The Virgin Birth

of Messiah Jesus is a doctrine directly taught in the Bible. So, I was surprised to learn that not all members of the United Methodist Church accept the virgin birth of Jesus as essential doctrine. Indeed, on 09 August 2026, the pastor of one United Methodist congregation preached a sermon which appears to cast doubt on the essentiality of the virgin birth of Jesus. 

In his sermon, the pastor states the following:

“I can talk about the related doctrine of the virgin birth. I can talk about where it came from, why it became important, and why it's okay to have doubts about it. I can talk about why it can be central to our faith and still be something outside of what we know to be human biology — how it is a powerful testament that is not, strictly speaking, an essential teaching of the church.”

In a contradictory commentary, United Methodist elder Dr. Jan Davis writes, "It is not my intent to criticize another UMC’s theology, but I do want to highlight why I believe the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is essential... The doctrine of the virgin birth is at the heart of our salvation.  If Christ is not both divine and human, our redemption would not be possible."

I agree with Dr. Davis in that the virgin birth of Jesus is essential Christian doctrine.

As a Certified Lay Speaker in the United Methodist Church, I have the duty of presenting United Methodist doctrine as it is presented in official United Methodist law.

The United Methodist Hymnal contains literature that presents official United Methodist doctrine. The Hymnal contains The Apostles' Creed which affirms the virgin birth of Messiah Jesus.

Paragraph 102 of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (2020/2024) says, "We share with many Christian communions a recognition of the authority of Scripture in matters of faith..." 

So, I accept what Scripture says about the birth of Jesus. His virgin birth is essential because it is the start of his divinity. Jesus had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit in order to be God-incarnate.

Grace

is defined as unearned favor. As the United Methodist Church understands it, God's grace comes in three forms - prevenient grace, justifying grace and sanctifying grace.

Amazing Grace, First version, in "Olney Hymns", on page 53 (bottom), 1779

Justifying grace provides us with spiritual justification. It guarantees that we have eternal life when we make Messiah Jesus our Savior and our God. Justifying grace provides us with spiritual re-birth.

As the author of First John writes, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." (Chapter 1, Verse 7)

That word all means just that - all.

No, we do not have to speak every sin that we have ever committed in order to receive justifying grace. Otherwise, it wouldn't be grace. 

Besides, we are not necessarily aware of every sin that we have committed. We can sin without knowing that we have sinned.

Sadly, I have witnessed alleged "Christians" deny justifying grace. I have witnessed them proclaim that, if you die without confessing all of your sins, then you won't go to Heaven even if you have made Messiah Jesus your Savior and your God. In short, they deny what is written in 1 John 1:7.

These alleged "Christians" think that they never commit sins unaware. That thinking is foolish at best.

Even when we make Messiah Jesus our Savior and our God, we still remain fallible creatures of flesh, and we will sin in order to satisfy the desires of our flesh. 

Hopefully, we will become aware of such sinning and confess it before we die, but what if we die before making such a confession?

The Christians who deny justifying grace - who deny what is written in 1 John 1:7 - display a holier-than-thou attitude. They rant about other people's alleged "unconfessed sins" while denying their own unconfessed sins.

I refer to these grace-denying people as adders, because they add to the Gospel, and what they add is spiritual venom.

What these adders constantly proclaim is this: "It doesn't matter if you have made Messiah Jesus your Savior and your God. If you ______, then you are not a Christian!"

The adders will condemn you because of the way that you are regardless of any faith in Jesus that you confess.

These adders attempt to sink their fangs into all sorts of people - people who were born LGBTQ, people who vote for Democratic politicians, people who support separation of Church and State, people who support a woman's choice over her own health, etc.

Granted, the people attacked by adders aren't perfect, either. I have witnessed some of the former say that they favor separation of Church and State and then try to dictate to the government what the government should and should not do based on their interpretation of the Bible. I have witnessed the former read into the Bible things that are not there. I have witnessed the former subconsciously interpret the Bible through their own unspoken, unwritten philosophies.

Yeah, we are all messed up whether we are adders or the victims of adders.

I, for one, constantly need God's justifying grace because I am constantly saying and doing things that are sinful, with some of those things being just stupid.

For example, on 04 July 2026, I posted on my X.com account an image taken from Japanese anime. I altered the image so that two anime characters said something mean about a real human being. I thought that I was being funny.

No, I was not being funny. Instead, I was being mean to that real human. Not only did I sin against that human, I also sinned against the person who created those anime characters. 

Plus, I sinned against the people who provided the English voices of those characters.

One of those voice-providers saw my post and rebuked me for it.

I deserved the rebuke, and I was ashamed of what I did. I deleted my offending post, but the damage was already done. I had already acted as the opposite of a believer in Messiah Jesus.

In response to my sin, I declined to receive communion from my congregation the following Sunday morning. I could not in good conscience receive communion so soon after I had sinned against those aforementioned people, one whom I had spoken to just one week before my sin.

I am not confessing my sin here in order to receive anything positive from You, the Reader. I am confessing my sin in order to illustrate why God's justifying grace is so important.

In an instant of carelessness of my part, I sinned against four people, one whom I had met face to face. Without God's justifying grace, that particular sin of mine would be enough to condemn me to eternal damnation. 

Regardless of who we are, we all can commit sin in an instant of carelessness or in an instant of callousness. We can commit sin by demanding of Christians something that the Bible doesn't mandate. We can sin by repeating false doctrine that we believe is correct.

God's justifying grace doesn't mean that we have permanently stopped sinning. 

Indeed, in the seventh chapter of the Book of Romans, the Apostle Paul confesses that he continued to sin despite the fact that he was an Apostle. In Romans 7:19, Paul writes, "I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing."

Yet, in Romans 8:1, Paul also writes, "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

By making such a statement, Paul is confirming God's justifying grace. Paul is confirming that "the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin," whether every sin be confessed or not be confessed.

If you have made Messiah Jesus your Savior and your God, then the adders are unable to deprive you of God's justifying grace no matter how hard they try to. To quote a 1970s TV character, "You can take dat to da bank."

Oh, we still need to confess our sins to God when we become aware of those sins. We need to confess our sinfulness even we don't know what all sins that we have committed.

I want to end this blog post by repeating the confession in "A SERVICE OF WORD AND TABLE II" that is recorded in The United Methodist Hymnal:

"Merciful God,

we confess that we have not loved you with our whole heart.

We have failed to be an obedient church.

We have not done your will,

we have broken your law,

we have rebelled against your love,

we have not loved our neighbors,

and we have not heard the cry of the needy.

Forgive us, we pray.

Free us for joyful obedience,

through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

We do not have to wait until a Communion service to repeat that prayer of confession.

Immigration

is a hot topic within U.S. society.

As a topic, immigration is much more complicated than Americans are willing to openly admit.

When it comes to immigration, plenty of Americans are subconsciously promoting a philosophy that has gone unspoken and unwritten.

That particular philosophy goes like this:

"The United States of America must rescue all of the people in the world from all of life's hardships. Therefore, the United States government must allow all people in the world to live in the USA if they want to."

No, Americans may not admit to believing that philosophy, but that philosophy is revealed in how they respond to the USA's immigration laws.

It is one thing to promote the rule of Law, equal protection under the Law and the legal rights that immigrants in the USA have.

I am in favor of all of those.

However, it is another thing to insist that the U.S. government not enforce U.S. immigration laws even when they are applied equally and don't infringe on anyone's legal rights. 

Believe it or not, there are Americans who insist on that.

No, I do not approve of the job that the USA's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has been doing since January of 2025.

Also, I am opposed to the immigration beliefs of so-called Christian Nationalists.

At the same time, I acknowledge what plenty of Americans refuse to acknowledge.

I acknowledge the occurrence of immigration cheating.

Their numbers may not be as large as Christian Nationalists claim, but there are foreign-born people who are willingly in the USA illegally. 

No, they aren't people who have simply applied for asylum. Instead, they are adults who were adults when the entered the USA through either legal means or illegal means. Those who entered legally did so with temporary permission to be in the USA, and they stayed in the USA after that permission ended.

For example, I read a news report about a man who entered the USA using a tourist visa. The man stayed in the USA after the visa expired. By staying, the man turned himself into an immigration cheater.

I use the label immigration cheater because it is accurate. Plenty of Americans object to the label illegal immigrant because they insist that there is no such thing as an illegal person.

However, immigration cheating is a real phenomenon even if it isn't as wide spread as Christian Nationalists believe.

Before continuing, I want to clarify something. Immigration cheaters are not DREAMERS. They were not children when they entered the USA. 

They aren't foreigners who are waiting for asylum applications to be approved.

Also, they aren't people who have conformed to all immigration laws and still have been detained by ICE.

Immigration cheaters are non-DREAMER adults who deliberately live within the USA without having legal permission to do so. They may not be in violation of criminal law, but they are in violation of civil law.

Now, back to that philosophy that I mentioned earlier. 

That philosophy, as I understand it, is based on the belief that the USA has unlimited resources.

Surely, a nation with unlimited resources should let all people have access to those resources.

Well, what about all of those Bible verses that mention the treatment of foreigners?

Those verses are being taken out of cultural context. Those verses do not forbid people from respecting a nation's immigration laws, and those verses do not condone immigration cheating.

Still, immigration cheating is being condoned by people who believe that the United States of America must rescue all of the people in the world from all of life's hardships.

Again, I disapprove of the actions taken by ICE and its political leaders since January 2025. Regardless of their legal status, all foreigners in the USA should receive due process of Law and equal protection under the Law. Their legal rights should be maintained.

The immigration situation in the USA is messy at best. As a citizen of the USA, I favor reformation of the USA's immigration laws.

However, I do not condone immigration cheating, and I am not opposed to the USA's immigration laws being correctly enforced.

I will do what I can to aid immigrants to the USA who are striving to conform to the USA's civil laws.

The Bible does not require me to aid any person in violating civil laws that regulate immigration to any nation.

It is not wrong for me to tell would-be immigrants to get into the law-abiding immigration line.

No, the Bible does not require the USA to rescue all of the people in the world from all of life's hardships.

Sure, it would be nice if the USA could do so, but in order to do that, the USA would have to possess unlimited resources.

No nation possesses unlimited resources, not even the USA.

For the record, I have encountered believers in Messiah Jesus who favor immigration cheating. I have witnessed them get loud and highly emotional when anyone dares to mention the existence of immigration cheating.

I can't fight them. All that I can do is to stay within the Law of my church denomination, and that Law does not require me to condone or to protect immigration cheating.

Philosophy

 influences how we interpret the Bible much more than we realize.

Philosophy can be subconscious, which results in philosophy being unspoken and unwritten.

I have witnessed this phenomenon of subconscious philosophy influencing theology and ideology.

I have witnessed this phenomenon being promoted through groupthink, and the ones participating show no sign that they are aware of what they are doing.

For example, I have read and heard plenty believers in Messiah Jesus state what they believe God must and must not do in order for God to be God.

Yes, believers in Messiah Jesus can and do add their own requirements for God to conform to.

Yet, God has 100% free will. He can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. God does not need our permission or understanding to do as he desires.

This situation leaves us mortals with a challenge.

Will we completely trust God even if he chooses to do something that defies our understanding and our desires?

The United Methodist Church

is not a perfect branch of the universal Church. The UMC does not have flawless ideology.

I tend to cringe when I encounter something within the UMC which appears to me to be a product of American ethnocentrism.

I tend to cringe when I encounter something within the UMC which appears to me to be a product of an unwritten, unspoken philosophy that subconsciously motivates UMC members.

Yet, I joined the UMC knowing that it has elements that I disagree with. Thankfully, those elements are not UMC law even if those elements have the support of UMC clergy.

As a UMC Certified Lay Speaker (current as of the date of this posting), I find myself in an awkward position. In a way, I officially represent my state's Conference. Thus, I am expected to present what the UMC stands for. 

I want to do that so long as "what the UMC stands for" is UMC law as defined by the UMC Book of Discipline.

The UMC Social Principles and the UMC Book of Resolutions are not UMC law. 

So, am I truly free to disagree with the UMC Social Principles and the UMC Book of Resolutions and remain in good standing with my congregation and my Conference?

I do not know, and the not knowing is worrisome.

Pride Month

of Year 2024 is when I started participating in United Methodist activities on a regular basis. 

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Pride Month commemorates years of struggle for civil rights and the ongoing pursuit of equal justice under the law for the LGBTQ community. 

Someone else explained Pride Month this way: Pride isn't about turning straight kids into queer kids. Pride is about not turning queer kids into dead kids.

Although I am not a member of the LGBTQ community, I do what I can to support that community. However, I have not always done so. 

For way too many years, I was under the influence of churches that condemn anyone who is LGBTQ. I was repeatedly told that being LGBTQ is a choice.

Then, one day in Year 2022, I had an epiphany, which the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines as “an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure.” If I had been a cartoon character, then a light bulb would have lit up above my head.

It was then that I began asking these questions: If being LGBTQ is a choice, then why would anyone choose to be a member of a group that has historically been subjected to all sorts of verbal and physical abuse? Also, when did I ever choose my own sexual orientation?

I came to a conclusion that is expressed by a dog in a 1951 Looney Tunes cartoon:

It just don't add up. So, I began learning what scientists have to say about sexual behavior. For example, Nature magazine reports that same-gender sexual behavior has been witnessed in more that 1,500 animal species.

Tell me this: How can one claim that same-gender sexual behavior is un-natural when more than 1,500 animal species engage in such behavior?

What about Human sexuality? Well, biologist Dr. Jacques Balthazart reports that sexual orientation is largely influenced by biological factors. The last time that I checked, people are born with their biological factors. I find no biblical evidence that God punishes people for the way that they are born.

I grew uncomfortable as I continued to worship with people who condemn the LGBTQ community. So, in May of  2024, I decided to visit LGBTQ-affirming churches during Pride Month. 

On the first Sunday of June, I visited Meadowcreek United Methodist Church in Collinsville, OK. On the second Sunday, I visited First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tulsa, OK. On the third Sunday, I visited First Presbyterian Church of Owasso, OK. The pastor of First Presbyterian told me that a new United Methodist congregation was meeting in the Owasso Sixth-Grade Center. 

Thus, on Sunday, June Twenty-third, 2024, I drove into the parking lot of Owasso's Sixth-Grade Center. That is when the United Methodist Church became stuck with me.

What prompted me to stay was the declaration that the Owasso congregation makes at the beginning of each Sunday morning service. That declaration is printed in every one of the church's bulletins. That declaration says, “We believe in the sacred worth of all God's people - you are affirmed, accepted and most certainly loved in this place!”

That statement tells me that the United Methodist Church affirms the Gospel as it is presented in the New Testament. As it turns out, the New Testament's Gospel is not necessarily the gospel presented by people who condemn the LGBTQ community. 

What I have witnessed is this: People who condemn the LGBTQ community are adding their own requirements to what is necessary for salvation. They are adding their own requirements to what is necessary for eternal life.  By doing so, these adders are trying to deny the spiritual salvation of LGBTQ members who have made a public profession of faith in Messiah Jesus.

These adders are quick to claim that a person cannot be a Christian and be a member of the LGBTQ community at the same time. Yet, that is not what the Gospel in the New Testament says. 

John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” 

John 3:18 says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned.” That word “whoever” is inclusive.  That word “whoever” leaves nobody out.

1 John 4:15 states, “If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.” That word “anyone” is also inclusive. The author of 1 John goes on to say, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

Critics of the LGBTQ community will cite Bible verses without realizing that they are citing the verses out of cultural context. Yes, people can read the Bible from cover to cover and still be naïve about the cultural context of what they are reading. Even seminary professors can do that.

I would like for the critics of the LGBTQ community to answer this question: How are we to explain LGBTQ believers in Jesus who display the fruit of the Holy Spirit and heterosexual believers who do not? Is that not what it means to know people by their spiritual fruit? 

We cannot stop critics of the LGBTQ community from being naïve. What we can do is to ask the Holy Spirit to soften their hearts and to enlighten their minds. After all, I used to be one of those naïve critics, and yet, here am I presenting an LGBTQ-affirming sermon.

Those of us who affirm the LGBTQ community may be in the minority of Christendom, but that does not mean that we are in the wrong.

The United Methodist Church has been promoting a campaign titled What If Love. Well, what if love prompts us to stick to a position that does not have majority support? What if love prompts us to do the correct thing even if the correct thing isn't popular?

The United Methodist Church affirms the place that LGBTQ Christians have within the family of God. So do I. That is why I joined the United Methodist Church.

Misogyny

is supported by some people claiming to be believers in Messiah Jesus, while other believers reject misogyny.

Is misogyny a biblical requirement for churches, or are modern preachers missing the cultural context of the Apostle Paul’s instructions?

In Paul’s instructions about women, he says, “I do not allow” instead of, “God does not allow.” So, can we deduce a limit to Paul’s restrictions on women?

When debating this issue, it is too easy for one to overlook the cultural context of Paul’s statements. Not only did Paul have to deal with the cultural expectations of the Jewish religious leaders, he also had to deal with the cultural expectations of the traditional Greek society as well as the expectations of Roman society. 

To quote historian and archaeologist Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “We are not dealing with a single, monolithic Roman world but one differentiated through time, across religion and across social divides.” [Wallace-Hadrill, A.F. (1994). Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton University Press.]

As one academian puts it:

"... Roman women were a balance between the extremes of other women who preceded them in antiquity: the Etruscans and the Greeks. Etruscan women were treated as equals to men in their society... Greek women were extremely oppressed in both the public and private spheres."

A Greek woman, by Lawrence Alma Tadema, 1869

From the PBS.org series The Roman Empire in the First Century:

"Not much information exists about Roman women in the first century. Women were not allowed to be active in politics, so nobody wrote about them. Neither were they taught how to write, so they could not tell their own stories.

We do know a little, however. Unlike society in ancient Egypt, Rome did not regard women as equal to men before the law. They received only a basic education, if any at all, and were subject to the authority of a man. Traditionally, this was their father before marriage. At that point, authority switched to their husband, who also had the legal rights over their children."

Judaism historian Tal Ilan explains the way that Jewish religious leaders thought about women:

"In post-biblical Jewish antiquity women were not viewed as equal to men or as full Jews. In this, Jews were no different from their various Greco-Roman, Semitic, or Egyptian neighbors. The difference lies in the explanation Jews gave to their views. All Jews of late antiquity considered women’s position in Judaism as determined by the injunctions of the Old Testament. Their subordinate position was viewed as emanating from Eve’s role in the creation narrative, both as created secondary and as guilty of the original sin.

Thus, the second century BCE Palestinian sage Ben Sira bitterly laments women’s role in bringing death to the world, referring to the incident in the Garden of Eden. A Jewish pseudepigraphic composition, usually referred to as the Book of Adam and Eve, greatly elaborates on this theme, constantly reiterating woman’s involvement in man’s fall, her guilt, and his accusations against her. Later midrashic literature continues in the same vein: women are eternally punished for their involvement in the original sin."

If you think that the biblical authors were never influenced by writings outside of Scripture, then think again. They were. For example, here is Matthew 2:23:

The statement “He will be called a Nazarene” is not in the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament).

The book of Jude also contains a non-scriptural reference:

Was it possible for an Apostle to err on the side of cultural expectations? Yes, of course, as we discover when reading Galatians 2:11-12 (NIV):

"When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group."

Unlike Peter, Paul had to deal with the legal fallout should the fledgling Church needlessly run afoul of the Roman government. Not only were women in Paul’s day (in general) ill-prepared to teach Scriptures, putting them in authority over men could easily have caused a social uproar that would have brought the might of the Roman government into the situation. The Roman government would likely have punished the fledgling Church for causing the uproar.

Although men and women were spiritual equals in the messianic faith, it was unnecessary back then for women to be given positions of authority. So, Paul had a practical reason to restrict what women could do in the congregations under his authority.

Now, should Paul’s restrictions on women be in effect today? Are we supposed to punish the women who are alive today for something that Eve did? After all, through the prophet Ezekiel, God declares that he does not punish the innocent for the sin of the guilty.

"The word of the Lord came to me: What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel." - Ezekiel 18:1-3 (NRSV)

It would be unwise to ignore the cultural context of any Bible verses that we cite. For example, consider what is stated in Joshua 10:12–13 (NIV):

"On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: 'Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.' So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

According to a literal interpretation of Joshua 10:12–13, the Sun circles around the Earth. Yet, we know from astronomy that the Earth rotates on its axis, thus creating the illusion that Sun circles around the Earth. So are we to declare that Joshua 10:12–13 is to be interpreted literally?

Yes, we need to take cultural context into consideration when citing Bible verses, including statements written by the Apostle Paul. In short, Paul lived in a society in which women were chattel, and Paul’s writings reflect that fact. Paul’s goal was to spread the Gospel, not to challenge the social order of his day. Had he done the latter, then he would have caused unnecessary harm to the fledgling Church.

So, is there a way to end the ongoing dispute about the role of women in the universal Church?

In pursuit of an answer, I keep five bits of reality in mind.

First, it is wrong to assume that women are somehow mentally or emotionally inferior to men. No, women aren’t that.

Second, the accuracy of a statement does not depend on the gender of the person who makes it. Logic is gender neutral.

Third, if in doubt about something that is not mandatory, then do not do it. The Bible does not mandate that women be given the role of pastor.*

Fourth, it is unwise to automatically accept whatever a pastor says even if the pastor is a man. Male clergy aren’t infallible when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Indeed, no man is the final authority on how to correctly interpret the Bible. No group of men or male-led institution is the final authority on how to correctly interpret the Bible.

Fifth, if a man and a woman have a disagreement about how to correctly interpret the Bible, then it is possible for the woman to be right and for the man to be wrong. The women of today aren’t ill-educated like the women of the Apostle Paul’s day.

As I have observed, some men claim to worship Messiah Jesus when they really worship their status as being men. Instead of promoting the Gospel, they promote their ideas of what men are supposed to be like. Masculinity is their real god.

In conclusion, each person has to live with his or her conscience. I do not know of anyone who is legally forced to belong to a church that has female pastors and elders. Where I live, churches are all-volunteer organizations.

Besides, one’s eternal destiny does not depend on who are the leaders of one’s church. Nor does one’s eternal destiny depend on one agreeing with everything that church leaders say.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I believe that we should be gracious toward people who are opposed to being led by a woman in the pulpit. Nobody on this side of the Grave has 100% perfect theology, not even people who accept women as pastors. Besides, one's eternal destiny does not depend on the person who occupies the pulpit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Side Note: Several modern-day theologians doubt that the Apostle Paul is the real author of 1 Timothy.