The United Methodist Schism

[Anto9us]

like any other divorce, it all boils down to who keeps the silverware

I was in a charismatic Episcopal church in Dallas when a gay bishop was appointed in New Hampshire

things got nasty -- Whew!

though the church/district I was in was very conservative, the fallout was too much to bear

I went back Methodist
now its happening again

no easy way out

 

[Rawtheran]

Sadly, many United Methodists leaders have chosen to teach a doctrine of sexual permissiveness. Some react by suggesting we start a new church. Where would the money come from to do that? I think the best thing we can do is hold our ground – try to get the church back on track.

This is so sad that one of the greatest denominations in Chistendom is going to cave into apostasy and split the church.

 

[dreadnought]

This is so sad that one of the greatest denominations in Chistendom is going to cave into apostasy and split the church.

Yes, it is.

 

[actionsub]

My Rev. has suggested that church property being denomination-owned may slow things down (because if a church decided to break away from the UMC, it would then have to forfeit their usage of those grounds).

We shall see.

It will slow things down a bit to be sure. That said, there is already a conservative group organizing in the event of such a schism-the Wesleyan Covenant Association.

FAQs

I know of one UM megachurch in our area who has set up a number of satellite campuses. However, none of those satellites are officially chartered as United Methodist churches, and most of them are located in strip malls. This may allow for at least that church to pull out, leaving only the main campus (which is a huge building in an affluent area) subject to the trust clause. The pastor of this church is also on the council of the WCA.
I've heard from other sources that it's entirely possible that with such a schism, the trust clause may be completely unenforceable due to the number of properties that may be forfeited to the UMC, leaving them in a bind as to how to liquidate them.

 

[Not David]

I just joined a United Methodist Church by my university after a half year of not going to church. I hope I don't have to find another church if this one becomes permissive of homosexuality.

 

[hedrick]

I just joined a United Methodist Church by my university after a half year of not going to church. I hope I don't have to find another church if this one becomes permissive of homosexuality.

You're in a conservative jurisdiction. Almost any outcome of this argument will leave it opposed to homosexuality.

The worst that could happen is that the denomination might allow other regions to accept it. The bishops have proposed that. But I think it's very unlikely that the denomination will accept their proposal. Everyone knows that opposition to homosexuality is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae.

 

[hedrick]

I've heard from other sources that it's entirely possible that with such a schism, the trust clause may be completely unenforceable due to the number of properties that may be forfeited to the UMC, leaving them in a bind as to how to liquidate them.

It's not like the UMC is the first church to have this experience. It's led to acrimony in other churches, but not to that kind of problem. The number of churches actually leaving has been significant but not unmanageable, and it's unusual for buildings actually to be left with the denomination. My area of the PCUSA has made tolerable demands of churches that are leaving. (Personally I think it's un Christian to make any demands.)

 

[bekkilyn]

Maybe if we as United Methodists were focused on Jesus Christ and making more disciples and saving souls, rather than being hyper-focused on one single social principle (that both sides of the debate can find scriptural support for), we wouldn't even be considering a split.

As it is, I have no intention of going anywhere regardless of the decision. It's ridiculous to even consider a split over something that isn't core theology, such as a disagreement over the divinity of Jesus or predestination or Trinity.

Perhaps we should be more attentive to all the wonderful things United Methodists are doing to serve God all over the world, and how much darker this world would be if all of those things were to go away...all because of a disagreement over a single social principle that really matters very little in the larger scheme of things.

 

[Not David]

Maybe if we as United Methodists were focused on Jesus Christ and making more disciples and saving souls, rather than being hyper-focused on one single social principle (that both sides of the debate can find scriptural support for), we wouldn't even be considering a split.

As it is, I have no intention of going anywhere regardless of the decision. It's ridiculous to even consider a split over something that isn't core theology, such as a disagreement over the divinity of Jesus or predestination or Trinity.

Perhaps we should be more attentive to all the wonderful things United Methodists are doing to serve God all over the world, and how much darker this world would be if all of those things were to go away...all because of a disagreement over a single social principle that really matters very little in the larger scheme of things.

It's not a single social principle. It's about being permissive to accept homosexuality which is considered a sin in the Bible. Of course, churches shouldn't allow other forms of sexual immorality such as adultery and fornication, but those ones aren't the ones being discussed to be approved.

 

[bekkilyn]

It's not a single social principle. It's about being permissive to accept homosexuality which is considered a sin in the Bible. Of course, churches shouldn't allow other forms of sexual immorality such as adultery and fornication, but those ones aren't the ones being discussed to be approved.

Please point out in the United Methodist Book of Discipline where homosexuality is considered as a core theological belief of the denomination that deserves our primary focus, even above and beyond God himself. We have hyper-focused on this issue to the point of idolatry.

 

[Not David]

Please point out in the United Methodist Book of Discipline where homosexuality is considered as a core theological belief of the denomination that deserves our primary focus, even above and beyond God himself. We have hyper-focused on this issue to the point of idolatry.

I don't know. I mentioned that I was new to the United Methodist Church.

 

[dreadnought]

I just joined a United Methodist Church by my university after a half year of not going to church. I hope I don't have to find another church if this one becomes permissive of homosexuality.

A lot of it might depend on your pastor. I hope you have a good one.

 

[dreadnought]

You're in a conservative jurisdiction. Almost any outcome of this argument will leave it opposed to homosexuality.

The worst that could happen is that the denomination might allow other regions to accept it. The bishops have proposed that. But I think it's very unlikely that the denomination will accept their proposal. Everyone knows that opposition to homosexuality is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae.

I wish you'd use words I understand.

 

[Albion]

It's not a single social principle. It's about being permissive to accept homosexuality which is considered a sin in the Bible. Of course, churches shouldn't allow other forms of sexual immorality such as adultery and fornication, but those ones aren't the ones being discussed to be approved.

IMHO, you have a better sense of the situation than some others whose posts I have read over the past few months. The UMC is likely to teeter for some time between joining other of the mainline churches, such as the United Church of Christ, that have moved Left (not just on this particular hot-button issue we are talking about) or OTOH pulling back and reasserting the historic standards as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod did.

 

[tampasteve]

IMHO, you have a better sense of the situation than some others whose posts I have read over the past few months. The UMC is likely to teeter for some time between joining other of the mainline churches, such as the United Church of Christ, that have moved Left (not just on this particular hot-button issue we are talking about) or OTOH pulling back and reasserting the historic standards as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod did.

I would bet on the joining more in line with other mainline churches. The UMC has already made most of the steps in that direction with full communion with TEC and ELCA, among others. Going back does not seem the likely option now.

 

[Albion]

If I had to wager, I would go with what you've said. But I can see several other scenarios that are possible.

Note: I'm keeping this short because, as a visitor, I do not want to drift into advocating for any particular outcome.

 

[food4thought]

It is truly disheartening to know that so many people in the UMC disregard what the NT clearly teaches on this subject (homosexuality in particular: Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:8-11... sexual immorality in general: Mark 7:20-23; 1 Corinthians 6:18; Acts 15:28-29; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; etc.). I am in a fairly liberal conference (Michigan), and my church is mostly comprised of those who stayed even though a former pastor came out as openly gay, and even went so far as to have his "partner" live in the parsonage with him. All this happened before I became a member, but I have no doubt which way my church would go should there be a schism, or even if there is some form of compromise. I am seriously considering finding another church even now...

 

[hedrick]

I would bet on the joining more in line with other mainline churches. The UMC has already made most of the steps in that direction with full communion with TEC and ELCA, among others. Going back does not seem the likely option now.

Not so obvious. There's a big difference between the UMC and those denominations. There is no US governing body for the UMC. There's a world-wide body with representatives from the third world. There are enough of them that combined with US conservatives it is very unlikely that they will ever allow ordination of gays. The percentage from outside the US is growing, so that even with the number within the US that would accept gays growing, it will quite likely always be in a minority.

In my opinion a split is inevitable. I'm not aware of any case in which a conservative majority have voted to allow any level of "local option."

 

[tampasteve]

Not so obvious. There's a big difference between the UMC and those denominations. There is no US governing body for the UMC. There's a world-wide body with representatives from the third world. There are enough of them that combined with US conservatives it is very unlikely that they will ever allow ordination of gays. The percentage from outside the US is growing, so that even with the number within the US that would accept gays growing, it will quite likely always be in a minority.

In my opinion a split is inevitable. I'm not aware of any case in which a conservative majority have voted to allow any level of "local option."

Thank you for the information, I attended a UMC when I was in high school through college, but I never paid attention to the overall organization at the time

 

[hedrick]

I wish you'd use words I understand.

"Articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae" is a famous quote from Luther. It means "article on which the Church stands or falls." He used it to refer to justification by faith.