Cross dressing pastors!

[tango]

Finding someone attractive is fine. A married man finding another woman attractive is fine, but to desire her? That seems to me to be across the line. That is why I like the conservative Mennonite and Amish practice where women (and men) dress very modestly. In modern society it is very easy for attractive to leap directly to sexual desire with so many dressing provocatively. The swimming beach is off limits to me as in my pre-Christian days I misused my mind at the beach and at any other opportunity. Maybe those who grew up in a Christian atmosphere don't have that problem? A friend of mine, actually the guy who brought me to Jesus, said the first look happens, but the second look is crossing the line.

Obviously you have to do what is right for you but as a universal approach I think what you've got here is way too excessive.

If someone is prone to lust they will lust after someone in a burqa. If someone is not prone to lust they will avoid lust even if someone is provocatively dressed. Yes, as a red-blooded man it can be distracting if an attractive woman is wearing a low-cut top or a short skirt but it's my decision whether I look once, look twice, or stare intently. I appreciate it when women take basic precautions, like holding their top in place before leaning forward (or stooping rather than leaning, or whatever else it takes to stop their top gaping open) but it's not like it's a big deal to avert my eyes if I don't want to see something.

We're not really even talking about desiring someone. What Jesus said was about lusting after someone. Taking a second look isn't the same as lusting - looking at someone and thinking "she's pretty", even looking a second time and thinking "wow, she really is gorgeous", is a very different proposition from mentally undressing her or having other inappropriate thoughts about her.

 

[tango]

A former student of mine dresses up in drag for a living and it's very sexual.

I'm sure it can be sexual. It doesn't have to be sexual.

 

[Forgiven1]

So the UMC does have a line they don't want their pastors to cross.

 

[kiwimac]

Coming from you with the posts I seen from you on various topics regarding the Christian faith on this board, I would take that as a compliment.

Then you'd be wrong.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Katt5.56]

Really? Last time I dressed in drag (many many years ago now, admittedly) it had precisely nothing to do with "sexual fantasies" or "wild imaginations" and everything to do with having a laugh.

I guess you've never seen a traditional British "pantomime dame"? Nothing sexual about it at all, they are considered family friendly entertainment and have been for decades. But, by all means, jump to conclusions and see how well it persuades people.

The bible expressly says that men should not dress as women. This specifically was declared to be an expression of homosexual approval in the church. And we are to separate ourselves from this world, not use culture and tradition as an excuse to deny the teachings of The Bible.

Sent from my B140DL using Tapatalk

 

[kiwimac]

The bible expressly says that men should not dress as women. This specifically was declared to be an expression of homosexual approval in the church. And we are to separate ourselves from this world, not use culture and tradition as an excuse to deny the teachings of The Bible.

Sent from my B140DL using Tapatalk

Twaddle.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

Twaddle.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

That's the third twaddle from you. It's not very beneficial to the conversation.

 

[hedrick]

If the story is accurate, he did this in support of LGBT people, so in this case we know the intention of appearing in drag. Your reaction will depend upon your reaction on the whole LGBT issue. I think what he did was right, but I wonder whether he counted the cost first. The Methodist Church is officially anti-gay but the majority of clergy and members are accepting. However it's close enough that an action like that was bound to cause problems, and make it difficult in practice for him to continue his ministry. Maybe he thought it was worth it.

I know a bit about the governance of the UMC. Pastors are appointed by the bishop, not the local church. So the church can't actually fire them. What seems to have happened (based on sparse information in the story) is that there was enough controversy in the local church that the UMC governance felt they needed to remove him. It would not necessarily depend upon a majority vote. A large irate minority could still make the UMC consider his ministry untenable. Since the UMC is near schism on this issue, it might also depend upon the personal views of the bishop.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It's not clear that in the northern parts of the UMC he will actually be subject to discipline. In that case, in principle he should be placed in another church.

 

[Pedrito]

===============================================================================

When pastors are dressing while cross, they sometimes put their collars on back to front.

===============================================================================

 

[Spindle4]

===============================================================================

When pastors are dressing while cross, they sometimes put their collars on back to front.

===============================================================================

And they wear crosses.

 

[hedrick]

I have a more precise account, from UMC Insight. The Staff-Parish Relations Committee in his church insisted that he leave. Officially, he requested reassignment. The committee has no official power to remove the pastor, but it would be difficult for a pastor to work effectively if they want him out. He apparently did not anticipate that strong a reaction from the congregation, because it is generally supportive of LGBTQ people.