As a general rule, more moderate denominations have their buildings owned by the denomination or district. More evangelical ones have their buildings owned by the individual congregations. This is not by accident. What central ownership does is tend to blunt the crazies and it’s why it exists.
Here’s an example. If Crazy Bob, the neo-nazi preacher begins ranting in a more moderate church, the denomination will say, “Crazy Bob, we’re not neo-Nazis. Cease and desist.” If he continues, they’ll remove his credentials and send him packing. If he refuses to leave, they can have him barred from the church building and the parsonage. The denomination owns the buildings, they can kick him out. If Bob wants to keep ranting, he has to find another place to do it. That tends to limit Bob’s ability to attract people. In a congregationally owned church, all Bob needs to do is convince the people that he’s preaching to that he’s awesome and run off those who don’t like him and Bob gets to maintain his platform. This is essentially the story of Westboro Baptist Church. That’s why we don’t have a Westboro United Methodist Church. If a pastor gets too crazy, he or she is shown the door. Sometimes they go out and rent a building and become ‘Crazy Bob’s Community Church,’ but frequently they stand chastened and decide that neo-Naziing isn’t for them. This is also why United Methodist Pastors rarely stay more than 7 or 8 years at a church. The conference tries to nip demagoguery in the bud and realizes that pastors are in a position where they can manipulate congregants, so they don’t like congregations to get too attached to a single man or woman. There are cons, because a charismatic pastor can really make a church a great experience and the next guy might be a dud, but you have to take the bad with the good.
I’ve never denied their right to vote, nor do I suggest in any way that they be barred from voting. I merely say that it sucks. Their cultural hangups are hurting a lot of people that don’t deserve to be hurt. We’ve been fielding calls all day from homosexual couples in our church that feel they have been abandoned. I’m not claiming that western culture is superior or that African congregants are ‘wrong’ or ‘bad.’ They have a right to their views, but I am saddened by them. I wish that they would change their minds because I believe that it will bring more pain than good to the world.
I actually specifically said that I don’t view them as bigots. I view them as having a different cultural context that hurts people.
I do want to clarify again, that I don’t feel that globalization is inherently good or bad, nor would I wish for an undemocratic governance of the denomination. I am only saying that in this case, it sucks.
Or it could just be the reaction of someone very tired and very sad and lashing out at who he thinks is hurting him. Of course, I love Africa and I love the many African peoples, I just wish that they would see eye to eye with me on this issue. I hate that our cultural differences cause these kinds of rifts. I hate that one of the delegates from Cote D’Ivoire stood up and said that we are arguing that the youth want to see homosexual acceptance and then corrected us that the youth of west Africa are more numerous and want no such thing thus reminding me that there is no long arc of history bending toward justice and we don’t know where the long arc of history bends.
Overall, I’m not even mad at African delegates. I don’t wish them harm. I even want to listen to their concerns and understand them, I just also want them to change their minds and I realize that that’s not going to happen. A gay delegate was just speaking about not casting him out and not turning our back on him and I started crying at work and then you immediately hear from a delegate from Congo about how we can’t tolerate sinners and sinful behavior and I just want to hug the young guy that is getting turned away at the gates. It makes me sad and it tears me apart. But no, I don’t hate Africa and my words should be more measured.
I also realize that it sounds like I’m painting with a broad brush. Africa is a large continent and attitudes in Egypt and Somalia and Liberia and Zambia and South Africa are all different. Not every person in Africa is anti-homosexual by a long shot. I was using Africa as shorthand for the African and African diaspora bloc that are largely the base of the ‘Traditional’ Movement and should not be applied to every individual on the continent.
I have long thought that was one of the primary reasons religion remained as popular as it is - sanctioned institutional prejudice and discrimination!
We belonged to UU churches for some years. The national organization decided to move away from Humanism, and towards “Christianity lite” - in the hopes that that would fill more pews. Sloppy spiritualists have all manner of other options. We nontheists have none.
But it got really old trying to fight an inexorable tide. Our only option was to leave. :mad:
Denominations change over time. Presumably you chose this one because - at the time - it suited your needs/preferences/beliefs better than others. Sounds like you may need to make that comparative assessment again. Sucks, but good luck on your search.
Something has to give when theology from thousands of years in the past is contradicted by a subset of modern Western sensibilities. What exactly gives isn’t going to be universal in a body that spans the globe.
But aren’t there churches that do those things and treat gay people with respect? Finding an organization that does the things you like and doesn’t do the thing you dislike isn’t being a single-issue person. There are a lot of churches out there.
Generally in these church quarrels what is being said and what is being heard are two entirely different things.
The pro-gay faction says: “Can’t you let love prevail instead of sticking so rigidly to rules?” They want a church where people from various diverse backgrounds are accepted.
The anti-gay faction hears something like this: “Can’t we just agree that 2+2 does NOT equal 4, in the name of love?” They think that truth is truth regardless of whether or if love comes into play.
I am not fully versed in African history, but isn’t it the case that the bigotry against homosexuals by the African Methodists (and other African Christian groups and African Catholics) is largely due to this bigotry being preached by evangelists from the US and various European countries back in the day rather than this being an ancient African tradition?
So pretty much the exact same arguments they (conservative churches) made against interracial marriage, integration, and the abolition of slavery, then.
This isn’t an opinion based thing, but a doctrinal issue. This isn’t a matter of my opinion vs. your opinion, but a matter of right and wrong. So anyone framing this as a battle between two different opinions is getting this wrong.
The correct doctrinal approach, according to Scripture is that, if something is disputable among the church, you do not cast judgement. That’s what Romans 14 is all about. Sure, the issue there is whether you follow Jewish dietary restrictions. But Paul lays out a general principle that we shall not cast judgment on disputable matters, but should also not do that which causes our brother to stumble. Those who have faith that it is allowed are to be fully convinced, and then do the right thing, while not stepping on the toes of those who think it is wrong.
The actual situation here is that the Scriptures that have been traditionally determined as forbidding homosexuality may not actually do so. We have external evidence such as the existence of homosexuality and the inability to change it, and the fact that God doesn’t make mistakes, but we also have internal evidence, such as alternative interpretations of words and meanings of statements in context.
Democracy is not always the best process. It doesn’t really work with “what people are allowed to believe” or even “what people should believe.” What should win the day here is the better scriptural argument. What should win is what God wants, not what man decides.
There just isn’t any Scriptural basis for dictating to all what they have to believe on a controversial matter. What they are doing is sinful. The Bible is surprisingly libertarian in this aspect.
I live in St. Louis, so I’ve heard more about this than your average non-Methodist. I’m a liberal Christian and I’m with BigT on this.
Lutherans, Presbyterians and Episcopalians have already gone through this fight. The UMC managed to push it back a few years longer, but here it is.
One thing Catholics and Mormons understand is that democracy is a bad way to determine theology. Granted, they sometimes make odd pivots on positions, but they don’t say, “as a church, half of us say this, and the other half say that.”
The very first thing the Methodists had to deal with was Wesley vs. Whitefield on salvation. In the U.S., Methodists split over slavery. There was a schism in 1946. The UMC is only 50 years old, and there’s a whole passel of other denominations that follow the Methodist tradition. I’m sure you can find one that aligns better with your views.
