add some comments. Sometimes I hear people reason, "We ordain women to ministry. Doesn't the Bible have prohibitive scriptures around women in leadership?"

So, then the rationale becomes more what I would call conjecture. Therefore, if you ignore passages of Scripture on women in ministry, then why are you not willing to ignore passages of Scripture and change the definition of marriage?

Well, the reason, again, is a false dichotomy because we see, in both the Old Testament and New Testament, examples of women in ministry.

We are aware that when Paul addresses the issues of women in ministry, there are some contextual things that we need to take into consideration. Because we see examples of women in ministry in Scripture, we recognize there's validity for this consideration. When we look at 2,000 years of Christian history, we see not only examples but we see women flourishing in Christian ministry. I would say, in the Methodist tradition, read about Phoebe Palmer and look at the impact that she has had, and there are many dynamic women in ministry today.

So, I needed to say that, when we use that as an example and then suddenly jump to human sexuality, there is no example in Scripture of a new definition of marriage. There is no example in Scripture that in any way inferences that same-sex unions would be something that a church in the name of Christ would be a part of the blessing. We love people and honor people, but that's not found in the original impulses and the Scripture.

Another one that's utilized is sometimes people will reference slavery in the Scriptures and then reason, by conjecture, that, well, the church, at one time, not only did she accept slaves as a part of their individual personal practice in history, but they point to the fact that there are hundreds of references to slavery in Scripture.

But what's not said is that those references are not prescriptive; they're often citing what was going on in the cultural times. What's not said is that the clear arc of history, throughout the Scripture and in early Christian tradition to today, is the elimination of slavery and all forms of oppression.

Sometimes this reference is given, and then we jump into conjecture and say, "Well, the Bible has all these passages about slavery, so, therefore, somehow that's conjecture for affirming a new understanding of human sexuality."

I would simply say that if one is willing to take the time to study, I believe that that is pure conjecture and does not hold weight. If we did theology that way, I could probably justify a lot of things that are really a part of my preferences rather than God's purposes.

This is helpful because it addresses something, maybe not in the church context, but you see a lot on social media, is this idea of the wrong side of history in comparisons to slavery and matters of gender.

What I hear you say, though, is that Scripture is primary. When we look through the lens of Scripture, there are issues that the church has had in the past, but those issues where the church didn't conform to Scripture in the way that it should not matter if we're trying to change Scripture in any way.

That's so true. As you shared, I made a comment in the last entry in regard to how did we get here? I made this statement we got here two degrees at a time.

Historically, in the originating impulses of Methodism, which has been a great movement at periods in history, we began with Scripture truly being our authority. That cannot be said in every sphere of Methodism, particularly in the West today, and I do believe we're suffering from that. I believe that we have this presenting issue of human sexuality and conflict that we have in the denomination because the two are related.

Let's stay with the Bible in this discussion. On pages 50-68, the authors give seven questions that build on each other. We could spend time on each of those questions, but, for now, I'd rather look at them thematically and through the lens of what we believe and, relationally, what we feel. Then, actively, what we do in our witness to the world.

The authors reason exegetically and in understanding what these scriptures say about this issue at hand, but do you feel that Renfroe and Fenton handle the understanding of the Bible and these key passages correctly in this book? Is it clear from Scripture that homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian life?

Excellent question. I do believe that they've handled this faithfully. But the reasons they've handled it correctly transcend them. It's not about the two of them that they're handling the seven questions that they presented were done sensitively, biblically, and lovingly.

I appreciate the tone that's set in this chapter. This is not about not loving people; we love people no matter what they struggle with. But I do believe that they are biblically rooted and have a good Christ-like spirit in their expression.

The second question would then move down to our hearts and relationships. So, if their understanding of Scripture is true, how can we, both individually and as a church, love someone well that is seeking God while experiencing same-sex attraction or even identifying themselves as part of the LGBTQ community?

Reader, I want to encourage you not to see your same-sex attracted friend or neighbor, or colleague through the lens of their sexuality. See them through the lens of a human being. See them as persons.

In the last 48 hours, I've had the honor of sitting with a man who is trans, and I've also had the honor of having a heart-to-heart conversation with someone I've known for a number of years who is same-sex attracted but celibate and is growing in his relationship with the Lord. I think God has a call on his life, and he's walking with Christ.

Here's the reason I bring this up. With neither of them, it didn't cross my mind that, "Oh, my gosh, I'm sitting with a person who is struggling with a part of their sexuality in some way." That's not how I see them. I see them as people, and I feel even awkward having to say that. Treat people as people.

As we said earlier, everyone is made in the image of God; they're Imago Dei. Everyone has a soul, mind, emotions, and feelings, and we're to honor people. When we love people, we have a heart for the gospel as Christians.

When I'm in a relationship with people who, no matter what they're struggling with, I want to love them as people. But at some point in loving them, I'm going to have gospel conversations with them. But I'm going, to begin with, the center of the gospel and realize that, as a person comes to know Jesus. He has these ways of cultivating trajectories in our lives that begin to develop life and Christ-likeness and holiness in us.

When I love people, I can't get to the gospel as our relationship is formed and as we're journeying together. Bottom line, if I want to offer the reader takeaways, all of us have a colleague or a brother or a sister or a son or a daughter, somebody who's struggling. Love them. Never stop loving them; that's what Christians do.

But in loving them, at some point, love them with the gospel. Love them with the love of Jesus and what Christ has done. Trust Jesus for the transformative work to be ongoing or initiated and ongoing in their lives. That's the place where we start.

Now, in terms of the long-term journey, that's maybe another conversation but that's where we need to start.

That's such a great place to start. There's this barrier where someone might be same-sex attracted, and we don't even know should I invite him or her to church. It's just this understanding of, well, of course! Our goal for anyone is to feel welcome and loved and to experience the beauty of the gospel and where that goes.

In Romans eight, we were conformed into the image of the Son; that is what the spirit will do over time. Our aim is the gospel. Our aim is to understand God's love for us, God's love for them, and a welcoming presence within this body.

Shift it, though, for someone that isn't interested in church or God. How has what we've discussed today shaped our witness to the LGBTQ community in our city?

I want to offer an axiom for the Christian. Love everyone, but move with those who want to move with God. But always love everyone.

If I were at the Lions Club, and the Lions Club is a community, not everyone there would want to move with God. However, as a Christian, I have a responsibility. I'll love all people at the Lions Club, Rotary Club, or whatever it may be. Same with the LGBT community; love everybody.

But when you are aware God's speaking to this person, and they want to grow in a relationship with God through the gospel of Christ, let's move. Once again, that's true for everybody, not just with the LGBTQ community. Love everybody but move with those who want to move with God but love everybody.