- Nov 26, 2019
- 10,927
- 5,591
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
For those of you who don’t know, leaders in the UMC have been planning a schism as a way around the traditionalist coalition of nearly all African, and a plurality American parishes that adhere to Biblical Christian doctrine on human sexuality, and which at every General Conference since 1972 have voted as a block to prevent the UMC from following in the footsteps of the Episcopal Church, the PCUSA, the ELCA, my old stomping grounds the UCC, and other mainline denominations.
Under the proposal a new traditional church would be separated from the UMC and given $25 million. But to me this seems unfair, especially to people who have seen their local Methodist parishes taken over by heterodox clergy (I have a friend whose parish received an arrogant new elder who was an avowed Arian, rejecting the Nicene creed as he disagreed Christ was “of one essence with the father,” and who alienated the very talented organist and her husband, who led the choir, causing them to go to another parish.
Given that the traditionalists have the votes, what baffles me is that no one in the Methodist communities online is talking about the alternative, which would be to defrock the clergy, and break ties with seminaries, that do not agree with the 1972 doctrinal statement of the UMC affirming a Biblical view of human sexuality. This would save many declining congregations, where people have been alienated and have left to join other churches, and in the few parishes where the majority of the laity actually support an unbiblical view of human sexuality, these need to become mission parishes, where the most faithful and doctrinally solid pastors can be sent to spread the true Gospel to a hostile audience, and call the laity to repentance.
This can’t happen, obviously, if the UMC divides itself. And also, why should the non-traditional church get to keep the name, given that the majority of United Methodists worldwide would affiliate with the traditional church?
Under the proposal a new traditional church would be separated from the UMC and given $25 million. But to me this seems unfair, especially to people who have seen their local Methodist parishes taken over by heterodox clergy (I have a friend whose parish received an arrogant new elder who was an avowed Arian, rejecting the Nicene creed as he disagreed Christ was “of one essence with the father,” and who alienated the very talented organist and her husband, who led the choir, causing them to go to another parish.
Given that the traditionalists have the votes, what baffles me is that no one in the Methodist communities online is talking about the alternative, which would be to defrock the clergy, and break ties with seminaries, that do not agree with the 1972 doctrinal statement of the UMC affirming a Biblical view of human sexuality. This would save many declining congregations, where people have been alienated and have left to join other churches, and in the few parishes where the majority of the laity actually support an unbiblical view of human sexuality, these need to become mission parishes, where the most faithful and doctrinally solid pastors can be sent to spread the true Gospel to a hostile audience, and call the laity to repentance.
This can’t happen, obviously, if the UMC divides itself. And also, why should the non-traditional church get to keep the name, given that the majority of United Methodists worldwide would affiliate with the traditional church?