Oh, I missed this post at the time. Most mainline Protestants will give you some wine during the service (Methodists may or may not - the Temperance movement came out of American Methodism after all). We use Tawny Port at my (Lutheran) service.
Generally overly sweet wines are used because most people don’t complain too much. Whereas more dry stuff you may get a complaint.
My understanding is that, at least in the U.S., the UMC doesn’t use wine at communion; they use grape juice. In fact, pasteurized, non-fermented grape juice was developed by Thomas Bramwell Welch, a Wesleyan (Methodist).
But the argument can be made that a church that allows something specifically forbidden by Jesus should probably not be dicks about something he never spoke of.
I stand corrected, then. What I’ve been able to find on the UMC website about their Communion practices states this (in the downloaded PDF from that page):
So, the UMC customarily uses grape juice rather than wine, and use of it is the church’s official position, but it sounds like the use of wine isn’t absolutely prohibited.
While we’re on the topic, here’s a story about a “struggling” Methodist congregation in the Twin Cities that is planning to revamp their services, and are asking the senior citizens in the congregation to find another place to worship.
Pretty much what my priest said about the wine. On the other hand, it’s not like anyone was stopping during the Eucharist to swirl the wine around their mouth and say, “I’m picking up notes of elderflower, cherries, and fresh-cut grass, with a hint of lemon.”
From your link it seems like the Methodists believe like most protestants that divorce is usually wrong but it is not disqualifying.
As Christians we do not expect perfection from the pastors or the laity but only that if there is ongoing sin that they repent and stop their sinning. For example, if a preacher was having an affair, they would be required to end the affair, repent of that sin, and usually undergo some type of counseling before continuing their ministry. If the preacher refused to stop the affair or acknowledge its sinfulness they would no longer be allowed to continue.
Likewise if a preacher is involved in homosexual sex then they would be required to stop and repent of that sin before continuing their ministry. My understanding of the current controversy is that the American part of the church wants to allow clergy who have homosexual sex to continue in their ministry without repentance and to allow same sex marriages in their churches. Thus the controversy is not whether there are material differences in sins but rather there is a need for repentance.
Someone who gets divorced is in the same boat as the gay person. That is, unless they are celibate, they are committing adultery (or fornication?) every time they have sex with someone not their ex-wife.
And yet…there are divorced and (I almost can’t type it, it so disgusts me) remarried congregants and even (faints, gets back up) pastors!
Yes, I was in a denomination that changed to allow remarried pastors. It was a tough decision because they are committing adultery but it is usually impossible for people to get back with their first spouse and sometimes either the divorce happened before conversion or because the partner committed adultery or abandoned the relationship.
In general acquiescence in the culture of divorce was a sign that mainline denominations were starting not to take sin seriously and showed their descent.
You do realize that non-mainline Protestantism allows divorce as well? The Orthodox Church does so as well.
The Catholic Church seems to be the only hold out.
And the discussion about same sex marriage is definitely not about the need for repentance about sin - because affirming denominations do not consider same sex marriage to be sinful at all.
Agreed, and that was noted upthread. A proposal for how to accomplish the split has been recommended; we’ll see how the vote goes at General Conference in May. Even if the current proposal isn’t approved, I have a hard time seeing how the UMC continues as one entity; the two sides seek mutually-exclusive things.
