This quote from an article on Bishop Sprague probably answers your question.
Along these lines I once was at a session for Sunday School teachers. I expressed my own questions about being able to teach, because of some of my beliefs. I told them, that I did not believe in the virgin birth. They laughed and said that is Okay, since John Wesley specifically said that a Methodist is free to believe or not believe in the virgin birth. This was when I belonged to the third largest Methodist Church in Ohio. I have questioned ministers on this since then and have always gotten the same answer. However, the members of the small Methodist Church I belong to now, would die if someone told them they had a choice. :eek:
It’s not as black and white as that. There are many people who are struggling with this issue–including closeted gays and lesbians, some of whom may still be coming to terms with their sexuality. If all of the reconciling Methodists left, we’d be abandoning them. Many people can be converted on this issue, but not if we split.
It is not true that the “bigots” (only some of whom are conciously bigotted; many more are simply ignorant and will continue to be unless we stick around and educate them) have more to loose. Neither side would gain from being the one to walk out, and no one has the power to kick the other side out, no matter how big a majority they get. Methodists are not doctrinare, and it would take a much bigger shift than almost anyone is advocating for that to change. Granted, it happened in the Southern Baptist Convention, but there are checks and balances in place (just as you suggest there should be) that make it less likely in the UMC, plus a firm cultural commitment to “liberty in non-essentials; in all things, charity.”
Those same checks and balances severely limit what the denomiation can do in the local congregation. Our members are safe, unless we abandon them.
As I said, I know many people who disagree with me on this issue, and they are not “free of any touch of human compassion or decency.” They are simply, IMO, ignorant. There are some evil people in the Church (as in any church or organization), but they are a very small number.
I am very hopeful that the denomination will see the light. It’s a matter of when, not if, IMO. I hope that those with whom I disagree will be as commited to Christian unity as we have been, and I have reason to suspect that most of them will be.
Finally, I want to point out that I was wrong when I said
Two pieces of legislation I discovered looking through the 2000 Book of Resolutions stand out. In 1996, the General Conference passed a resolution recognizing the high risk of suicide amoung teens dealing with questions of sexual orientation and their need for compassionate support, and directing the United Methodist Women (no one messes with the UMW) to provide resources and materials to develop such a ministry. In 2000, they passed a resolution calling the Church to be in ministry to persons of all sexual orientations. I can’t quote it’s entirity, but it affirms that “all persons [are] equally valuable in the sight of God,” that “all who follow Jesus have spiritual gifts to share,” that “human sexuality is a complex gift of which we have limited understanding,” that “homosexual persons no less than hterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth” and need “the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self,” that “an individual confronting his or her own minority sexual orientation and/or that of a close family member, friend, or associate often experiences isolation, confusion, and fear when he or she needs information, guidance, and support,” and that “the teachings and actions of Jesus demonstrated radical inclusion of those rejected by mainstream society.” It therefore resolved "that The United Methodist Church dedicate itself to a ministry of Christ-like hospitality and compassion to persons of all sexual orientations, and to a vision of unity through openness to the spiritual gifts of all those who have been baptized into the body of Jesus Christ. Such ministry and openness may include: welcoming sexual minorities , their friends, and families into our churches and demonstrating our faith in a loving God; a willingness to listen and open our hearts . . . " etc. Remember, the same people who voted to continue denying ordination to homosexuals (and actually, only to those who declare to the right governing authority that they are practicing homosexuals) also voted for these resolutions, which passes by a majority vote.
I’ll give you (or anyone else) the last word on this here. If you’d like to discuss it with me further than that, I invite you to open another thread or email me.
The Methodist Church (and others) believe that it is only by accepting Jesus as your Savior that one goes to Heaven. Your deeds have nothing to do with that. I pointed out to my minister, during Bible Study, that the Book of James says “Faith without deeds is dead.” He replied “That is the reason that James almost didn’t get into the bible.”
[sup]As to the treatment of heresy in the Methodist Church, it is treated by not saving a piece of pie for you at the potluck dinner.[/sup]
Aside from those who are dealing with their own sexuality, or the sexuality of a loved one, I see no validity in any of the “struggles” going on here. There is a simple line, on one side is love, compassion and acceptance, on the other is hatred and bigotry. Those are the two causes being forwarded. Why you fall on one side of the other is immaterial when dealing with what you are forwarding as an agenda. Those who support bigotry due to ignorance are less morally culpable for the results of their actions than those who do so knowingly, but they are still not on the side of good here.
They’re not Lady Macbeth, but they’re not Mary, either.
They will find their way to the good form of Methodism, undoubtedly. As it is, the reconciling Methodists are a dim voice singing a different tune than the rest of the choir… you might as well not exist at all. As a separate denomination, you would likely be more visible. As it is, you are barely noticeable. For instance, Dallas, a metroplex of nearly two million has only two reconciling churches, which is 40% of all reconciling churches in the entire state of Texas. How many hundreds of Methodist churches are there in Texas where gays and lesbians would be tossed out, spurned, hated and rejected?
But by staying, you place the gays in the middle, you use them as the rope in a giant tug of war match, and give them no safe harbor, no truly safe harbor, within the denomination. How man gays will be permanently scarred by the teachings of the UMC while you vainly try to change the ingrained prejudices of your leaders?
They said the same thing in the 1970s about the rising right-wing lunatics who now control the Southern Baptist Convention.
Liberty in non-essentials only protects you so long as the gay issue is not considered an ‘essential’ standard of your faith.
In this case, ignorance makes them culpable for the actions their ignorance allows to continue. They are responsible, not as responsible, but responsible, for the evils committed against gays and lesbians by the UMC.
Sounds very good. But has the potential to be very, very, very evil if the “resources” and “materials” are trying to help gays become straights. Re-orientation ministries are the greatest evil in modern Christianity, and give most of the previous evils that didn’t involve genocide-like slaughters a run for their money in evilness.
Again, a “re-orientation ministry” could count as “ministering” to gays and lesbians. Though I hope Methodism is too decent a religion to be sullied by that Nazi-like phenomenon common in Southern Baptist circles.
Again, sounds all well and good, but what happens in practice?
Thank you for the time and effort you have put into your replies. I really appreciate it. I’ll leave your thread alone now.
Why are there so many damn churches of Christianity? Jesus told Peter “Upon this rock I shall build My Church!” But whose church is it ? Which denomination?
What do methodists believe? All I know is that they are more liberal than Baptists, and they came from the Calvanist movement. I also know that the Methodist Church is searching its stance with homosexuality which is made abundantly clear in Leviticus (one of the few passages in the Bible that is not ambiguous).
By the way, my favorite Bible verse is “Vegence is mine sayeth the Lord!” You have to admit that kicks ass.
Alan - very nice thread - I sincerely hope this doesn’t degenerate into another gay bashing and gay-basher bashing mess.
[sub]My first reaction to senor’s post was "I too love Leviticus. Just last week I and my neighbors killed another neighbor by throwing big rocks at him, because he had raked leaves one chilly Saturday morning. "[/sub]
Somewhat, though still contentious – and made worse by the well-meaning but lame-brained interventions of Anglican bishops outside our national church. I won’t hijack your thread with the details, but the general attitude of ECUSA is welcoming and affirming towards gay people, with some division over whether a non-celibate gay man or woman is eligible for ordination, whether the blessing of same-sex “unions” (a term I despise, but we’re stuck with) is licit, etc.
Although Alan is probably technically correct that congregations should not be independent on the issue of homosexuality, in practice there may be many who simply don’t agree with that tired old “love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit.
My congregation reaches out to all sorts of people. We have AA and NA groups who use our facilities (you might be surprized how many churches won’t let “them” pay rent), we do outreach with AIDS patients and hospices. Hell, our pastor’s wife is very involved in hospice care and AIDS outreach ministry. Our pastor is open-minded and accepting, and it can be difficult for him when the UMC continues to take such a rigid, unhelpful stance against homosexuality.
It is such a shame, since we have come so far in areas like the ordination of women and minorities.
And earlier it was mentioned that if a schism occurred, some of the idiots would lose their churches because the denomination owns them. Nope, each congregation owns their own property.
Perhaps the problem is that the power structure in most churches is still the “close-minded middle-aged white male.” Is there hope for change? Yes, but it’ll probably be later rather than sooner.
I’ll clarify/correct a couple of things from EJsGirl’s post, then move on. This will be the last you’ll here from me on homosexuality on this thread.
What I meant was that congregations are not free to violate the rules of the denomination. There are no legal grounds by which a congregation could refuse membership to a gay person. Nor could a congregation decide to authorize gay “unions.” A church that had an openly gay pastor could kick up a fuss and possibly have his/her ordination recinded after a legnthy legal process, but could not simply refuse the pastor, nor can a congreagation decide whether they want a pastor who is gay-friendly or not. (They could petition the DS, of course.) The official position of the UMC is that congregations should be in ministry to all people regardless of sexual orientation, but of course individuals are free to be as friendly or unfriendly as they wish.
Well, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about a church refusing to let 12-step groups use their building, but I would be shocked. They’re such an obviously needed and spiritual ministry. I think every church I’ve gone to has had an AA meeting there.
Well, sort of. Technically that’s true, but every deed held by a congregation is required to include a clause stating that the congregation holds the property in trust for The United Methodist Church, and should the property cease to be used for it’s intended purpose, ownership reverts to the Annual Conference. Sales and developments, etc. don’t have to go through the Annual Conference, AFAIK, but the DS generally has to sign off on them.
It sounds like your church is doing some great ministry, EJsGirl.
Poly, I tried to thank you earlier for helping out with a couple of questions, but my computer ate my response. I will add that I have a friend who’s family is former EUB. He gets in a tizzy any time he hears “Methodist” alone used to refer to the UMC. He says, “I’m ‘United,’ and I’m ‘United Methodist,’ but I ain’t no ‘Methodist,’ and I’m never going to be one!” FTR, “United” in the name refers not to the coming together of various branches of the church, but to The Evangelical United Bretheren Church that merged with The Methodist Church in 1968.
I also wanted to add that the ordination crisis that made Methodism a seperate church was a complicated issue (as you know). You Episcopalians got by eventuially, thanks to the Scots, but in the mean time Wesley had some tough choices to make, and he made them. Asbury was, IIRC, a layman, before Coke ordained him deacon, then elder, then concecrated him bishop, all in three days. Coke was already a priest when Wesley, himself a mere priest, “ordained” or “concecrated” (the language he used varied) Coke bishop, and sent him with two others Wesley ordained himself to America to ordain Asbury. Wesley’s term “General Superintendant” meant “bishop,” and Wesley knew it, even if he didn’t like the title. The Americans, revolutionaries that they were, thumbed their noses at Wesley somewhat, by accepting Asbury as their leader, but sending Coke packing back to England! (Quick! Half a point for anyone who can tell me the name of the United Methodist Publishing House bookstore (and why)!)
You must be thinking of Mormons, JonScribe!
Sprauge is the bishop I mentioned earlier who denies the virgin birth and alegorizes several other doctrines. I agree with some of what he said, disagree with some. You can read his infamous Iliff speach (taken directly from his book here. Bishop Whitaker of Florida wrote a reply that I think is nearly spot on. Anything that gets people discussing these issues is good, IMO, but as far as Amazon goes, I be happy if my professor’s new book were in a top spot. BTW, Dinsdale, how do you see those numbers at Amazon?
Alan, not to be a pest, but another question: What is the Methodist position on the Real Presence? Anglicanism, which methodism stems from, tends to believe in it, in a consubstantive manner. Is Methodism the same way? Is there any doctrinal position regarding this issue?
Unfortunately, I just found out that Polycarp may not be able to post for a while. I will miss him in this thread and hope he’ll be back soon! It’s an internet connection issue, among other things, not that he doesn’t want to be here!
Gee, thanks, kniz. Nothing like being told what I believe by someone else. :rolleyes:
Sorry to be sarcastic, but those are Catholic apologetics pages, designed to explain and bolster the Catholic practice of excluding Protestants from Communion. While I won’t go quite so far as to say that that’s the same as quoting an anti-Mormon website to describe Mormon beliefs or an anti-Semitic source to describe Judaism, it is close. It’s certainly not primary source material.
As I explained in Ask a Catholic my beliefs are about as close to orthodox Catholic teaching as any Catholic today. Tomndeb will be happy to explain to you (as he does in that thread) why few if any Catholics actually believe in transubstantiation today (though they may think they do). I also explained in that thread why I think the RCC is mistaken, disingenuous, and (to put it bluntly) sinful to tie reception of Communion to any doctrinal belief. I won’t repeat my arguements here.
“Real presence” is a phrase that one of your websites, Kniz, correctly points out has been watered down to mean almost anything. In philosophical language, it has technical meanings (which, quite frankly, I don’t really know) that tie it to “realism,” the philosophical background (in its Aristotelian, “moderate” form) of Transubstantiation. It is therefore a poor choice to describe the belief that many Protestants do infact hold in common with Catholics, that Christ is in fact present in the physical elements of Communion. (He is not, technically speaking, physically present in the elements according to Catholic teaching, despite what many Catholics think, since “substances” are not physical things.)
Methodist teaching on the Sacraments is, quite honestly, a little confused. Methodism began as a sacramental (as well as evangelistic) revival, so Wesley wrote a fair bit on the importance of Communion, but never (AFAIK) put any energy into developing his own explanation of Christ’s presence. He considered himself an orthodox Anglican, and accepted their teaching, which I would describe as a muted Calvinism, i.e. that we are really and truely made to be in the presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist in an objective sense, but we do not necessarily know (or need to agree on) how. (Poly may me able to expand on this when he returns.) Our Articles of Religion are edited from the Anglican Articles (more on this later), and spell out official UMC doctrine:
Charles’s hymns, as is frequently the case, are the best repository of Wesleyan theology. Lines such as “Now, Lord, on us thy flesh bestow, And let us drink thy blood” and “O taste the goodness of our God, and eat his flesh and drink his blood” show the high view the Wesleys held of the Eucharist. One of his hyms in particular is worth quoteing in its entirity for its wonderful expression of Calvinist sacramental theology:
Sacramental theology was not high on anyone’s list of priorities on the American fronteer, where American Methodism to a large extaent came into its own. Methodists were heavily influenced in those years by neighboring Baptists and Presbyterians, and virtually abandoned the sacramental views of the Wesleys. To this day, a large number of United Methodists in both pew and pulpit are memorialists, that is they see the Eucharist as nothing more than a re-enactment, a mnemonic device, to remind us of Christ’s sacrifice.
Like many denominatioin, the UMC has experienced a renewed interest in the sacraments over the past few decades, and has begun to recover some of the sacramental thinking of its founders. Laurence Hull Stookey, one of my professors (and one of my reasons for choosing Wesley Seminary) has made significant contributions toward a revived sacramental theology in Methodism, and in Protestantism overall. (Do an Amazon search to find his books if you’re interested. They’re very accessable.) He uses the Hebraic concepts of “amamnesis” and “prolepsis” to move beyond a “bare” memorialism without falling into 13th century realism.
The UMC recently completed a study on Baptism, By Water and the Spirit. (Full text available online.) It was accepted by the 1996 General Conference as the UMC’s official statement on baptism. It is pretty much in line with modern sacramentalist understanding (c.f. Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, the basic ecumenical text), i.e. Baptism is a gift from God in which God acts graciously in our lives clensing us from, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation.
A similar study on Eucahrist is currently underway to be submitted to the 2004 General Conference. You can read about the study, including drafts of the report, to be titled This Holy Mystery, here. Interstingly enough, the hot issue in the study seems to be not the presence of Christ, but the openness of the Table. Methodists have one of the most open Tables in the Church. Methodists have traditionally followed Eastern Orthodox practice in allowing baptized children of any age to recieve Communion. No one is questioning this. Mo Methodist pastor in my experience would ever challenge someone asking to recieve Communion. No one is really questioning this (except to suggest that pastors council baptism for persons who are not baptized and nevertheless recieve). What is beig questioned is the practice of some Methodist pastors of actively invitingunbaptized persons to recieve Communion! (The usual way I’ve heard this put is, “If you know Christ or want to know Christ you are welcome to receive.”) I’d comment on this, but it’s 2 AM, and I have church tomorrow . . . er, today.
[This post was divided because the hamsters seemed to be having trouble with it in Preview mode as a single long post. Turned out I was coding wrong, of course, but I’d already posted Pt 1 seperately when I realized this.]
I didn’t really mean to imply that… It just seems that in the Methodist Churches I went to that the sermons were rather…well…devoid of biblical references. I was more likely to hear poetry than scripture…
Now I’m not claiming that Baptist are superior. We reference the bible, but since there probably aren’t more than half a dozen sermons (it seems like) that are preachers can handle, it’s not like there is any hard study going on.
I rather like the format of the bible churches I have gone to, but they seem a bit too Calvinist for my taste. Sorry if I fell off topic. Continue…
[sup]As to the treatment of heresy in the Methodist Church, it is treated by not saving a piece of pie for you at the potluck dinner.[/sup]