The United Methodist Schism

[bekkilyn]

It is truly disheartening to know that so many people in the UMC disregard what the NT clearly teaches on this subject

Please keep in mind that both sides of this argument believe they have clear scriptural support for their points of view. It's not that people are disregarding the NT, but are disputing the interpretation.

We can't just cherry-pick a verse out of a chapter of the NT and treat it as literal truth without considering the context of the whole. This may include studying the surrounding culture(s) and cultural influences, looking at the texts in their original languages (a number of words have been mistranslated or under-translated), determining the overall intent of the passage, etc.

Therefore, it's a more complicated issue than just "the bible says" because both sides can claim that one. It's definitely an issue that merits discussion and resolution, but not an issue that merits a split as if we were disputing over Christ's divinity.

 

[Not David]

Please keep in mind that both sides of this argument believe they have clear scriptural support for their points of view. It's not that people are disregarding the NT, but are disputing the interpretation.

We can't just cherry-pick a verse out of a chapter of the NT and treat it as literal truth without considering the context of the whole. This may include studying the surrounding culture(s) and cultural influences, looking at the texts in their original languages (a number of words have been mistranslated or under-translated), determining the overall intent of the passage, etc.

Therefore, it's a more complicated issue than just "the bible says" because both sides can claim that one. It's definitely an issue that merits discussion and resolution, but not an issue that merits a split as if we were disputing over Christ's divinity.

The Unitarians can claim the Bible doesn't talk about the Trinity of God but it doesn't make it doubtful. The same way, the Bible has mentioned that homosexuality is a sin. It's like saying lying during certain times is ok which is false because lying is always a sin no matter the culture or time.

 

[bekkilyn]

The Unitarians can claim the Bible doesn't talk about the Trinity of God but it doesn't make it doubtful. The same way, the Bible has mentioned that homosexuality is a sin. It's like saying lying during certain times is ok which is false because lying is always a sin no matter the culture or time.

When did we start discussing Unitarian theology? Both sides of the debate are all within the same denomination and agree to the same core theology of belief. Both sides can find scriptural support for their claims. Both sides claim that their views are biblical.

 

[Not David]

When did we start discussing Unitarian theology? Both sides of the debate are all within the same denomination and agree to the same core theology of belief. Both sides can find scriptural support for their claims. Both sides claim that their views are biblical.

During the history of Christianity, a lot of people used Scriptures to define their theology? Does it mean all of them are correct?

 

[bekkilyn]

During the history of Christianity, a lot of people used Scriptures to define their theology? Does it mean all of them are correct?

No, but that's a part of the point.

Edit: I thought of something else that may help. Please note that I have not been arguing for or against homosexuality in this thread. My argument here is that it is not a good reason for a split as it is not an issue of core theology.

So let me provide an theoretical example without including homosexuality.

Consider that some Christians believe that sex without the purpose of bearing children is sinful and goes against God's will. Other Christians believe that as long as a couple is in a committed married relationship, they can be as intimate with each other as they please for no particular purpose.

Suppose the United Methodist Church had a social principle that did not condone sexual relations outside of a committed married relationship *and* outside of the purpose of bearing children. Many Methodists disagreed with this principle, but it's a social principle and didn't really affect them personally, so they just went on with things.

Then one day, a married couple believed they heard God calling them into ordained ministry as a clergy couple and started down the ministry track. Only problem was that the man had had an accident in the past and could no longer produce sperm and therefore had no capacity for having children. However, all signs pointed to them actively still practicing heterosexual sex.

The denomination got into a huge argument over it. People started taking sides. Both sides were adamant that their views were biblical and correct and that the other side was being either willfully sinful or willfully ignorant. The denomination started discussing the possibility of a split because neither side could agree on the purpose of marriage and if the denomination started ordaining people who were actively disobeying God's command to "go forth and multiply" then they were going to leave, and the other side was going to leave if they were forced into what they believed was a narrow-minded view of marriage, and unfair to those who could not bear children, did not have the capacity to raise children, or who were past their childbearing years.

Good reason for a split?

 

[Anto9us]

Not a good reason for a split, no, but then again -- in the past -- Methodist churches were split over slavery (before UMC was formed). Many say that the Bible condones slavery, a good case for that, and Paul even sends escaped slave Onesimus back to Philemon (which Torah said not to do). But presently, nobody is "pro-slavery"; the culture moved on.

I dunno what will happen about this homosexuality issue.

 

[hedrick]

Battles over sex and gender have always been difficult. Churches are still split over ordination of women. I'm not sure that's going to go away soon. I'm avoiding making any specific arguments because I'm not a Methodist.

 

[food4thought]

Please keep in mind that both sides of this argument believe they have clear scriptural support for their points of view. It's not that people are disregarding the NT, but are disputing the interpretation.

And I won't get into that because I know that the other side cannot support their view here, so it would not be fair. Suffice to say that to me it is painfully obvious that the other side is seeing what they want to see. I don't have an axe to grind in this matter, as I think homosexuality is just another sin, not something especially horrible... but denying it is a sin and continuing in sin with no remorse is VERY dangerous to one's spiritual condition, so I have to make a stand at ordaining those who are denying that their actions are even sinful.

Therefore, it's a more complicated issue than just "the bible says" because both sides can claim that one.

If you torture the Scripture enough, it will confess to anything.

 

[bekkilyn]

And I won't get into that because I know that the other side cannot support their view here, so it would not be fair. Suffice to say that to me it is painfully obvious that the other side is seeing what they want to see. I don't have an axe to grind in this matter, as I think homosexuality is just another sin, not something especially horrible... but denying it is a sin and continuing in sin with no remorse is VERY dangerous to one's spiritual condition, so I have to make a stand at ordaining those who are denying that their actions are even sinful.

But see, the other side can say the exact same thing about you that you are saying about them, that "it's painfully obvious that the other side is seeing what they want to see."

If you torture the Scripture enough, it will confess to anything.

Which is why cherry picking verses out of the bible without fully being aware of context and intent is very dangerous and can also do a great deal of harm to a great many people. For example, the comment concerning slavery above. At the time, many people were convinced that slavery was justified and biblical, quoting bible verses left and right to support their claims, even among Methodists, and even despite Wesley himself being vehemently against it.

Now it seems we're just repeating history rather than learning from it. Yes, the homosexuality topic is worthy of further exploration by both sides because there is obviously *not* clarity and a more complex issue than many want to give credit to, but a reason for a split? No. That's like saying a family should split up simply because they will never agree on what they should have for dinner that night.

 

[Not David]

But see, the other side can say the exact same thing about you that you are saying about them, that "it's painfully obvious that the other side is seeing what they want to see."



Which is why cherry picking verses out of the bible without fully being aware of context and intent is very dangerous and can also do a great deal of harm to a great many people. For example, the comment concerning slavery above. At the time, many people were convinced that slavery was justified and biblical, quoting bible verses left and right to support their claims, even among Methodists, and even despite Wesley himself being vehemently against it.

Now it seems we're just repeating history rather than learning from it. Yes, the homosexuality topic is worthy of further exploration by both sides because there is obviously *not* clarity and a more complex issue than many want to give credit to, but a reason for a split? No. That's like saying a family should split up simply because they will never agree on what they should have for dinner that night.

Protestants split for any reason.

 

[bekkilyn]

Protestants split for any reason.

Just 'cause we *can* doesn't mean that we *should*!

 

[polkaman]

All our money goes to the food bank. Our tiny church has the largest food bank in the area. They fill up your vehicle to the brim with as much as it will hold - every month.

That is wonderful. Bless your bunch

 

[1stcenturylady]

That is wonderful. Bless your bunch

And that's not all. If anyone is sick or injured, the whole church stands around them and commands them to be healed, and they don't stop until we go out healed. It is powerful and full of faith.

 

[polkaman]

And that's not all. If anyone is sick or injured, the whole church stands around them and commands them to be healed, and they don't stop until we go out healed. It is powerful and full of faith.

That's wonderful. I've been pushing to have
A healing or pray service. No, I don't
Plan to have people jumping out
Of wheelchairs !!
Also trying to push having some
Eve services that uses contemporary
Music, to maybe attract or those
Younger members. (I even enjoy
Some of them !!)

I pray for your continued success and
May you be blessed for what Jesus
Told us to do.

 

[hedrick]

I should note that the Judicial Commission recently decided that petitions other than the one from the bishops can be submitted to the special session.

There had been some concern that only the One Church model could be considered, though it sounds like the bishops were actually forwarding all three. But this ruling allows for more proposals, as long as they are relevant to the topic of the meeting.

Personally I expect the Traditional model to be endorsed, based on past votes. (This leaves the Book of Discipline as it is, prohibiting ordination of gays and gay marriage.) I saw some suggestion that it would include a provision for gracious exit (i.e. leaving with property), and maybe for the separating group to share the pension plan and various support organizations.

 

[revanneosl]

It's going to be a goat rodeo.

 

[tulipbee]

I'll stick around. The bishop has very little to do with the local church. If she ever does come around, I probably won't see her, unless she comes to one of our services.

I thought bishops assign pastors to local churches for the sake of apostolic succession continuation, right. right?

 

[Rawtheran]

I thought bishops assign pastors to local churches for the sake of apostolic succession continuation, right. right?

Itineracy doesn't really have anything to do with Apostolic Succession, its just something that the Methodist Church does in order to preserve the tradition of the circuit riders that rotated churches in the late 18th and early 19th century. While technically it is the Bishop who officially fixes and appoints pastors it is really the District Superintendents that do the majority of the work when it comes to moving pastors and assigning them to churches. It is a very outdated and corrupt system in my opinion.

 

[hedrick]

Every approach to church organization has strengths and weaknesses. The strength of itineracy is that it prevents pastors from becoming identified with their church. In some church traditions, Christianity is what their preacher says it is, and you choose churches by the preacher.

But the model used by traditional Protestant denominations is that the real direction of the local church is set by a session or board, and that the vision of Christianity is a shared one set by confessions and deliberations at a denominational level, and not the personal views of pastors.

I've seen problems caused by the Methodist system. I'm no longer a Methodist. But it's not necessarily outdated and corrupt.

 

[bekkilyn]

I would suggest that itineracy helps to prevent corruption since pastors aren't just moving to where the money is and staying there once they have the largest and richest congregations possible. Because UMC pastors are appointed by the Bishop/DS, pastors also aren't financially controlled by their congregations and threatened with being fired by them if he or she preaches an unpopular sermon topic or steps out of line in some way (in their view). Sometimes pastors need to make unpopular decisions if an unhealthy church is going to become a healthy church, but they often get fired before it can happen. The UMC itineracy system can also help prevent a congregation and/or pastor from becoming complacent and overly-comfortable.