Free Methodist Conversations

The research on Gender Dysphoria, which is the difficulty experienced in Gender identity is often a politically charged topic with various researchers being contested.  This is one such source.  The credentials of the researchers are not contested but the findings are not acceptable to some within the psychiatric community.  This article is written by three medical doctors;

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

You can read the original article here.

Their findings in digested form:

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species.

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female;

May 14, 2012 by Dr. David Kendall

Last week our President announced the end of his personal evolution of thought on same-sex marriage by endorsing it.   He acknowledges the deeply divisive nature of the issue and thus the differing conclusions to which others have, and will, come.  He grounded his conclusions in a love ethic that endeavors to practice the Golden Rule and claimed that his thinking is rooted in our common Judeo-Christian heritage.  Of course, many others disagree, respectfully or not.  I am among those who disagree, respectfully.

What has fascinated me most is the way the question has been framed, in a way which involves a logical fallacy—if anyone really cares about such things—and also virtually precludes discussion.

The President’s announcement brought adulation and praise from many.  Almost without exception (I didn’t see any) the praise came because our President took a stand for equality and for the freedom of people to choose for themselves.  The President affirmed “marriage equality” and the individual’s right to choose whom to love and marry.  There you have it—it’s a question of equality and freedom.  Who can argue against such things?  Who wants to stand up and say, “I do not believe all people alike should be able to marry!”?  Or, “I believe someone other than you should decide whom you can love and marry!”?

But this way of framing the question “begs’ the question (the logical fallacy).  To “beg” the question is to assume a part of what you want to prove as a basis for proving it. 

THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

Board of Bishops
Free Methodist Church-USA

The position of the Free Methodist Church (FMC) is clear and straightforward. We embrace the Bible’s portrayal of marriage as depicted in Genesis, and affirmed throughout the Scriptures. The plan of God from the beginning provides for the heterosexual union of a man and a woman in a bond of life-long covenant faithfulness.

In our Membership Covenant, members of the FMC commit to honor and support God-ordained institutions, among which are marriage and family. The “marriage” cited here reflects that found in our Scriptures (Par. 159, p. 22, 2015 Book of Discipline).

Our understanding and commitments are further elaborated in chapter three of 2015 Book of Discipline (Paragraph 3311.A, pp. 53-54). Several comments in relation to these teachings seem appropriate.

As we are all aware, the Bible’s view of normative sexuality now conflicts openly and directly with the prevailing norms of our culture. Over the last years, the President of the United States changed his mind on same-sex marriage, the Legislatures of many states change their laws, and the Supreme Court ruled that marriage between same-sex couples is legal. Behind these recent shifts stands the assumption that sexual identity, practice and lifestyle now rise to the level of human rights and equal justice.

Along the way, the FMC, not least the Board of Bishops (BoB), has responded consistently in affirming continuing commitment to our Scriptures both on matters of sexuality per se and on our mission in the world God loves and redeems.

An Exegetical Framework for Romans 1:18-32 The Decomposition of Human Persons, Relationships, Sexuality, and Culture by Bishop David W. Kendall

Romans 1:18-32 is one of the key texts that clearly teaches that same sex relationships are contrary to God’s plan for human life, a sign of the disorder in the human person, and of the disintegration and decomposition of the creation.

It is important to understand this text for several reasons. First, there are few and perhaps no texts in either testament that speak as directly and clearly about sexual relations between members of the same sex. Second, this text is often cited either to corroborate or to correct a view of sexuality that the text does not, in fact, reflect or teach. Third, to understand clearly what Paul is asserting here can help us respond to same sex identity, orientation and relationships in ways that are more truthful and gracious than is most common, and in ways that allow the gospel to be good news indeed.

Broad Contextual Considerations
In the immediate foreground of the passage are these famous and powerful declarations:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”