That, like all the Methodist articles, were borrowed from the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, produced largely by Cranmer in Reformation times, and that particular one was directed at an early group of Socialists that were, I think called Ranters, who held that the primitive communism of Acts was the proper lifestyle for Christians.
Are you aware of the proposed (UK) Anglican-Methodist Covenant? if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Well, I’m a Baptist in Texas (A Southern Baptist, though technically speaking it is a Baptist Church that sends a representative to the Southern Baptist Convention (All Baptist Churches are really independant))
-
Do you know anything about Congregational Methodists? I can’t find anything on them on the web, but there are a few of them scattered around the state.
-
I have gone quite a few times to United Methodist Churches. I like some things, dislike others. The main problem I have is that there is very little referencing of the bible or bible study during the sermon (at least in the ones I’ve been to) Basically, the whole sermon is “God is love” and all sugery sweet and that is it. Is this typical for a Methodist Church?
Sorry guys! 
Finals took more than I expected out of me. I did well, though. I think I kicked chamôr in Hebrew! I got a little depressed afterwards, though. I don’t handle the sudden shift from high gear into neutral well. As a result, I didn’t do much research, so I’m working more from memory than I’d hoped to. :o
Like I promised, I’m starting with Puddleglum. The reason Methodists sing loudly is to drown out the piano playing!
Ha ha! :rolleyes:
Ok, serious business, now. John Wesley did indeed publish four volumes (later expanded to seven*) called Sermons for Several Occasions, in which he lays out the essence of his preaching and doctrines, what he believed to be “the essentials of religion.” He also required that preachers in Methodist chapels “preach no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes Upon the New Testament and four volumes of Sermons.” Both of these works (Notes is a work of Biblical interpretation.) are held as doctinal standards to this day in the UMC and, I believe, the British Methodists.
Wesley certainly didn’t claim to be infallable. In the preface to Sermons, he wrote,
(I think this will be helpful in answering some other questions, as well.)
So why bother? Well, a couple of reasons. One is that Wesley started a large movement in the Church of England that sparked much controversy. It would be helpful to have something that would explain and defend the doctrines and ideas of Methodism. Secondly, there were Methodists who wanted to understand more fully the theological and Scriptural basis of the movement, and to know things like what must be done to be saved.
More to the point of Puddleglum’s question were other reasons. (Here, I’m going from memory.) The Methodist movement was primarily a lay movement, with only a few ordained men, like Wesley. The members were drawn from the lower classes of England, who were not reached by the flowery preaching in style in many of the churches, and who were often unable even to attend services for reasons of work, geography, or class. Wesley sough to overcome this barrier partly by writing sermons for the masses, not an educated few, and his published sermons were models for this. He also sought to aleviate the problem by educating his followers himself. He published prodigiously, both his own works and those of others, carefully edited both for legnth (Wesley was the original Reader’s Digest!) and for conformity to Methodist doctrine. One of the reasons Methodism became a middle-class movement after Wesley’s death was the education members recieved, simply by being Methodist! (Another was the thrifty economic habits Wesley encouraged.) Wesley was especially concerned that the lay preachers who “assisted” him would be seen as his representatives (as he saw them himself). Although members of Methodist Societies (and of Methodist Churches after the split with the CoE) were never required to profess adherence to any doctine, (and in fact, neither were the preachers) what was preached from the pulpit was held to Wesley’s standards of doctrine.
It would be rare for a Methodist preacher today to base a sermon directly on one of Wesleys. (And in fact, I don’t know if they were ever actually used in that way.) They are, nevertheless, standards of doctrine in the UMC. I will address what this actually means another time, since several others (most notably Sanders) have asked questions that deal with this. However, the UMC has stated, regarding the Sermons and the Notes, “These writings, then, contained the standard exposition of Methodist teaching. They provide a model and measure for adequate preaching in the Wesleyan tradition.”
Thanks to MEBuckner, EJsGirl, and Polycarp for providing knowledge and insight. EJsGirl, you may not know about “seminary stuff” WRT Methodism, but you probably have more experience “in the pews” than I do. Please feel free to jump in with the view “from the ground” whenever you want! Riboflavin, you asked some really good questions. I’m looking forward to answering them, after I deal with issues of authority and heresy. I’ll get to the Sacrament’s after that, Poly. (Short answer: We aim for the via media, but we’re still working on the details.) I’ll try to throw in some stuff about Bishop Sprauge and Jello salad along the way, but if I forget about you, let me know. (You can always email me a reminder.)
*The contents of the original four volumes (usually regarded as the 44 sermons found in the 2nd edition) are known as the Wesleyan “Standards” (Standard sermons). The sermons in the later volumes are not legally considered doctrinal standards in the UMC.
I meant to make clear in the third paragraph from the bottom (it seems to have gotten edited out) that the lay preachers themselves were generally from the lower classes and without university education. Wesley’s sermons were therefore necesary as a model for their preaching, so that there would be some consistancy.
I’m curious about the plight of gays and lesbians in Methodism. Can they be full, active members of the denomination? Do they have to stay closeted, and in fear of expulsion? How accepting is the denomination as a whole?
It seems that Christendom, or much of it, is tearing itself apart over this issue. Southern Baptists and similar denominations have twisted inward and become hostile and hateful towards gays pretty much across the board, while more Christian-acting (IMO) denomiations like the ECUSA (and to a degree, even the Catholic Church) are ripping themeselves to pieces trying to find a coherent approach to this issue…
The UMC is at risk of schism over the matter of homosexuality; there are liberal congregations and conservative congregations, and, I presume, levels of rhetoric in each. The most recent service I attended was an Easter service at a church that was clearly one of the high-rhetoric and accepting congregations; a point was made of including people of all orientations.
More detail on the particulars can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc.htm if you’re particularly curious. I believe that UMC congregations are more or less independent, at least on this particular issue, and thus liable to hold positions comparable with the positions of their communities.
(I should note that I’m not Christian; on the other hand, the sort of Christian that I’m not is a United Methodist, as opposed to not being some other denomination.)
Thanks, Lil.
When I was a kid, my Mom was a member of the United Brethren Church. One morning in 1968 she woke up Methodist, finding that her church had been the target of a Spiritual Grab by the larger entity.
Last year at my old man’s funeral, I asked the pastor what the difference was between the old Brethren and the current Methodists…she wasn’t quite sure, but offered the rather interesting info that the Brethren used to be referred to as “German Methodists.” (FTR, my mother’s old-world roots are Czech.)
So, my questions are…what, if any, IS the difference in the creeds? Why did the larger church merge with the smaller in 1968? And where did the “German Methodist” tag come from?
Two denominations in the U.S., the Evangelical Association and the United Brethren in Christ, composed mostly of emigrants from German groups influenced strongly by Wesley’s teaching in England came together in the mid-20th Century to form the Evangelical United Brethren Church. These were usually referred to, loosely, as “German Methodists.”
The Methodist Church was founded in America mostly by the work of Francis Asbury, the General Superintendent whom Wesley had sent over to have oversight over the Methodist evangelists in America. His assuming the name of “Bishop” as the equivalent of “General Superintendent” did not set well with Wesley, but started the tradition of Methodist episcopacy in America. (British Methodists do not AFAIK have bishops.) The result after the Revolution was the Methodist Episcopal Church.
The church split, predictably over slavery, into the Methodist Episcopal Church (north) and the Methodist Episcopal Church South. A separate denomination had split off about ten years before as the Methodist Protestant Church; the principal issue seems to have been the rights of lay members at the governing church conferences (=synods, not ‘conferences’ in the modern sense). These three groups reunited in 1939 as The Methodist Church.
The Methodist Church united with the Evangelical United Brethren Church in, IIRC, 1968, to form the United Methodist Church.
Three relatively small and almost exclusively black denominational churches remain independent of the UMC:
[ul][li]The African Methodist Episcopal Church[/li][li]The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church[/li][li]The Christian Methodist Episcopal Church[/li][/ul]
The last-named was segmented off from the Methodist Episcopal Church South prior to the Civil War as a means of giving black Methodists an independent structure and representation while preserving segregation in the church.
There are a wide variety of other groups that were outgrowths of early Methodism, including the Free Methodist Church and the Wesleyan Methodists (now, I believe, merged with the Holiness Movement Church as the Wesleyan Holiness Church).
when did methodists cease to be anglicans
John and Charles Wesley never did; we celebrate their feasts as minor saints on March 3 every year.
Effectively, the division began when Wesley took it on himself to designate some of his evangelists to also celebrate the sacraments for Methodist groups, at which point a reform movement within the Church of England became a separatist group of people violating that church’s canon law. As noted, in America Asbury began acting as a bishop, despite having been named only by Wesley, a priest of the C of E without the right to ordain a bishop.
Is there anyway one of the moderators could fix Polycarp’s post so that it doesn’t hang off the page? It’s impossible to read things when they’re that wide.
I’m going to skip the other issues for the moment, and address the gay/lesbian issue, because this one is pretty darn important, and I’d like to address it right away.
First of all, Lilairen is indeed correct that the UMC is at risk of schism over this issue. It is debateble how high that risk is (I don’t think it will happen any time soon), but the risk is certainly there. This is the major controversy in United Methodism, and it takes up an enormous amount of resources in the church.
Individual congregations are not independant on this issue. Annual Conferences (administrative regions, roughly analagous to a diocese or a synod) are somewhat independant; they are bound by the same rules, but have the primary responsability for enforcing those rules.
The UMC has officially declared, “Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfilment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatable with Christian teaching, we affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.” (Social Principles, Pragraph 161 G) Theoretically, this means that homosexuals are welcome in church, just like all sinners, and in my experience, even the most rabidly homophobic ministers in the UMC avoid demonizing gays and lesbians. Granted this may be small consolation to a gay man or a lebian struggling to recieve acceptance and support for him- or herself. The difference between “You’re going to burn in hell, and we’re sorry.” and “You’re going to burn in hell, and we’re glad,” may seem slight to the one to whom it is said, but at least there are no Fred Phelpses in the UMC, something I remind myself of any time I feel prone to complaining about all the hoops I have to jump through to be ordained.
This is the most progressive legislation the General Conference has passed on the issue. Other policies prohibit any “board, agency, commitee, commision, or council [from] giv[ing] United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.” “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” “Self-avowed practicing homosexuals” are barred from ordination and appointment, a rule some members of the Judicial Council (the “Supreme Court” of the UMC) agreed amounts to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The UMC gaurantees due process for anyone accused of violating church law. The judicial history of these rules is quite interesting and complicated, and can be researched here. (Find heading for “Homosexuality”.) Recently, charges were dismissed against an openly lesbian minister in the church’s Seattle Area fo violating the prohibition on “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.” This article from the United Methodist News Service gives the details. (you can search the UMNS site for other articles of interest, althought their search engine is not the best.)
At the last General Conference (the highest legislative body in the UMC, made up of about 1000 lay and ordained delegates) in 2000, hundreds of demonstrators protested UMC discrimination against gays and lesbians. Later that year, the Western Jurisdictional Conference, representing roughly the western 1/3 of the US, passed a resolution (which can be seen here along with the Judicial decision that allows an annual conference to endorse it) entitled “We Will Not Be Silent”, which opposes discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons.
The next General Conference will be in 2004, and I’m sure it will be just as contentious.
The Reconciling Ministries Network is an organization seeking the full participation of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons in the life of the UMC. Good News is an evangelical organization of United Methodists that opposes the ordination of homosexuals.
Thank you for your reply, Alan, disheartening though it may be.
From your description, I hope a schism does occur.
Which sounds all well and good, but doesn’t really state anything of value. Unless this statement is met with the same forceful action in favor of civil rights that Methodists put behind their efforts to fully incorporate, say, blacks into their church life, then its little more than saying “Yeah, you’re people, but not our kind of people, so please go away,” when combined with what you describe below.
This statement is quite hateful in that it reduces homoesxuals down to what they do, as opposed to who they are. Homosexuality is a state of being, not an independent action. It is a type of person, not a “practice.”
So, they get to go to church. But what happens to them after they die?
It’s not slight. It’s very drastic… and “you’re going to burn in hell, and we’re sorry,” is a far more evil, hateful and hurtful position to take than the Phelpsian alternative. Why? Because it acknowledges, on some level, that being gay (and thus hellbound and evil, apparently) isn’t something one chooses or has any control over, but too bad, off to the burners with you, so sad.
Extremely hateful and evil. This would bar the church from taking steps to help prevent the rampant suicides of gay teens. Why do gay teens kill themselves? Because of positions like the one you stated earlier… “you’re gay and going to hell, so sorry.” And here the church, apparently, is shirking its share of responsibility for this situation by refusing to allow its member congregations to do anything to help alleviate this kind of destructive environment. Or at the very least the psychological scars it leaves on those raised Methodist.
Very admirable, and Christian, of them to do so. Perhaps they should find a church that isn’t so entrenched in anti-gay bigotry, though. Or schism off and form a decent, more respectable Methodist church.
Sorry for being so harsh here, I appreciate all the time you’ve put into your reply, and wish you well in your ministry, though I am saddened that you will be putting your very gracious skills to use to the aid of what appears to be a very bigotted denomination. I’m quite disappointed. You hear a lot about the progressivism of Methodism, and the importance of social justice to Methodists. Not so nice when you find out that doesn’t apply to everyone.
So sadly, the United Methodist Church seems to be more like the Baptists and less like the Episcopalians on this issue.
Thank you for your efforts here. This is a most informative thread.
I certainly feel your frustration, Sdrawkcab. The truth is that if the UMC splits, I’m fairly sure it will be because those of us who support gay rights will have stuck it out and gotten the policies changed, and those opposed to gay rights will have left. Why? In my experience, “reconciling” United Methodists don’t want to see the church split. (Of course there is something of a self selection process here.) Splintering into a tiny church identified primarily with GLBT issues would eliminate most opportunity to dialogue with the rest of the church, and erode most of our support. Furthermore, we know that at some point, we may be wrong about something, and hope that our brothers and sisters will “labour with [us].” Methodists supported slavery, as well as opposed it. Although we split over that issue, we eventually came together, and I rather wish we had followed the Episcopalian example of praying for one another in unity, even when politics and differences divided us. This is not, IMO, to abandon the prophetic voice, but to make it stronger.
One of the most important lessons in my life has been that good, thoughtful, decent people can do and think evil things. Some people, (like Fred Phelps, I believe) are motivated by hate and anger. But I know people who honestly believe they are doing what is right by opposing rights for GLBTs in the church. They are good people with whom I disagree strongly on basic moral issues. If I were to cut myself off from them, however, I would loose any hope of bringing us together in love.
I’m afraid I misrepresented my church here. United Methodists, like most Protestants, believe that acceptance of the Gospel is what saves us. Any United Methodist who knows anything about the church’s teaching will acknowledge that a homosexual who accepts the grace of Jesus Christ has been saved, and that the same is true for any bigot who has accepted God’s grace. Some of us may doubt the sincerity of another’s walk with Christ, when they disagree with us on such basic moral issues as this, but I have come to the conclusion that both gays and bigots may be walking in God’s grace honestly and prayerfully as best they know how. I admit that I do struggle with this, though. Most United Methodists I know in both camps would, I think, agree with me.
As far as the denomination being bigotted, well the UMC is to a large extent a democracy. A slender majority can theoretically speak for the entire church. My understanding is that at the last General Conference a huge number of delegates lined the aisles with signs reading “equally incompatable.” (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a cite for this. Take it with a grain of salt, I suppose.) It wasn’t enough for a majority, obviously, but the numbers are growing.
The USA has certain policies that I disagree with very strongly, but I’m not going to give up my citizenship because Ralph Nader lost the election in '00. 
The fact is that in many places (and unfortunaltely, geography makes a big difference here) United Methodist clergy and laity alike go about the bussiness of being in ministry with and to the GLBT community and as members of the GLBT community, welcoming and being welcomed by GLBT people in our churches, and working for reconciliation and wholeness regardless of what the “official” positions say. A recent article (which I should have mentioned in my last post) examins the issue of why gay United Methodists stay with the church.
BTW, Poly, is the Episcopal situation really any better?
I also wanted to add that for anyone who can’t find acceptance in their own church or denomination, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches is a denomination committed to ministry by and to members anf friends of the GBLT community. I was surprised to discover just now (on their website) that they have congregations in almost every state, and on every continent.
Thank you for the reply and the link, Alan. I will try to post a more detailed response shortly, and after I’ve read the article, but I must go off to dinner at the moment.
Are you certain about that? It would seem to me that those who are on the side of the bigotry are also those with the most to lose from the split – should a split occur, they would lose, no doubt, their churches, which are owned by the denomination, not the local congregation, are they not?
And since, clearly, the pro-bigotry side is more numerous, it seems more likely that if there is a split it will come while they’re in power, to protect their interests, and will result in them expelling you.
I may be futzing up my history here (I’m a long way from confirmation classes), but didn’t the methodists split in two over the issue, and eventually the reunion of those two halves helped establish the “united” Methodist church?
Then their sense of right and wrong must be highly perverted. How can harming people, hating people, be right?
Is unity more important than being right?
I understand. But Methodism isn’t Easy Jesus Christianity, is it? By that I mean Once-Saved-Always-Saved. Methodists, IIRC, are Arminian in soterioly… and believe that even after accepting Christ one can falter and fall back out of God’s grace, correct?
A compassionate point of view that I doubt is shared by your opponents on this issue, who seem, by and large, to be free of any touch of human compassion or decency.
Democracy is very dangerous when there aren’t checks in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Nader?!? Ah well. Funnily enough, the persecution and hatred of gays in this country iso deep rooted and, I believe, incurable, that I am actively considering emmigrating to Canada or Europe.
But don’t you see, by doing so, you could be, uiltimately, hurting them? If the coneservatives take power even more than they already have and run everyone like you out on a rail, all your efforts will have done is to have brought these gays and lesbians into the family, only to have them rejected once again. You’re potentially bringing them into an unsafe environment with a very questionable long-term future.
Thanks for all your effort on this question, and for your position. I wish you well in your endeavors in the UMC. I just see little reason to be optimistic.