• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

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

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
It is precisely God's Word that convinces me that women are indeed called by God to be leaders in His Church. And it is the rules and conventions of men that have resulted in distorted readings of scripture abridged to make it appear otherwise.



And you still didn't answer my question:


This isn't a trick question. The answer is right in the Word of God.
"Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing. I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage you." (Ephesians 6:21-22)

And that answer is very relevant to the question about Paul's view of women. For who was it that Paul asked to be the one to deliver his other letters? Not all are identified, but some are. Check it out and get back to me.

Well, I guess our friend with the accusations was just a transient passing through. So, allow me to answer my own question. When it comes to what many consider Paul's most important letter, Paul's letter to the church at Rome, I want to suggest that it was "our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae."

I suggest that because she is the first person mentioned in this section of personal comments as Paul closes his letter. He commends her to the Roman Christians and asks them to receive her. He does not ask them to receive anyone else. But they need to receive her because she has come to them from Paul, and I suggest with the letter. Everyone else in the list is greeted or sends greetings, meaning that they are in place. Phoebe is the only one on the move -- ostensibly as the bearer of the message.

But the implications of that are enormous. This woman, already recognized by Paul as a deacon (the word deacon refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; as in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8,12) of the church, is going to be the one to explain and interpret Paul's letter if people have questions as to what Paul meant. In other words she is going to be teaching the church the meaning of Paul's most important theological treatise; in fact she will be the very first interpreter of it.
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,478
7,728
Parts Unknown
✟263,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup. Please keep the following rule in mind:

Congregational Forum Restrictions and orthodox Christian Only Forums
● Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for orthodox Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in the Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion forum.

If a post of yours is missing, and you didn't receive a PM about it, it was deleted for quoting or addressing a post that was in violation of the rules.


MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

circuitrider

United Methodist
Site Supporter
Sep 1, 2013
2,071
391
Iowa
✟125,034.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I don't want to quibble with the Moderator. But United Methodists, one of the groups here in Wesley's Parish, do not require adhearance to the Nicene Creed as a doctrinal standard. What are we supposed to do with that? Our Doctrinal standards are John Wesley's Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church, and The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church.

Also several groups who have faith groups on this forum including Baptists and the UCC do not require adhearance to the Nicene Creed. So how do we have a Wesleyan forum if we are, by forum rules, prohibited from believed like Wesleyan Christians?
 
Upvote 0

RomansFiveEight

A Recovering Fundamentalist
Feb 18, 2014
697
174
✟24,665.00
Gender
Male
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I don't want to quibble with the Moderator. But United Methodists, one of the groups here in Wesley's Parish, do not require adhearance to the Nicene Creed as a doctrinal standard. What are we supposed to do with that? Our Doctrinal standards are John Wesley's Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church, and The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church.

Also several groups who have faith groups on this forum including Baptists and the UCC do not require adhearance to the Nicene Creed. So how do we have a Wesleyan forum if we are, by forum rules, prohibited from believed like Wesleyan Christians?

+1. In fact some of the denominations here on this forum are doctrinally in disagreement with parts of the nicene creed. It's for that reason that the Apostles creed is generally considered to be a better ecumenical explanation of orthodoxy. "One baptism" certainly doesn't fit with the non liturgical denominations who practice re-baptism frequently.
 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
759
NE Florida
✟30,381.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't want to quibble with the Moderator. But United Methodists, one of the groups here in Wesley's Parish, do not require adhearance to the Nicene Creed as a doctrinal standard. What are we supposed to do with that? Our Doctrinal standards are John Wesley's Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church, and The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church.

Also several groups who have faith groups on this forum including Baptists and the UCC do not require adhearance to the Nicene Creed. So how do we have a Wesleyan forum if we are, by forum rules, prohibited from believed like Wesleyan Christians?

I believe someone pointed out in this forum about a week ago that many people here consider Wesleyans to be "fallen Christians". I'm surprised they allow us to be in the orthodox Christianity section at all. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GraceSeeker
Upvote 0

circuitrider

United Methodist
Site Supporter
Sep 1, 2013
2,071
391
Iowa
✟125,034.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I agree RomansFiveEight, the Apostles' Creed is a better ecumenical statement as it is the simplist yet even that is not listed as an official UMC doctrinal standard or a standard for any non-creedal church such as Baptists or the Disciples of Christ or even the Church of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Honest Al

Newbie
Nov 23, 2013
279
36
Kingsville, OH, USA
Visit site
✟15,738.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not a Methodist, and I hope I'm not going to be breaking the rules, but I wanted to add something that I feel is appropriate here:

A number of years back my wife and I became friends with an older couple. He was a retired Methodist pastor who now traveled around and ministered to ministers. He told my wife and me, "Christ can be your Savior while not being your Lord."

I don't know what other Methodists believe (I'd be interested to know), but I my mind that's extremely liberal. (Liberal in this case meaning un-Biblical.)

God Bless,

P.S.--As I said, I'm not a Methodist, but from what I've read, I believe John Wesley was a great servant of God. (And the world sure needs more men like him today.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Honest Al

Newbie
Nov 23, 2013
279
36
Kingsville, OH, USA
Visit site
✟15,738.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi again,

If I may ;), I have a quote from Wesley that I'd like to share. I think it fits in well in this discussion.

"Others allege, 'Their doctrine is too strict; they make the way to heaven too narrow.' And this is in truth the original objection, (as it was almost the only one for some time,) and is secretly at the bottom of a thousand more, which appear in various forms. But do they make the way to heaven any narrower than our Lord and His apostles made it? Is their doctrine stricter than that of the Bible? Consider only a few plain texts: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength.' 'For every idle word which men shall speak, they shall give an account in the day of judgment.' 'Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God.'
"If their doctrine is stricter than this, they are to blame; but you know in your conscience it is not. And who can be one jot less strict without corrupting the word of God? Can any steward of the mysteries of God be found faithful if he change any part of that sacred depositum? No. He can abate nothing, he can soften nothing; he is constrained to declare to all men, 'I may not bring down the Scripture to your taste. You must come up to it, or perish forever.' This is the real ground of that other popular cry concerning 'the uncharitableness of these men.' Uncharitable, are they? In what respect? Do they not feed the hungry and clothe the naked? 'No; that is not the thing: they are not wanting in this: but they are so uncharitable in judging! they think none can be saved but those of their own way.'" {Works, vol. 3, pp. 152, 153}

I wonder how popular John Wesley would be if he were alive today and preaching stuff like that? (I hope he'd be popular with me. :))

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RomansFiveEight

A Recovering Fundamentalist
Feb 18, 2014
697
174
✟24,665.00
Gender
Male
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I agree RomansFiveEight, the Apostles' Creed is a better ecumenical statement as it is the simplist yet even that is not listed as an official UMC doctrinal standard or a standard for any non-creedal church such as Baptists or the Disciples of Christ or even the Church of Christ.

Right. Our only Doctrine is our... er.. Doctrine! In fact, should a church want to join the UMC, the Book of Discipline requires them to entirely denounce any creeds, documents, constitutions, etc. in order to become a UM congregation. So a credal church would have to, in a sort of way, replace their creeds with the Book of Discipline. Not that I think our Doctrinal statements are in conflict with the Apostles Creed; but as you say, it would be inaccurate to say that UM's are Orthodox because we 'believe the Apostles creed', because while we may, our denomination does not adopt it.


I'm not a Methodist, and I hope I'm not going to be breaking the rules, but I wanted to add something that I feel is appropriate here:

A number of years back my wife and I became friends with an older couple. He was a retired Methodist pastor who now traveled around and ministered to ministers. He told my wife and me, "Christ can be your Savior while not being your Lord."

I don't know what other Methodists believe (I'd be interested to know), but I my mind that's extremely liberal. (Liberal in this case meaning un-Biblical.)

God Bless,

P.S.--As I said, I'm not a Methodist, but from what I've read, I believe John Wesley was a great servant of God. (And the world sure needs more men like him today.)

I'd have to know the context of what that Pastor was meaning. That sounds like a statement that could mean a lot of things. Actually, I might echo his sentiments. There are a lot of people for whom Christ is their savior but not their Lord. I wouldn't mean that in a positive way. I would mean that to say that for a lot of people, Jesus is a genie in a bottle who gives them salvation and that they never give another thought. Because of my belief (And the belief of United Methodists) in sanctification and salvation as something greater than a one time event; I might question whether that person really does have Jesus as their savior anyway (but at the end of the day, God gave us the Bible; not the book of life; so I do not play the dangerously blasphemous game of deciding who is "saved" and who isn't.)

Also, I'd like to clarify. It sounds like you mean that Liberal means a lack of adherence to the Bible. Do you? It's understandable, that's what's said by a lot of far-right leaning denominations. The absolute far-left Christians, (Unitarian Universalists for example), may have a belief that the Bible is not necessarily sacred or even that it's an outdated doctrine. But that's not most Liberal Christians. Just like most Conservative Christians aren't Westboro Baptist protesting the funerals of dead soldiers. Most Liberal Christians (and moderates as well) denounce the idea that the Bible is to be taken literally and to be taken as inerrant (That's a fairly new theology and not what the church has believed throughout it's history). But most liberals and moderates like myself do believe the Bible is authoritative. We think the Bible is important, very very very important. We think the Bible contains the knowledge of everything needed for our salvation and is the real story of Jesus Christ. But it wasn't written to be taken literally and it was written by human beings who were capable of making mistakes and it has been translated by human beings who are also capable of making mistakes. That's liberal; compared to the far-right. I would consider it theologically conservative; actually. It's the way the Bible has been understood for centuries. It's the relatively new theology of Biblical inerracy and literal-ness that is being touted by Conservative groups. But generally that's understood to be in the 'middle' or perhaps just right or just left of middle theologically. Not necessarily Liberal. So I'm not sure if "Liberal is in un-Biblical" is a fair comparison.

Liberals have a different interpretation of the scripture than Conservatives. They tend to be impacted pretty heavily by society and secularism; but it doesn't mean they are abandoning the scripture in favor of society. You may not agree with their interpretation of the Bible (I don't agree with every Liberal understanding of scripture either. But I also vehemently disagree with this new American doctrine of a literal, inerrant Bible. So that's why I identify as a moderate/middle. Or perhaps a 'Progressive evangelical', although most UM evangelicals would agree with me. But certainly not Baptist evangelicals) I think it's only fair that even if someone has a practice that we think is totally against the scriptures; that we recognize that those people aren't abandoning the scriptures; just interpreting in a way we find to be incorrect.
 
Upvote 0

Historicus

Follower of Jesus Christ
Apr 20, 2005
31,663
2,582
Ohio
✟70,435.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Mod Hat ON

Hi folks :wave: A bit of clarification here.

All members of CF who post in the Christian only sections are required to accept the contents of the Nicene Creed, which is CF's sitewide statement of faith, in order to be considered "orthodox." You do not have to personally use the Creed in order to post as long as you accept the contents.

Secondly, we welcome all Christians to make fellowship posts here in Wesley's Parish and to ask sincere questions. What is prohibited by CF rules is Non-Wesleyans debating or teaching, especially if it is contrary to our doctrine in our forum. There are other forums here at CF for this purpose. Otherwise you are welcome to participate.

Third, if you have an issue to discuss with staff, please do so either via PM or you can open a thread in the Member Services Center to talk with administrators. We are more than happy to assist you in any way we can.

Now, let's keep this thread on topic. :wave:

Mod Hat Off
 
Upvote 0

Honest Al

Newbie
Nov 23, 2013
279
36
Kingsville, OH, USA
Visit site
✟15,738.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'd have to know the context of what that Pastor was meaning. That sounds like a statement that could mean a lot of things. Actually, I might echo his sentiments. There are a lot of people for whom Christ is their savior but not their Lord. I wouldn't mean that in a positive way. I would mean that to say that for a lot of people, Jesus is a genie in a bottle who gives them salvation and that they never give another thought. Because of my belief (And the belief of United Methodists) in sanctification and salvation as something greater than a one time event; I might question whether that person really does have Jesus as their savior anyway (but at the end of the day, God gave us the Bible; not the book of life; so I do not play the dangerously blasphemous game of deciding who is "saved" and who isn't.)

Hi RomansFiveEight,

The pastor was not saying what you just said. He was saying that you can accept Christ as your Savior while not at the same time accepting Him as your Lord. (For me, whatever term one gives it, liberal or some other title: that's a horribly un-Biblical belief.) And I'm glad you and the United Methodists in general do not agree with the pastor.

(I'll address the "liberal" thing in a separate post.)

Thanks for infoming me.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,502
10,868
New Jersey
✟1,351,597.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The pastor was not saying what you just said. He was saying that you can accept Christ as your Savior while not at the same time accepting Him as your Lord. (For me, whatever term one gives it, liberal or some other title: that's a horribly un-Biblical belief.) (And I'm glad you and the United Methodists in general do not agree with the pastor.)

Are you sure? That would be a weird belief. It's certainly not a liberal one. Liberals see Jesus as establishing the Kingdom of God, and calling people to respond. A key part of the social gospel is Christ's demands that people treat each other properly. Christ has a right to make these demands because he is Lord. The quotation above from Wesley is quite compatible with this. I'm not sure I'd call Wesley a liberal, but his approach had some similarities to the later social gospel movement. (Note by the way that I'm using both liberal and social gospel as normally used in church history, and not as generic swear words, as you'll sometimes hear.)

The only group I know of that truly believes we aren't responsible for obeying Jesus is certain kinds of free grace people. That's not typically considered a liberal movement.

Is it possible that he was speaking of salvation of non-Christians? Many people, including many Methodists, think that God can save non-Christians. They would have Jesus as savior but in a certain sense not lord (though that's not the way I'd describe it).

If you want to speak of liberal Christianity in general, and not specifically Methodism, it might be better to do it in general theology. I'd suggest the moderate or liberal forums, except that attacking the core theology of those groups is not really appropriate in the forums. However if anyone is seriously interested in understanding where liberal Christian thought comes from, and how it differs from conservative stereotypes, it might be appropriate there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Honest Al

Newbie
Nov 23, 2013
279
36
Kingsville, OH, USA
Visit site
✟15,738.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Also, I'd like to clarify. It sounds like you mean that Liberal means a lack of adherence to the Bible. Do you? It's understandable, that's what's said by a lot of far-right leaning denominations. The absolute far-left Christians, (Unitarian Universalists for example), may have a belief that the Bible is not necessarily sacred or even that it's an outdated doctrine. But that's not most Liberal Christians. Just like most Conservative Christians aren't Westboro Baptist protesting the funerals of dead soldiers. Most Liberal Christians (and moderates as well) denounce the idea that the Bible is to be taken literally and to be taken as inerrant (That's a fairly new theology and not what the church has believed throughout it's history). But most liberals and moderates like myself do believe the Bible is authoritative. We think the Bible is important, very very very important. We think the Bible contains the knowledge of everything needed for our salvation and is the real story of Jesus Christ. But it wasn't written to be taken literally and it was written by human beings who were capable of making mistakes and it has been translated by human beings who are also capable of making mistakes. That's liberal; compared to the far-right. I would consider it theologically conservative; actually. It's the way the Bible has been understood for centuries. It's the relatively new theology of Biblical inerracy and literal-ness that is being touted by Conservative groups. But generally that's understood to be in the 'middle' or perhaps just right or just left of middle theologically. Not necessarily Liberal. So I'm not sure if "Liberal is in un-Biblical" is a fair comparison.

Liberals have a different interpretation of the scripture than Conservatives. They tend to be impacted pretty heavily by society and secularism; but it doesn't mean they are abandoning the scripture in favor of society. You may not agree with their interpretation of the Bible (I don't agree with every Liberal understanding of scripture either. But I also vehemently disagree with this new American doctrine of a literal, inerrant Bible. So that's why I identify as a moderate/middle. Or perhaps a 'Progressive evangelical', although most UM evangelicals would agree with me. But certainly not Baptist evangelicals) I think it's only fair that even if someone has a practice that we think is totally against the scriptures; that we recognize that those people aren't abandoning the scriptures; just interpreting in a way we find to be incorrect.

Hi again,

I hope I give others room to interpret the Scriptures differently than I do. (I certainly realize that on a number of points I interpret the Scriptures differently than mainline Christians, including Methodists.) But at the same time I think it's clearly Biblical, and I imagine you would agree with this, that through all time the greater percentage of God's professed people have simply not wanted to walk in His ways:

"Again and again, the LORD has sent you his prophets, but you have not listened or even tried to hear." {Jeremiah 25:4 NLT}

I only have a few minutes left, so in a quick nutshell: For me, these words of Christ are extremely applicable here (and many other places as well):

"Broad is the way which lead to destruction, and many are those who enter by it... Narrow is the way to life, and only a few ever find it." {Matthew 7:13, 14}

To me, liberals are always trying to broaden the way--or to put it another way, lower the standard. And while I shave my beard and my wife doesn't wear a headcovering (some would call that liberal--but I call it interpreting the Scriptures differently than they do ;)), there must be some instances where people simply don't want to follow God's way but aren't willing to admit that, so therefore they interpret the Scriptures to suit their own desires:

"A time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear." {2 Timothy 4:3 NLT}

The people talked about in the passage up above are the people I would label as liberals.

God Bless
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
A number of years back my wife and I became friends with an older couple. He was a retired Methodist pastor who now traveled around and ministered to ministers. He told my wife and me, "Christ can be your Savior while not being your Lord."

As they say, context is everything. So, not having heard it in context of either the circumstance, conversation, or the person's own life it's really a hard saying to respond to.

However, as a theological statement capable of providing guidance for one's Christian walk, I believe it would be a poor choice. That is why when we ask questions of those joining the United Methodist Church one of them is the following:
Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in union with the church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races?

The expected response is "I do."

Further, I would submit that for the early church, the Lordship of Christ was perhaps what was the foundational issue on which any subsequent soteriology could be developed.

Now, if the pastor was trying to say something to the effect that there are many persons who claim they are Christians because they want Jesus as their Savior even though they fail to recognize him as Lord. Then, yeah. I would have to agree with him. See it all the time.
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,720
1,181
55
Down in Mary's Land
✟44,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm not a Methodist, and I hope I'm not going to be breaking the rules, but I wanted to add something that I feel is appropriate here:

A number of years back my wife and I became friends with an older couple. He was a retired Methodist pastor who now traveled around and ministered to ministers. He told my wife and me, "Christ can be your Savior while not being your Lord."

I can't think of any context where that shouldn't be followed with "but that would be a terrible idea." (or words to that effect)

I don't know what other Methodists believe (I'd be interested to know), but I my mind that's extremely liberal. (Liberal in this case meaning un-Biblical.)

That's not what "liberal" means. I identify as a liberal and I don't think that is at all a good picture of what a Christian walk should be...maybe it describes what we would have called "fire insurance" back in my evangelical days?
 
Upvote 0

circuitrider

United Methodist
Site Supporter
Sep 1, 2013
2,071
391
Iowa
✟125,034.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
To me, liberals are always trying to broaden the way--or to put it another way, lower the standard. And while I shave my beard and my wife doesn't wear a headcovering (some would call that liberal--but I call it interpreting the Scriptures differently than they do ;)), there must be some instances where people simply don't want to follow God's way but aren't willing to admit that, so therefore they interpret the Scriptures to suit their own desires:

I think you may need a new/different definition of "liberal." I see conservative Christians also using their own theological methodologies to interpret the Bible to suit their own desires, theologies, or political views just as much as any liberal does.

As an example, IMHO, it is inconsitant to be Pro-life (supporting the life of the unborn) and at the same time not have compassion on children who have crossed the US southern border. How are born children worth less than unborn children?

Yet it has been primarily conservatives who have chosen to lift up passages about life to defend their pro-life view while ignoring passages about caring for the poor to ignore the plight of immigrant children.

There are indeed examples of liberals ignoring one part of the Bible and lifting up another. And liberals get challenged on that but seldom do conservatives.

Liberal or conservative we need to let the Bible speak for itself. When we do that both liberals and conservatives are challenged in their views by the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

circuitrider

United Methodist
Site Supporter
Sep 1, 2013
2,071
391
Iowa
✟125,034.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Arminianism is the extreme liberalism since John changed his mind about the gospel.

Using that kind of argument, Calvinism is the extreme liberalism since before Calvin no such interpretation of scripture ever existed.

A new way of looking at the Bible does not equal liberalism. If it did Dispensationalism would be liberal, inerrancy would be liberal since the idea for scriptural interpreation comes out of the 19th century, being anything but Roman Catholic would be liberal since Protestant/non-Catholic churches all arose long after the new testament period.

But I'd also argue that much of Wesley's theology was not new but simply a recapture and restatement of Biblical theology that was being ignored.
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Yet it has been primarily conservatives who have chosen to lift up passages about life to defend their pro-life view while ignoring passages about caring for the poor to ignore the plight of immigrant children.

A-hem. Apparently I need to be posting some of my other writings here.


SOME PASTORAL REFLECTIONS ON THE WORLD
July 21, 2014


In the spring of 1989 my wife, Mary, and I were licensed foster parents. Our last placement had just been returned to their parents and we had some spare room in our house. We got a call from our caseworker asking us if we could take in two boys who were a special case. You see, these boys weren’t in the system because they came from a bad home situation, but because they had no home. They were refugees.

Sometime in the previous year Hoa and Sahn had fled from their respective homes in Vietnam and escaped to “freedom”. Sahn’s family had smuggled him aboard a boat that ended up adrift in the South China sea before they were rescued and taken to a refugee camp in Malaysia. Hoa had simply walked to freedom, across Vietnam and crossed the borders of Laos and Cambodia before arriving in Thailand where he was apprehended and placed in another refugee camp.

Both boys were lucky in not only being able to escape undetected – for had they been caught what awaited them in Vietnam was horrific -- but in that they did not die on their journey as many did and managed to be placed in a refugee camp. And they were especially lucky in that their status was determined to be that of a refugee.

You see there were then (and still are now) special laws with respect to refugees in our world. Because they were seen as refugees, international law recognized them as having certain rights not as citizens of any country, but simply as human beings. Taking lead from our American Declaration of Independence, the UN recognized that all such persons had a right to life and liberty, and that any country where they ended up was both morally and legally bound to preserve this for them by not returning them to the situation from which they had escaped.

The US, as one of the signers of these UN resolutions, known as the Unaccompanied Minor Refugee Act, even agreed to take some of these refugee children and place them in homes in America. And so it was that Hoa and Sahn made their way to Peoria, IL where they became enrolled as students at Tha Huong, a halfway house operated by Catholic Charities. And after some time learning a little English we got the call asking if we would accept their placement with us.

Mary and I were barely 30 ourselves at the time, and here we were bringing two teenage boys into our home. In time Sahn would grow up, move out on his own, and cease to have contact with us. But Hoa would stay in contact. He became a US citizen, married and has two children who call us Grandma and Grandpa. A few years ago we were visiting Hoa and his family where they now live in Charlotte and met his mother for the first time. I can still remember Hoa’s introduction: “Mom, Dad, this is my mother. Mother, this is Mom, Dad.” Then she came up and gave me the biggest hug of my life – ever. It wasn’t till that moment that I realized the importance of our having said “Yes” to that phone call so many years before. You see, in this woman’s eyes we were the people who had saved her son. The “Yes” we had given as individuals and as a nation had been the very literal difference between life and death for one who was now son to both of us. For those who made such decisions in Washington or when paying the few cents one’s taxes were probably increased it might have been about all sorts of other issues: national sovereignty, economic advantages, doing the right thing and loving one’s neighbor. But for me in that driveway it was about a person, my son.

Sadly, there are always other sons and daughters who find themselves in similar horrific conditions. The country they live in is unsafe because of war, drug cartels, human traffickers, gangs or other forms of violence. Does it really matter the exact reason? And only rarely does it ever involve the US such as when hundreds of thousands of refugees crossed the border from Iraq into Turkey, a secondary collateral damage sort of consequence of US attempts first to free Kuwait and then a few years later to “liberate” Iraq from Sadam Hussein, or when the US did accept many of the Lost Boys of the Sudan as unaccompanied minors and refugees in the same way that Hoa made it into my family.

Today, however, the violence is not on the other side of an ocean. Today it is very near our borders just to the south of us in Central America. There, children as young as 8 are being targeted by gangs, human traffickers and drug cartels as surely as Hoa was targeted by remnants of the Viet Cong. And in those places like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala parents are again saying to children that they love “Good-bye. It isn’t safe for you here. We don’t want you to go. We don’t know what will become of you, or even if you’ll make it. We only know that you can’t stay here, and so we have to take the risk.” For many, their first options were neighboring countries relatively close to home like Belize, Costa Rica and Panama. For others it has involved a long and dangerous journey, like Hoa, crossing many borders to arrive at a refugee camp, this time in the United States.

Now, I need to pause to correct some misinformation that is out there. These children are not coming here as immigrants. It is true that there is a great migration going on at the present time, but it is not immigration as one normally thinks of it. It is not people seeking to get into the United States as much as it is to escape from something else. All that they are looking for in the US, or anywhere else they happen to land, is simple safety. We can see this difference in the fact that the first act by most who make it is not to avoid detection of INS officials, but to turn themselves in to them. A second correction is with regard to their legal status. These children are not here illegally. Oh, yes, I know they did not follow the normally proscribed process of VISAs and immigration documents. But that is because, we need to remind ourselves, they are not immigrants. They are refugees. And that refugee status is what makes all the difference.

Those same UN resolutions that the US was a signatory to that allowed Hoa to find a place of safety in Thailand where he could stay until things were resolved for him are equally applicable to these children from Central America who are crossing our border. Only, we are now the country who needs to provide them a place of safety until things can be resolved for them.

I don’t know what the end result will be. Will conditions improve so that they can return home? Will we need to find families who will open up their lives to them in the US and other parts of the world? I suspect it is too early to know the answers to these questions. But, I think it is clear what our present responsibility is. We need to celebrate that at least these children have made it out, away from the horrors which would lead them to leave home and flee for their lives. We need to provide that place of safety for them to which they are both morally and legally entitled, not as citizens, but simply because all people are entitled to such. And, as the operative government of the land to which they have fled, it is incumbent on us to provide the necessary resources to keep them safe.


(from a Facebook note, also posted in my August 2014 newsletter)


See also another FB status update...
A journalist reflecting on events in the Middle East unknowingly also writes about events at the US border as well...

"As a Jewish youngster growing up in Budapest, an infant survivor of the Nazi genocide, I was for years haunted by a question resounding in my brain with such force that sometimes my head would spin: 'How was it possible? How could the world have let such horrors happen?'

"It was a naïve question, that of a child. I know better now: such is reality. Whether in Vietnam or Rwanda or Syria, humanity stands by either complicitly or unconsciously or helplessly, as it always does. In Gaza today we find ways of justifying the bombing of hospitals, the annihilation of families at dinner, the killing of pre-adolescents playing soccer on a beach."

This is the world we live in, the world we have always lived in, God tells us how to live with one another, but just like Adam and Eve, like Cain, like the prophets describe the supposed people of God and their behavior in the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, each one has turned to their own way. We've perverted the Word of God to us to read in ways we want it to, editing it to fit our fallen thought patterns, rather than God's will:

“When an alien resides among you in your land do not mistreat them"
becomes
"When an alien resides among you in your land picket them with dehumanizing, xenophobic slogans, arrest them without cause and ship them back to their impoverished, violent countries as quickly as possible."

"The aliens residing among you must be treated as your native-born."
becomes
"The aliens residing among you must be treated as criminals and their home countries as places completely unaffected by your trade and foreign policies."

"Love them as yourself for you were once aliens in Egypt."
becomes
"Detain them on military bases and in prisons, speak of them in town halls as though they were plague-carrying rats, and have your first impulse be how to avoid any moral obligation to them for this is your country and they should go back whence they came."

"I am the LORD your God."
becomes
"I am America's God."
 
Upvote 0