The United Methodist Church is Undergoing a Schism

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Most of us know a religion we call "christianity".  We ignore the simplicity of the message of Jesus.  We ignore the inherent cultural/traditional influences on religion, the use of religion by power, the desire for power to legitimize itself through religion. 

The powerful message of John Wesley comes from the simple humble influence of the Moravians.  It is the pure message of Jesus. 

The church has/will divide when,,, the interests of power attempt to use religion by promoting the idea of righteousness through law/obedience rather than, find real faith through love, kindness.

Doctrine, law, tradition, orthodoxy have never been the true foundation.  The love, mercy, grace of Jesus is the foundation.

All of us are sinners.  No one is better, no one is worse.  We are all equal.

We should NEVER exclude or condemn anyone who is earnestly seeking, spreading, the love and kindness of Jesus.

 

IMHO, the UMC should:

Change their book of discipline to reflect their true beliefs.

Allow all to leave (with property) who vote for leaving by a two thirds majority.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

29 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Most of us know a religion we call "christianity".  We ignore the simplicity of the message of Jesus.  We ignore the inherent cultural/traditional influences on religion, the use of religion by power, the desire for power to legitimize itself through religion. 

The powerful message of John Wesley comes from the simple humble influence of the Moravians.  It is the pure message of Jesus. 

The church has/will divide when,,, the interests of power attempt to use religion by promoting the idea of righteousness through law/obedience rather than, find real faith through love, kindness.

Doctrine, law, tradition, orthodoxy have never been the true foundation.  The love, mercy, grace of Jesus is the foundation.

All of us are sinners.  No one is better, no one is worse.  We are all equal.

We should NEVER exclude or condemn anyone who is earnestly seeking, spreading, the love and kindness of Jesus.

I think you need to stop trying to glom John Wesley on to a belief structure he would not have agreed with.  It's forcing a modernist, theologically progressive/liberal paradigm on to someone from 300 years ago that doesn't fit.  The man who said this...

“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”  - John Wesley

...is not one who would go along with this squishy, self-created "pure message of Jesus" stuff you keep peddling (but evasively defining) - condoning sin, the ignoring of Scripture (or using so much mental gymnastics to twist it's meaning to the opposite of what it says), all in the name of some modern notion of what's "inclusive."

 

29 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

IMHO, the UMC should:

Change their book of discipline to reflect their true beliefs.

Allow all to leave (with property) who vote for leaving by a two thirds majority.

On this we can agree.  The reason they haven't done the former yet is that there are still too many orthodox Methodists in the ranks to let that go through easily (they don't have the votes yet) and if they did manage to ramrod it through, the mass exodus of congregations would gut the UMC almost entirely.  They don't want to do the latter because they want to keep the illusion that nothing is really changing all that much while they throw up roadblocks to leaving and run out the clock on the exit clauses so they don't lose so much valuable property.

I hate to be cynical about it, but this is pretty much the sum total of the reasoning right now.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

43 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you need to stop trying to glom John Wesley on to a belief structure he would not have agreed with.  It's forcing a modernist, theologically progressive/liberal paradigm on to someone from 300 years ago that doesn't fit.  The man who said this...

“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”  - John Wesley

...is not one who would go along with this squishy, self-created "pure message of Jesus" stuff you keep peddling (but evasively defining) - condoning sin, the ignoring of Scripture (or using so much mental gymnastics to twist it's meaning to the opposite of what it says), all in the name of some modern notion of what's "inclusive."

 

On this we can agree.  The reason they haven't done the former yet is that there are still too many orthodox Methodists in the ranks to let that go through easily (they don't have the votes yet) and if they did manage to ramrod it through, the mass exodus of congregations would gut the UMC almost entirely.  They don't want to do the latter because they want to keep the illusion that nothing is really changing all that much while they throw up roadblocks to leaving and run out the clock on the exit clauses so they don't lose so much valuable property.

I hate to be cynical about it, but this is pretty much the sum total of the reasoning right now.

I humbly suggest you challenge your own beliefs.  I humbly suggest you attempt to seek Jesus more than religion.  I humbly ask that you reflect on your extremely judgmental condemnation, your obvious anger. 

I would not rely on one quote (not to mention without greater context) as defining John Wesley.  I think his life is a much better indicator.  I believe you are assuming that his definitions are the same as your own.

I believe you want this to be much more political than it should be.  I believe you are overestimating the numbers of "orthodox" Methodists. 

Love and kindness are our calling.  None of us can earn our salvation, not one.  You are no better than those you condemn.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I humbly suggest you challenge your own beliefs.  I humbly suggest you attempt to seek Jesus more than religion.  I humbly ask that you reflect on your extremely judgmental condemnation, your obvious anger. 

I would not rely on one quote (not to mention without greater context) as defining John Wesley.  I think his life is a much better indicator.  I believe you are assuming that his definitions are the same as your own.

I believe you want this to be much more political than it should be.  I believe you are overestimating the numbers of "orthodox" Methodists. 

Love and kindness are our calling.  None of us can earn our salvation, not one.  You are no better than those you condemn.

I would humbly suggest that you don't attempt to make a man from 300 years ago say something he's never said, and frankly never even hinted at saying.  I could pull plenty of quotes and writings of Wesley to point out what his actual, documented, stated beliefs were.  They do not align with what you wish to suggest.  

Where you seem to be going off the rails is that you think someone whose life, whose character and kindness you seem to so admire could not possibly hold to traditional, historical Christian beliefs that you find distasteful, even repugnant.  People like that in your eyes seem almost incapable of also being wonderful, loving people.  At least that's how this entire Wesley thing comes off.

I promise you, I'm not overestimating.  It's especially acute in certain regions of the country.  And when you consider Methodists in a global sense, it's not even close.  The western modern progressives are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I would humbly suggest that you don't attempt to make a man from 300 years ago say something he's never said, and frankly never even hinted at saying.  I could pull plenty of quotes and writings of Wesley to point out what his actual, documented, stated beliefs were.  They do not align with what you wish to suggest.  

Where you seem to be going off the rails is that you think someone whose life, whose character and kindness you seem to so admire could not possibly hold to traditional, historical Christian beliefs that you find distasteful, even repugnant.  People like that in your eyes seem almost incapable of also being wonderful, loving people.  At least that's how this entire Wesley thing comes off.

I promise you, I'm not overestimating.  It's especially acute in certain regions of the country.  And when you consider Methodists in a global sense, it's not even close.  The western modern progressives are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

I apologize for offending you.

[AU9377 4,960]

On 2/2/2023 at 4:00 PM, TitanTiger said:

I would humbly suggest that you don't attempt to make a man from 300 years ago say something he's never said, and frankly never even hinted at saying.  I could pull plenty of quotes and writings of Wesley to point out what his actual, documented, stated beliefs were.  They do not align with what you wish to suggest.  

Where you seem to be going off the rails is that you think someone whose life, whose character and kindness you seem to so admire could not possibly hold to traditional, historical Christian beliefs that you find distasteful, even repugnant.  People like that in your eyes seem almost incapable of also being wonderful, loving people.  At least that's how this entire Wesley thing comes off.

I promise you, I'm not overestimating.  It's especially acute in certain regions of the country.  And when you consider Methodists in a global sense, it's not even close.  The western modern progressives are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

What makes this issue one on which the church cannot evolve, whereas so many others have seen an evolution of thought? 

[AU9377 4,960]

On 12/1/2022 at 9:02 PM, TitanTiger said:

Mostly because that was negotiated when the conservatives still held a majority in the voting bodies. There’s an expiration date on that deal though. And I’ll guarantee you it won’t be renewed. 

By contrast, in the newly formed Global Methodist Church, all congregations retain full ownership of their buildings and property. They can leave with all of it if they choose at any time. 

That will cause many smaller congregations to close their doors when they can no longer pay their bills.  That will be the unfortunate consequence.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

37 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

What makes this issue one on which the church cannot evolve, whereas so many others have seen an evolution of thought?

it wouldn’t be evolution. It would be revolution. An abdication of clear Scriptural commands and 2000 years of church teaching (plus 1000s of years before that of Jewish teaching). 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

56 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

That will cause many smaller congregations to close their doors when they can no longer pay their bills.  That will be the unfortunate consequence.

It will be an unfortunate consequence of the theological liberals choosing to go down this path in the first place. You don’t get to poison the ground for decades then blame the farmers who leave for fertile soil for your lack of crops. 

But also this isn't even necessarily true.  The Global Methodist Church (which most churches leaving the UMC are headed) has a much more local congregation-friendly funding model.  Not only does the GMC require less just in terms of basic percentages, they are taking into account the size and operating income of each church when calculating what monies are given to the denomination in a way that will greatly help smaller congregations:

...local churches will determine the amount paid in connectional funding based on their financial condition rather than having an amount dictated to them without regard to local conditions. And second, they must, with other local churches, hold annual conferences and the general church responsible for being good stewards of the resources they provide for fulfilling the Global Methodist Church’s mission and shared vision. Of course, local churches that repeatedly decline to support the connection will eventually be asked to part ways with the new denomination.

Under this connectional funding model, the general church and its annual conferences must learn to operate with the funds local churches provide. Instead of being a top-down funding model, funding is determined from the bottom up. The finances available for funding connectional ministries is determined at the grass roots level. This way of providing resources for fulfilling the Global Methodist Church’s mission and ministries creates mutual accountability between local churches, annual conferences, and the general church.

https://globalmethodist.org/connectional-funding-in-the-global-methodist-church/

If anything, it gives local churches - including smaller ones - more ability to determine what they can afford to give and that in turn sets the limits on what the annual conferences have to operate with.  This was one of the big complaints with the UMC - massive administrative bloat and onerous top-down funding demands to support said bloat.  

The apportionments given to the general church (GMC denonmination) will be half what they were in the UMC and while annual (regional) conferences will determine their apportionments in concert with the churches in their region, it's the local congregations that hold the purse strings and determine this.  In no way is it going to be costlier to be in the GMC than the UMC.  Unless a small local church decides to try and just go it alone, being unable to pay the bills because they left isn't a reasonable thing to fear.

[AU9377 4,960]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

it wouldn’t be evolution. It would be revolution. An abdication of clear Scriptural commands and 2000 years of church teaching (plus 1000s of years before that of Jewish teaching). 

....and women serving as pastors doesn't do that?  Regardless of which version of the Holy Bible one reads, women are not ordained leaders in the church.  Women are not to have spiritual authority over men.  However, we have massaged these verses and explained away that clear language due to the church evolving on the topic.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

23 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

....and women serving as pastors doesn't do that?  Regardless of which version of the Holy Bible one reads, women are not ordained leaders in the church.  Women are not to have spiritual authority over men.  However, we have massaged these verses and explained away that clear language due to the church evolving on the topic.

There are legitimate questions about women's leadership roles in the church given the examples of female Judges like Deborah and female prophets in the OT, not to mention female disciples who instructed Paul like Priscilla when encountering the few verses that mention women's church roles.  There's theological work that is to be done to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture rather than simply choosing a side we like and running with it.

There is no such confusion on sexual immorality in Scripture.  Sex is reserved for marriage.  And marriage - as Jesus Himself said "from the beginning" - is to be one man and one woman.  Anything that departs from that violates God's commands and design.  And literally nowhere in Scripture is any other arrangement spoken of positively.  Even in situations in the OT where polygamy is described, it's always shown to be problematic, full of trouble and at best, only grudgingly permitted it situations where the alternative was for a defenseless widow to starve and be childless.  As Jesus described the Mosaic provision for divorce (which for its time was actually an improvement over what the culture had been doing with wives the husband no longer wanted), such things were because of the people's hardness of heart.  

There is no Scripture to harmonize with other Scriptures on these matters.  There is no confusion.  Unlike the sacrificial and ceremonial laws in the OT that Christ fulfilled and we no longer need to perform, Jesus reaffirmed the moral law and in fact, tightened it rather than loosening it.  No longer is it enough to simply not murder your enemy, you don't even get to hate them in your heart.  No longer is it enough to just keep from having sex with someone other than your spouse, you don't even get to indulge in lust for someone else - it's tantamount to adultery.  Jesus isn't out here saying "love is love."  He's saying - God has a design for marriage and sex, tells us what it is and declares everything outside that off limits.

There is no place in Scripture where same sex sexual conduct is permitted or temporarily allowed due to exigent circumstance.  It's always, every time, in all places, from OT to NT, condemned.  It's one thing to wrestle with Scriptures that are hard to reconcile with each other and dig into them to understand better.  It's entirely another to distort and twist oneself into a pretzel theologically to create something that simply isn't there.

[AU9377 4,960]

On 2/3/2023 at 10:01 PM, TitanTiger said:

There are legitimate questions about women's leadership roles in the church given the examples of female Judges like Deborah and female prophets in the OT, not to mention female disciples who instructed Paul like Priscilla when encountering the few verses that mention women's church roles.  There's theological work that is to be done to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture rather than simply choosing a side we like and running with it.

There is no such confusion on sexual immorality in Scripture.  Sex is reserved for marriage.  And marriage - as Jesus Himself said "from the beginning" - is to be one man and one woman.  Anything that departs from that violates God's commands and design.  And literally nowhere in Scripture is any other arrangement spoken of positively.  Even in situations in the OT where polygamy is described, it's always shown to be problematic, full of trouble and at best, only grudgingly permitted it situations where the alternative was for a defenseless widow to starve and be childless.  As Jesus described the Mosaic provision for divorce (which for its time was actually an improvement over what the culture had been doing with wives the husband no longer wanted), such things were because of the people's hardness of heart.  

There is no Scripture to harmonize with other Scriptures on these matters.  There is no confusion.  Unlike the sacrificial and ceremonial laws in the OT that Christ fulfilled and we no longer need to perform, Jesus reaffirmed the moral law and in fact, tightened it rather than loosening it.  No longer is it enough to simply not murder your enemy, you don't even get to hate them in your heart.  No longer is it enough to just keep from having sex with someone other than your spouse, you don't even get to indulge in lust for someone else - it's tantamount to adultery.  Jesus isn't out here saying "love is love."  He's saying - God has a design for marriage and sex, tells us what it is and declares everything outside that off limits.

There is no place in Scripture where same sex sexual conduct is permitted or temporarily allowed due to exigent circumstance.  It's always, every time, in all places, from OT to NT, condemned.  It's one thing to wrestle with Scriptures that are hard to reconcile with each other and dig into them to understand better.  It's entirely another to distort and twist oneself into a pretzel theologically to create something that simply isn't there.

Other than the issue of marriage within the church, which is separate and apart from the right to enter into a marriage contract as recognized by the U.S. government, do you oppose inclusion of openly gay people in the church membership?    I use the words openly gay purposefully, due to the incredibly large number of men and women involved with the church that simply keep their personal lives cloaked enough to allow others to pretend that they simply never met the right person or even more times simply look the other way.

The topic is extremely complicated on one hand, yet also extremely simple on the other.  There is no support in the New Testament for the belief that someone's sin should exclude them from the church or body of Christ.  In fact, to judge someone in that manner is a sin itself.

We shouldn't pretend that the Holy Bible as we know it today is the unadulterated word of God.  There are parts of it that are, but the vast majority of scripture has been tailored to the ideas and opinions of men over centuries.  We have the King James version of the Holy Bible as a result of the establishment of the Church of England and the desire to have a consistent English version of the Scripture.  Before the establishment of the Church of England, merely translating scripture into English was punishable by death in many places.

Today, we refer to the Old Testament when it aids in explanation only and ignore the many barbaric nonsensical portions that are in direct conflict with every message of Christ.  Even so, many will point to the book of Leviticus to explain why they hate gay men and women.  As I always point out, when they begin stoning their daughters to death upon learning that she has had premarital sex, I will begin considering their ridiculous viewpoints on the subject.

I don't mean to go off into a rabbit hole of discussion, but there should be a middle ground that people of faith can respect.  The Pope has even moved the Catholic church toward the center on the subject.

[DKW 86 7,426]

So Samson, with his muscles and long hair, and free wheeling love affairs was what then? Same as with Deborah becoming a Judge?

 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

So Samson, with his muscles and long hair, and free wheeling love affairs was what then? Same as with Deborah becoming a Judge?

 

Old Testament times before the teachings of Jesus and the new covenant.

Not aimed at you but some folks here need to read Isiah 5:21

Edited February 5, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[DKW 86 7,426]

36 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Old Testament times before the teachings of Jesus and the new covenant.

Not aimed at you but some folks here need to read Isiah 5:21

https://www.thefellowship.site/archives/the-gospel-according-to-isaiah/six-woes-for-israel

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

19 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Other than the issue of marriage within the church, which is separate and apart from the right to enter into a marriage contract as recognized by the U.S. government, do you oppose inclusion of openly gay people in the church membership?    I use the words openly gay purposefully, due to the incredibly large number of men and women involved with the church that simply keep their personal lives cloaked enough to allow others to pretend that they simply never met the right person or even more times simply look the other way.

The topic is extremely complicated on one hand, yet also extremely simple on the other.  There is no support in the New Testament for the belief that someone's sin should exclude them from the church or body of Christ.  In fact, to judge someone in that manner is a sin itself.

We shouldn't pretend that the Holy Bible as we know it today is the unadulterated word of God.  There are parts of it that are, but the vast majority of scripture has been tailored to the ideas and opinions of men over centuries.  We have the King James version of the Holy Bible as a result of the establishment of the Church of England and the desire to have a consistent English version of the Scripture.  Before the establishment of the Church of England, merely translating scripture into English was punishable by death in many places.

Today, we refer to the Old Testament when it aids in explanation only and ignore the many barbaric nonsensical portions that are in direct conflict with every message of Christ.  Even so, many will point to the book of Leviticus to explain why they hate gay men and women.  As I always point out, when they begin stoning their daughters to death upon learning that she has had premarital sex, I will begin considering their ridiculous viewpoints on the subject.

I don't mean to go off into a rabbit hole of discussion, but there should be a middle ground that people of faith can respect.  The Pope has even moved the Catholic church toward the center on the subject.

There is no middle ground. Read Genesis 93.

No one is excluding anyone from the church or the body of Christ. 

[AU9377 4,960]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

There is no middle ground. Read Genesis 93.

No one is excluding anyone from the church or the body of Christ. 

Why does God create the infertile if everyone is commanded to be fruitful and multiply?

[PUB78 1,358]

Looks like another denomination is headed for a split.

https://wng.org/opinions/anglicanisms-woes-and-the-future-of-christianity-1675425816?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGJuByt5kmr6oUQ2WG-a-Apn541-T0FgPpDcvxb5_GxnjdJTW4ZHtOw_VCE4zX5qC4l9XW1YJHqxHsH6l_n1kDXxmoHEfIBccOnf3PtISSl4kw

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

Looks like another denomination is headed for a split.

https://wng.org/opinions/anglicanisms-woes-and-the-future-of-christianity-1675425816?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGJuByt5kmr6oUQ2WG-a-Apn541-T0FgPpDcvxb5_GxnjdJTW4ZHtOw_VCE4zX5qC4l9XW1YJHqxHsH6l_n1kDXxmoHEfIBccOnf3PtISSl4kw

Thank you for posting.  A wonderful example of how to use the bible to nullify Jesus, His love, His commandments.

[AU9377 4,960]

3 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Looks like another denomination is headed for a split.

https://wng.org/opinions/anglicanisms-woes-and-the-future-of-christianity-1675425816?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGJuByt5kmr6oUQ2WG-a-Apn541-T0FgPpDcvxb5_GxnjdJTW4ZHtOw_VCE4zX5qC4l9XW1YJHqxHsH6l_n1kDXxmoHEfIBccOnf3PtISSl4kw

 

Not really directed at you, but just commenting on the article....

Keep a couple of things in mind.  The Anglican Church once blessed Henry VIII's decision to divorce and later behead wife after wife.  Even so, the Anglican church, like many denominations that formed as a result of the protestant reformation, forbid its followers from divorcing and if they did divorce, they were not allowed a leadership position within the church.  How many in church leadership are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage today?  In our church, a Southern Baptist church, we have at least 11 deacons that are divorced and two of them have actually switched wives.  It is comical, but for the fact that many of these men are the first to cast a stone against another.

[AU9377 4,960]

The protestant faiths have always fought amongst themselves.  When it wasn't about gay marriage, it was about race and before race, other issues made things contentious.  There are so many chiefs and too few indians.

[PUB78 1,358]

33 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

 

Not really directed at you, but just commenting on the article....

Keep a couple of things in mind.  The Anglican Church once blessed Henry VIII's decision to divorce and later behead wife after wife.  Even so, the Anglican church, like many denominations that formed as a result of the protestant reformation, forbid its followers from divorcing and if they did divorce, they were not allowed a leadership position within the church.  How many in church leadership are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage today?  In our church, a Southern Baptist church, we have at least 11 deacons that are divorced and two of them have actually switched wives.  It is comical, but for the fact that many of these men are the first to cast a stone against another.

Wow! How many of the divorces were for Biblical reasons? Do the couples that swapped spouses still attend your church? If so, it must be awkward.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

We are ALL sinners.  We all commit the sames sins over and over again.  None are righteous.  None have earned salvation.

The love, grace, mercy of Jesus is our only hope.

To judge and/or condemn others is sinful.

Jesus is the word.

[homersapien 11,386]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:12 PM, TitanTiger said:

it wouldn’t be evolution. It would be revolution. An abdication of clear Scriptural commands and 2000 years of church teaching (plus 1000s of years before that of Jewish teaching). 

I think you just summarized the problem. 

That sounds like a good argument for evolution - or "revolution" if you insist.

[homersapien 11,386]

On 2/3/2023 at 10:01 PM, TitanTiger said:

There is no place in Scripture where same sex sexual conduct is permitted or temporarily allowed due to exigent circumstance.  It's always, every time, in all places, from OT to NT, condemned.  It's one thing to wrestle with Scriptures that are hard to reconcile with each other and dig into them to understand better.  It's entirely another to distort and twist oneself into a pretzel theologically to create something that simply isn't there.

"Exigent circumstance" as in they way homosexuals were created, the way they are?

Did evolution replace the literal interpretation of Genesis or not?  If the bible is absolutely fixed and "represents" the word of God, then Christianity is doomed to fail. 

Just as happened for every religion created in the history of Homo sapiens, something will replace it.  Presumably - and hopefully - something reflecting and complementing reality as we have come to understand it.