Is it accurate to recognize the UMC is pretty liberal these days?

[RomansFiveEight]

Is it accurate to recognize the UMC as pretty liberal these days?

Yes. No. Maybe so.

The answer really depends on how one defines liberal and what region of the country/UMC you happen to be asking the question in.




Actually, I'm much more concerned with why so many people are more concerned about a liberal/conservative divide than about the difference between faithful and unfaithful living as disciples of Christ.

Bingo.

We're conservative in the north, liberal in the south (with the same policies). What does that tell you?

No fundamental conservative in their right mind would call us a conservative. And no liberal straight-ticket democrat in New York and California would ever dream of claiming us as one of their own. That's why I love it!

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Also; one add.

This is just my own observative. We have become so polarized and partisan. It continues to ASTOUND me how many people can completely, totally adhere to just one political philosophy. Maybe it's just me; but it's amazing how many conservatives and liberals completely, and totally-without fault-, adhere to their parties platforms on just every single issue.

So BECAUSE of that; I think the middle has broadened. It's become wide and all-encompassing because we're up against a seeming army of people who, for some reason, have no problem completely and entirely submitting to their party platform. By the way; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. If you are a 100% conservative or 100% liberal kind of person; go for it man. But just offering an explanation for why 'middle' has such a broad definition today. Heck; in this thread alone there appears to be a handful of people, myself included, who consider themselves in the middle. And yet I know, from past conversations; that there are a few things we disagree on here and there. I can't answer for the others; but I consider myself 'in the middle' because liberals won't have me and neither will the conservatives. I'm really only in the middle on SOME things. Other things I'm conservative; and other things I'm liberal! But I still consider myself 'in the middle' for the reason mentioned above. Because I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm not really a moderate either. Fact is; I kind of don't fit in with any political stereotype! So I guess "in the middle" is the best description.

 

[Maid Marie]

Also; one add.

This is just my own observative. We have become so polarized and partisan. It continues to ASTOUND me how many people can completely, totally adhere to just one political philosophy. Maybe it's just me; but it's amazing how many conservatives and liberals completely, and totally-without fault-, adhere to their parties platforms on just every single issue.

So BECAUSE of that; I think the middle has broadened. It's become wide and all-encompassing because we're up against a seeming army of people who, for some reason, have no problem completely and entirely submitting to their party platform. By the way; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. If you are a 100% conservative or 100% liberal kind of person; go for it man. But just offering an explanation for why 'middle' has such a broad definition today. Heck; in this thread alone there appears to be a handful of people, myself included, who consider themselves in the middle. And yet I know, from past conversations; that there are a few things we disagree on here and there. I can't answer for the others; but I consider myself 'in the middle' because liberals won't have me and neither will the conservatives. I'm really only in the middle on SOME things. Other things I'm conservative; and other things I'm liberal! But I still consider myself 'in the middle' for the reason mentioned above. Because I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm not really a moderate either. Fact is; I kind of don't fit in with any political stereotype! So I guess "in the middle" is the best description.

That fits me, too

 

[GraceSeeker]

2. We change the rule to allow each pastor and church to decide what they weddings they will allow/perform.

Will cabinets poll both pastors and local congregations to find out their respective views on the subject? Can you imagine sending a pastors who believes in doing homosexual weddings to a church that was against them? Similar problems the other way around as well. What happens if the number of clergy willing to perform homosexual weddings does not equal the number of churches willing to have them performed? Do we created mix "marriages" of clergy and congregations with different views on the matter? Of course we already have that now, but the rules keep the tension in check.

In the ELCA they have the pattern you suggest, but there clergy and congregation use a call process by which they find one another. We send pastors. And I think that creates a different set of problems. The advantage is that clergy can do what they know is right, even when the congregation disagrees because the church has affirmed (or spoken against) something as being our witness for God's will. But if we made the matter one where it was about personal preference, then the goal comes to please people rather than God -- or one where we equate human will with God's will, a position that many take anyway, but which we would be in effect codifying by your proposition.

 

[BryanW92]

The advantage is that clergy can do what they know is right, even when the congregation disagrees because the church has affirmed (or spoken against) something as being our witness for God's will.

Wow. That is a powerful statement! So, the cumulative laity of church, with all the work it does and all the ministries that it conducts, is really just little more than children playing church those who are "educated, tried, and tested" in the right seminaries?

Over on the non-denom forum, this is the exact charge that they use to claim that the mainline denominations are corrupt, as the RCC is corrupt.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Wow. That is a powerful statement! So, the cumulative laity of church, with all the work it does and all the ministries that it conducts, is really just little more than children playing church those who are "educated, tried, and tested" in the right seminaries?

Over on the non-denom forum, this is the exact charge that they use to claim that the mainline denominations are corrupt, as the RCC is corrupt.

Think what you will, I'm not going to back off from it. I can remember when my father welcomed a black family to a church in NW Indiana. He was appointed to a church outside of Gary. The people had moved to this community specifically because they were moving away from communities on the south side of Chicago that had become integrated and were seeking to live in the communities there were not yet integrated. It was 1963, the Civil Rights bill had not yet been passed by President Johnson (he was only VP), and churches could legally exclude black people. The church never did that, but they wanted to make it tough on my father for actually welcoming black families. He declared that all persons were welcome in our church, and that without regard to race he would visit all new families in the community just as he had always done inviting them to join us. (We were the fastest growing church in the conference, adding 145 new families to a congregation of only 160 in 3 years.) We lost some members over it. Another group got up a petition forwarded to the bishop asking to have my father appointed elsewhere. But the D.S. told him that he was sent there to preach the Gospel, and if he chose to preach it to people of color, that was his business. Not a ringing endorsement if you think about it, but in that day about as strong of a position of support as one was likely to find. In a call situation, my father would have been thrown out on his ear.

Now, if the non-demon want to call that corrupt, well, that's their problem. Sometimes leaders have to lead, including leading against the grain and the will of the congregation. Our system gives us the freedom to do that when a call system does not.

 

[circuitrider]

Think what you will, I'm not going to back off from it. I can remember when my father welcomed a black family to a church in NW Indiana. He was appointed to a church outside of Gary.

Well said GraceSeeker! Sometimes the leadership of the Church is called upon to not only be "priest", that is care for the seek and the needy and the needs of the congregation but to also be "prophet" and take a stand for the truth no matter what the cost.

My experience with churches with a call system is that it is even harder to be a prophet and stand for truth when you are en employee off those who are called to lead. How can you really be a prophetic leader when you are hired, housed, paid, and fired by the very people you are trying to lead?

In congregationalist systems the pastor can simply become the mouth piece of the congregation rather than the pastor.

I know Bryan is concerned about the collective will of the laity. I get that. But clergy are called by God, trained, educated, vetted, examined for many years and finally ordained so that we can be leaders in the Church.

Why have clergy, why have theological education, why training, and why vetting, if ultimately the pastor must must do and say whatever the least trained person in the local church might believe because they hold the purse string or might cause trouble or might disagree?

Ultimately pastors have to represent the Church that ordained them and their calling from God even when that does not represent what an individual local congregation believes.

 

[Joykins]

Only if that is the only way people look at it. The three options as I see it are 1. We keep the current rule that we don't perform same sex marriages. 2. We change the rule to allow each pastor and church to decide what they weddings they will allow/perform. 3. Same sex marriages are allowed and like the our current rule, no one will have a choice on doing them or not.

For many number 2 would be preferreable and considered a middle way.

Or we offer blessing of same-sex unions but not a marriage..allow UMC facilities to host same-sex weddings but not pastors to perform them--there are a number of creative ways to create a middle way that pleases no-one.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Or we offer blessing of same-sex unions but not a marriage..allow UMC facilities to host same-sex weddings but not pastors to perform them--there are a number of creative ways to create a middle way that pleases no-one.

Bingo. Even as a moderate/middle of the road person; I've not been impressed by any potential 'compromise' situations on this particular issue. You either do it or you don't.

However I'm not so sure "You must do it" really applies. I can refuse to marry for any reason. I suppose we would make refusing on the grounds of homosexuality a chargeable offense or something? (If we went 'full left' instead of in the middle). Just to 'clarify'. I think some seem to think that we'll be in a system where we have to marry anyone who walks in our door. I had a couple who had known each other just a couple of months; each had been divorced more than half a dozen times, and wanted to get married within a couple of weeks and "Didn't want a lot of preaching and stuff". They also didn't want to do pre-marital counselling. I refused that wedding. And I was well within my rights to do so.

As to the laity vs clergy comment; that's one thing that separates our "call system" brothers and sisters. We are not the hired help of the churches there to do what we're told by the laity of the congregation. Some folks don't like that. They want the Pastor to preach, teach, and lead as they see fit. Those individuals would probably be happier in a call system church where the Pastor is effectively their employee.

In the UMC we are appointed; we believe that God has sent us to our churches through the authority of the office of the Bishop- to lead. While we answer to our churches in some ways (like with the PPR, etc.); we are sent there to LEAD the church. Not just to do what we're told and preach nice sermons. And yes; I do believe my call and the call of my colleagues is to lead my congregation. Not bully, force, demand or 'instruct' as some Pastors might. But to lead them, including spiritually and theologically. That's the job I've been given.

HOWEVER; remember that General Conference is equal parts lay and clergy. While the local churches are led by a Clergyperson; the denomination is led by both clergy-elected clergy, and laity-elected laity. The document that both sets and restricts the office of the Pastor; the book of Discipline, is equally authored by lay people within the church. That is something that is largely uniquely United Methodist. The criticism was that stuffy old men with M.Div's lead the church. That's just not true of the UMC. There are lay people on our district and conference committees; often evenly so, and again- stuffy old lay people have as much authority as stuffy old clergy in our denomination! That criticism is just not valid. We don't have bishops, Cardinals and a pope writing the rules for our denomination. We have laity and clergy meeting together.

 

[Joykins]

It's an issue that I'm personally torn on. I am 100% in favor of civil same-sex marriage and I think churches ought to be able to decide for themselves what to do on the issue. I just can't 100% decide for my own church apparently. Possibly because I am new enough to it (only 7 years) and never officially joined? Either way you upset longstanding traditions about sexual morality that do have a Biblical basis, or you sell out your gay brothers and sisters who want to commit to each other in faith and fidelity. There isn't any way around that.

 

[circuitrider]

Joykins, I appreciate your struggle. I was at the spot for a long time. I finally spent time reading studies about the texts written by a number of people and doing some of my own exigetical work in the Greek NT. I finally concluded that the traditional interpretation of the passages, particularly in Paul, are not necessarily really what Paul was talking about.

Once I was convinced that Paul was really talking about temple prostitution and pedophilia my reservations about not agreeing with the traditional English interpretation were removed.

That may not help you. But it reminded me that scriptural interpretations have been updated on women in ministry, slavary, mixed race marriages, etc.

I'm not saying the issues are the same. But we have significant examples where for years and years Christians believed the Bible said "A" and now we believe it really always said "B."

I see this happening again with the issues around same sex marriage.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Joykins, I appreciate your struggle. I was at the spot for a long time. I finally spent time reading studies about the texts written by a number of people and doing some of my own exigetical work in the Greek NT. I finally concluded that the traditional interpretation of the passages, particularly in Paul, are not necessarily really what Paul was talking about.

I believe I've read those same studies. I come out thinking that Paul does indeed mean exactly what the BOD presently says about the practice of homosexuality being incompatible with Christian teaching. But I will listen one more time if you care to articulate yourself.

And, please, any mods who happen upon circuitrider's response. Understand that he is NOT promoting anything, he is answering a specific question that he has been requested to answer. So, don't short-circuit his response. This is how United Methodists learn and grow and confirm our faith. Our Wesleyan Quadrilateral tells us to use Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason to reflect on the praxis of our faith. And we engage in Christian conversation in order to receive and give feedback to/from one another for mutual edification. To deny us this opportunity is to deny the principles set forth in CF's own rules regarding the principles of congregational forums.

 

[circuitrider]

I'd be happy to but I am on vacation and do not have access to my resources on the subject. If you don't mind, I will delay my answer until I'm back in the office. I really need my Koine resources as well as the studies I've read to give the full explanation.

But the basics are that the words Paul used quite like do not mean what we mean by homosexuality but are much more likely to mean a different set of sexual issues. Without Paul's material you are primarily left with the OT holiness code which already is not applied universally to Christians.

More later.

 

[Joykins]

I'd like to see your interpretation too. I've done some reading on the issues and haven't found the pedophilia/temple prostitution angle very persuasive, but I could give it another shot. I did 2 years of Greek and already have some opinions on what the words mean, though.

 

[circuitrider]

I've taken 15 hours of Greek. But I don't use it enough now to just fire away without my lexicon.

Of course we also have to deal with th fact that we don't always take Paul's advice now because of other reasons. We don't make women wear head coverings. We don't follow Paul's "slaves obey your masters." We don't follow "women keep silent in the churches."

Those are clear statements that we choose not follow either because we believe Paul was being specific to a congregation, was being specific to his culture, etc.

For me another part of the issue is the advances is medical and psychological sciences. If Paul thought homoexuality was a choice and it proves to be not a choice that effects my interpretation of what Paul is getting at.

Again, more when I am near my library.

 

[Joykins]

Enjoy your vacation...I can wait.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'd be happy to but I am on vacation and do not have access to my resources on the subject. If you don't mind, I will delay my answer until I'm back in the office. I really need my Koine resources as well as the studies I've read to give the full explanation.

But the basics are that the words Paul used quite like do not mean what we mean by homosexuality but are much more likely to mean a different set of sexual issues. Without Paul's material you are primarily left with the OT holiness code which already is not applied universally to Christians.

More later.

I can wait. And you don't have to waste time trying to speak to the OT. I don't find an appeal to Leviticus to be particularly convincing for me. But, the NT on the other hand seems to say much the same and even if they are just repeating ideas they picked up from the Levitical code, I think we have to take those statement seriously as applying to Christians of all backgrounds, not just ritual Jews.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I'm interested to hear Timothy's response too.

For those on the more Evangelical side of the fence; do you agree with circuitriders statement about Christianity eventually coming to the conclusion that Homosexuality is acceptable?

I personally do. Now you may disagree with the practice, but that's aside from whether or not the church will shift (the church also shifted away from weekly communion; a practice I disagree with even though much of protestantism has concluded it's okay and has made up their mind!) However with the momentum the issue has, the positions the younger generations take on the issue (not young Clergy though; interestingly. Young Clergy are just as conservative as the rest of the Clergy; and far more conservative than their non-Clergy peers), and just the general cultural inacceptance of a traditional view on the issue tells me that inside a few decades I think homosexuality will be a bygone conclusion. Inside of a few decades most Mainline churches will affirm homosexuality, with fundamentalist denominations beginning to do so once they figure out some good excuses (like, what I often hear about women in ministry NOW from Fundamentalists; 'Well, I guess if God can't find a suitable man he could call a woman'). And by this time society will have long since concluded that there's nothing immoral about homosexuality.

Now that doesn't mean we need to change BECAUSE society is changing (if we need to change it should be because of scripture). So I'm not saying any of that; please don't read into that too much and think I'm trying to somehow push or justify one side or the other. This is a purely neutral, no-opinions-attached question about whether or not you think the church will eventually conclude that, like it has concluded with slavery, women in ministry, and other social issues over the years (that for centuries the 'bible clearly said'; and it now 'clearly' says something else), conclude that homosexuality is not sinful?

I'm hoping for some good responses on that question. Often when I ask I get a lot of rhetoric of why it's not scriptural. But I'm not looking for that. I'm asking if you all think that, even if you disagree with it, the church (as a whole) is headed in the direction of that theological interpretation?

 

[Maid Marie]

I'm interested to hear Timothy's response too.

For those on the more Evangelical side of the fence; do you agree with circuitriders statement about Christianity eventually coming to the conclusion that Homosexuality is acceptable?

I personally do. Now you may disagree with the practice, but that's aside from whether or not the church will shift (the church also shifted away from weekly communion; a practice I disagree with even though much of protestantism has concluded it's okay and has made up their mind!) However with the momentum the issue has, the positions the younger generations take on the issue (not young Clergy though; interestingly. Young Clergy are just as conservative as the rest of the Clergy; and far more conservative than their non-Clergy peers), and just the general cultural inacceptance of a traditional view on the issue tells me that inside a few decades I think homosexuality will be a bygone conclusion. Inside of a few decades most Mainline churches will affirm homosexuality, with fundamentalist denominations beginning to do so once they figure out some good excuses (like, what I often hear about women in ministry NOW from Fundamentalists; 'Well, I guess if God can't find a suitable man he could call a woman'). And by this time society will have long since concluded that there's nothing immoral about homosexuality.

Now that doesn't mean we need to change BECAUSE society is changing (if we need to change it should be because of scripture). So I'm not saying any of that; please don't read into that too much and think I'm trying to somehow push or justify one side or the other. This is a purely neutral, no-opinions-attached question about whether or not you think the church will eventually conclude that, like it has concluded with slavery, women in ministry, and other social issues over the years (that for centuries the 'bible clearly said'; and it now 'clearly' says something else), conclude that homosexuality is not sinful?

I'm hoping for some good responses on that question. Often when I ask I get a lot of rhetoric of why it's not scriptural. But I'm not looking for that. I'm asking if you all think that, even if you disagree with it, the church (as a whole) is headed in the direction of that theological interpretation?

Oh, I don't know... I guess it depends on factors. The "Church" is so big and diverse.

I went to a workshop at a recent pastors' conference that was entitled "The Church can be enough: How to minister to those with unwanted same sex attraction." From it, I was left with the thought that those with unwanted SSA are just as broken as the rest of us and are in need of unconditional love just like everyone else is. My lack of unconditional love from my grandmother and from my childhood church have left me with anxiety. When I receive unconditional love from many around me [the kind that communicates to me that I am valuable just for being me], anxiety disappears. When I am surrounded by those who don't love me unconditionally, and who judge and condemn me, then anxiety is sky high. If a church or even as big as a denomination can realize that our jobs are to love with the unconditional love of Christ [by that I mean a love that says to the person "you matter, you are valuable because you are made in the image of God"] and not attack or condemn.

I am probably not clear...what I mean is, I don't want to be in a church that says "anxiety is ok...Your anxiety is a GOOD, God - given thing and we would never want to take that away from you! We love you and want to affirm you in your anxiety." I'd rather be in a church that says "We love you and want to affirm you as a child of God. We want to minister to you with Christ's Love for your anxiety to be healed." And when I left the workshop, it made me think that I usually only hear about two choices: a) SSA is sin thus, those who have this are sinners and are to be treated like pariahs, b) SSA is not sin thus those who have this are to be told that they are not sinning and are not be lovely encouraged to leave that lifestyle. But now, I am thinking that there is a third way, it is another form of brokenness that God didn't intend for us to have and unconditional love of Christ will help heal that brokenness.

So, I think those Christians and churches that get this will not need to agree with society that SSA is ok. But who knows what churches will grasp this? If churches aren't seeing the power of God to transform people I can see them fall in with society and say it is not sin.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Also; to throw one more wrench in the issue.

I do seem to see a lot of UM Clergy quoted in a number of more progressive publications. Whether or not it's representative of the entire denomination; it appears to me that the progressive wing of United Methodism is the one that's the most visible in the media. That's probably because evangelical points of view are a dime a dozen. And while the progressive wing is growing (which excites some of you and turns the stomach of others of you!); they are still new/fresh/exciting enough that when a visible Pastor in a major Christian denomination speaks any sort of 'liberal' POV (Even if it's not really a 'liberal' point of view; such as rejecting zealous/xenophobic patriotism in the church. I don't consider that a liberal POV; it's just not a southern-baptist fundamentalist point of view); whether it's speaking for LGBTQ rights or protesting deportations if a liberal Christian leader is in the news, it seems like they are probably a Methodist.

But; like I said, I don't think that's because the UMC is more liberal. I think it's just because if you want the Evangelical perspective; just throw a rock. You'll hit an evangelical 9 times out of 10. Which means you can easily find an evangelical Baptist, AoG, Catholic, etc. etc. Remember that the SBC is the largest protestant denomination in the US! No matter how big we might be we're outnumbered by the most conservative wings of Christianity. Liberal Christians are a little more 'compartmentalized'. You're not going to find a vocal, successful leader in the Southern Baptist Church speaking out in favor of gay marriage or getting arrested for protesting a deportation.

That's the funny thing about Methodism. The same denomination that prohibits gay marriage and has a majority of lay persons responding to polls (even if it's a small majority) that they support that language. The same denomination that has de-frocked Pastors for presiding over gay weddings, etc. etc., is the same denomination who has a handful of leaders who speak for the LGBTQ issues prominently in the media.