A question about differences

[skypair]

There are issues debated among our many traditions but there are also issues that our traditions are firm on, and frankly aren't up for discussion. So your perspective is welcome, nobody is asking you to change it (I'd like you to pray about it though) but know that the ideology you're presenting is very incompatible with what we believe, so likely you're debating a brick wall here. (And that's not a criticism, just s friendly FYI)

I'm beginning to see that. So how do you know what scriptures to take literally and what not to? Tradition - experience - reason? How do these compare and contrast to the concepts of "the wisdom of men" and "the wisdom of this world" taught in 1Cor 2:4-6?

The men in our Methodist Men's Fellowship seem to receive, even want to know, what I believe about the scriptures as we study them. One thing that caught me by surprise is that they don't believe that the saved can lose their salvation. It seems now to me that such issues are pretty malleable in the Methodist church, no?

skypair

 

[circuitrider]

I'm beginning to see that. So how do you know what scriptures to take literally and what not to? Tradition - experience - reason? How do these compare and contrast to the concepts of "the wisdom of men" and "the wisdom of this world" taught in 1Cor 2:4-6?

The men in our Methodist Men's Fellowship seem to receive, even want to know, what I believe about the scriptures as we study them. One thing that caught me by surprise is that they don't believe that the saved can lose their salvation. It seems now to me that such issues are pretty malleable in the Methodist church, no?

skypair

Many things in the Bible are clearly not intended to be taken literally including poetry, apocalyptic writings, parables, etc.

Part of your question depends on what you mean by "lose your salvation." Your salvation isn't like a quarter you are carrying in your pocket that you can lose or misplace. However United Methodists believe that you don't lose your free will when you become a Christian. So a Christian can, of their own choice, choose to walk away from their faith and renounce Christ.

That isn't the same as the way Baptists describe the idea of "losing salvation" as if it could happen accidentally. You can only "lose your salvation" if you purposefully walk away.

As variations of beliefs, the UMC has official doctrines which are listed in our Book of Discipline. There is quite a bit of variation of views among members both allowed and encouraged. But the doctrines of the denomination don't come from the local church in the UMC. They are determined by the elected delegates to our General Conference. So while some guys drinking coffee around a table may believe something different, they don't get to decide what the official doctrinal understandings of the UMC.

Finally, I would just caution you. If you are attending a UMC congregation to try to get them to believe like Baptists, please don't. United Methodists have our own beliefs which we have right to have. Baptists already have a bad reputation in some Methodist circles from trying to infiltrate Methodist churches and change the beliefs of that church. You have every right to believe like a Baptist. Just don't try to make Methodists into Baptists. We have a right to our beliefs and a long history of theology that has brought us to what we believe.

 

[Qyöt27]

If I recall correctly, 1 Corinthians 2 is one instance where Paul actually seems to directly take aim at Gnosticism. The emphasis on human wisdom or in some translations, 'philosophies', lend a pretty strong support to the idea that it was Gnosticism he was talking about. There was another instance of it in a different place in one of the letters where he called out ascetic practices for much of the same reasons.

Gnosticism is a very, very different beast than the use of Tradition, Reason, or Experience, however human those things are. This nuance can easily get lost if the reader knows nothing of what Gnosticism was*, or what it taught. For the Early Church, they had the first-hand experience of dealing with it as a powerful force in the politics of the nascent Christian communities of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries. We don't. In a manner of speaking, Gnosticism is to Pauline Christianity as Kabbalah is to Judaism or Sufism is to Islam. It's the extremely esoteric branch (and to wit, also counts as pre-Christian, since Gnosticism is also very pluralistic and syncretic and its Christian manifestations emerged from the existing pool of Gnostic sects evolving into groups competing with the Pauline Church).

*I could say 'is', but modern groups that have Gnostic leanings or have attempted revival of it are extremely marginal (talking about groups like the Rosicrucians or Ecclesia Gnostica here). Granted, there are shades of its dualistic view of the world in some Fundamentalist rantings about society (and particularly entertainment media), but it's so watered down that it bears almost no resemblance to the real thing.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

As far as what to "take literally" and what not, it's simply a matter of learning or understanding. We might get it wrong; we might not. But we don't go in blindly. Asking questions like who wrote it and why help us to understand; as do tradition, reason and experience.

Tradition means looking at how the church has historically viewed a passage. If we think we're going to change that historical interpretation, then that means we really need to know that hundreds of years of history were wrong and we are right. It helps keep us grounded and honest. Lots of smart people have come before us; why should we decide they are all wrong? They've been wrong (Slavery was understood for centuries as condoned by the Bible for Christians), but not always. A great example is the second coming. For nearly 1900 years there was one particular point of view when it came to Christ's return. Then, in the late 1800's a man met up with a little girl who told him she had a vision and then he wrote it down and it became the theology of the "Rapture", the idea that at the end of the world God is going to suck all the Christians up into the cloud and leave everyone else behind to suffer. There's essentially ZERO record of that throughout Christian history, and suddenly it appears. That's a red flag when interpreting the Bible. It doesn't mean it's wrong; but it does mean it needs looked at closely. And if you look at it, you realize it's a very liberal (meaning generous) interpretation of the scripture that only works if you are A) a literalist and B) prooftext, because the passages used are very very vague and there's NO WAY you could come up with the theology of the rapture on your own using those passages; but you might be able to defend the rapture once you already have the theology (which is exactly what happened in the 1800's when that untrained/uneducated preacher heard this little girls dream and began a whole new theology that has swept the USA)

Reason simply means using this brain God gave us, to try and wrestle with the scriptures and understand what God means for us. Ultimately, interpreting the Bible means "What does this mean to me"

And experience means using the things we've already learned, know, and experience to help us understand the scripture. Back to Romans 5:8; my own experiences with my own faith in God, my call to ministry, and my failings and my successes help me to affirm Romans 5:8's meaning that no matter your 'worthiness' we are all welcome in Christ's presence.

For example, when Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, he wasn't telling us should we ever be on the road to Samaria we should take care of any injured Samaritans in order to 'repay' the one good Samaritan. Obviously, the implication was to demonstrate unbending love and generosity even to those with whom we vehemently disagree (A modern contemporary of Samaritans and Jews in the 1st Century would be Christians and Muslims today) Even the biggest proponent of Bible Literalism would agree that the Parable of the Good Samaritan was a story to be used to help us understand a context. Heck, Jesus spent most of his time speaking in metaphors and imagery.

An example of something more 'straightforward' would be my namesake; Romans 5:8. "But God demonstrates his love for us in this; while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". That statement is simply fact. It has three facts in it; 1) God loves us, 2) God loves us despite our sin, and 3) Christ died for our sins. I like to call Romans 5:8 "John 3:16 Plus". Because it basically says the same thing as John 3:16, but it adds the important qualifier "While we were yet sinners", reminding us that God's grace is open and extended to all of us; and it's not something we earn. We don't need to become sinless THEN come to God; we can come to God right where we are.

 

[GraceSeeker]

So how do you know what scriptures to take literally and what not to? Tradition - experience - reason?

Yes to all of the above.

But, let's begin by looking at Scripture itself -- remember, for us Methodist types, it is primary.


"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (ESV).


If we take Scripture at its word, the purpose of it is not to teach history or biology, but that the man of God may be "competent, equipped for every good work." You'll notice how scripture sets for the very thing we have already shared with you as one of the key foci of our Wesleyan understanding, that the Christian life is as much about orthopraxis as it is about orthodoxy. Now, use reason for a moment. What is orthodoxy, but knowing the right teaching with regard to the truth about God? And what created being is the most knowledgeable about God? Why Lucifer, of course. No human knows as much about God as does Lucifer. But, would anyone ever applaude Lucifer for his great knowledge? I think not. Lucifer knows about God, but he doesn't really know God. What you and I know about God comes not from comprehending the words written about God correctly, as it comes from having a living experience of the true and living Word of God in our lives.

You see, it is really the traditions of men that have come down to us identifying the Bible as if it were the Word of God. But when we turn to scripture the identity of the Word of God is more fully revealed to us as none other than Jesus....

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed which no one knows but himself. 13 He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses. 15 From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.
(Revelation 19:11-16, RSV)

So, hence forth in this conversation if I refer to "the Word" or "the Word of God" I mean Jesus and if referring to the Bible I will speak of the "word(s) about God" or "a word from God." (Now, I'm not rebelling, and I don't want to confuse you. I too frequently use the phrase "Word of God" to refer to the Bible in colloquial conversation, and you can probably easily find where I have done so on many threads in this forum. But I want to try to keep this important distinction between the scriptures and the living Word clear here for this discussion.)

So, God's Word helps to guide and direct me in order that I might be equipped to do good works in his name. One just has to read the parable of the separation of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 to realize just how important such good works are to Jesus. Not that they save us, but anyone who truly places their faith in Jesus (i.e. trust him with their life) is going to find their life transformed by the process to such an extent that good works of the order and magnitude Jesus describes in Matthew 25 come naturally to us. Not because they are part of our human nature, but because our human nature has been remodeled back into the image of God in which it was originally created.

Now, when that becomes the focus of our life, one can see how many of the supposed "major" doctrines and dogmas over which we in the church debate really make about sense as much debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Even if there is a "right" answer, knowing it would not lead us to living in the right way.

So, in the end, the emphasis on social holiness in the United Methodist Church means that because we make scriptrue primary, and have it informed by our reason, tradition, and experience. When we come across a question about whether or not the world was created in six 24-hour days, our response is that it makes for interesting conversation while taking necessary rest from the task at hand. But, once that rest period is over, scripture compells us back to "every good work." If our conversation leads us astray from that, then we haven't made scripture primary in our lives. For debate over other passages, without the application of this one means that we have become a people who are seeking knowledge equivalent with the devil, but a faith lacking in the practices of God. And we Methodists are just not ready to go there.

 

[circuitrider]

One of the reasons for including experience and reason in our understanding of faith is that we believe that God has not stopped revealing truth to us. So when we learn something new, like the earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun and that the earth goes around the sun, we don't continue to believe the way first century writers believed that the earth is flat and that the sun goes around us.

The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church says, "The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

All things necessary to salvation, not all things necessary for science or all things necessary for culture, etc. When we adopt the teachings of the Bible about salvation we are not required to live in the first century, dress like we are from the Middle East, adopt cultural or political structures from that time period, etc.

The Bible's focus is about salvation and not a host of other side issues that people want to use/misuse it for.

 

[preacherinblack]

Thanks for all this discussion guys it seems like there was some debate that got started up.I asked about the differences between our denominations because on my dad's side we have a line of methodist right up to my great3x grandad.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Thanks for all this discussion guys it seems like there was some debate that got started up.I asked about the differences between our denominations because on my dad's side we have a line of methodist right up to my great3x grandad.

I think the debate is inevitable. Not that there's anything wrong with it. But Methodists and Baptist are, in many ways, very different. Wesleyanism and Calvinism, Anglicinism and Puritanism, are polar opposites. And though there are variations; Methodists draw from an Anglican-Wesley Emphasis and Baptists from a Calvinist-Puritan Emphasis (even if many Baptists aren't expressly calvinist) so it's only natural that as those two traditions grew they would remain very much different. If you had asked, for example, the difference between Anglicans and Methodists or even Methodists and Roman Catholics I think you would've found less 'debate'. Though we differ from those two traditions (Roman Catholics more than Anglicans); we share common roots and many common traits, look at the Bible in similar ways and, in my experience; get along pretty well. (In my particular setting Roman Catholics and Methodists get along great; since we consider the RCC our cousins; and the Baptists in my area view the RCC as the spawn of Satan and the enemy; even preaching against them, one church having a sermon series on 'cults' and including Roman Catholicism in there.)

At the end of the day though; in my experience, both sides are willing to work together for God. Even though we vehemently disagree with the very fundamentalist Baptists in my community; we work side-by-side with a local homeless shelter funded by both churches and we're willing to recognize that Jesus' call to care for the poor is a universal call across denominational lines. (Although, admittedly, many in the Baptist church, though currently not it's Pastor thankfully, feel they should not be supporting the homeless shelter because it 'enables lazy people' But, if I dug deep enough, I could probably find someone who felt that way in my church, too).

One thing though I've found, is sometimes the laity have no idea what the differences are or even what their personal theologies are. I used to have a parishioner who I earnestly have no idea what they were doing in a Methodist church. Anti-women (to the point he felt women should not vote, and not in a sexist-joking way, in a very serious, adamant way. He genuinely thought it was an atrocity, they weren't capable of voting), a bible literalist/inerrantist. Vocally rejected connectionalism and frequently told me and others he thought the church ought to govern itself and that the Bishops and the DS were "unbiblical", and so on and so forth. But he was a lifelong Methodist. Chances are, he was only there because he was raised there, and figured ones denominational affiliation was like ones blood type. You're born with it and you can't change it. Discussions like this one make me wonder what people who didn't know about Methodism, who knew him, thought about Methodism. They might think Methodists are just like the SBC!

 

[GraceSeeker]

I remember how I lost a long time member, mother was one of the charter members of the church, because I taught a short Sunday school class I called Methodism 101. And about half-way through I taught on the subject of sanctification and Christian perfection. His wife had been born and raised a Baptist. She couldn't believe that I was serious about some of the things I mentioned. But, it was at the end of the Sunday school class and we didn't really have time to go into it in detail. So, she asked if I could cover it in more depth the next week. I did, and she found it even more upsetting. She wanted to know if she could come back the next week to share why everything I had said was wrong, and she was going to do so from the Bible. I agree to allow that. Since this was a former EUB congregation and I was former Methodist (for the unitiated the UMC is a merger of two pre-existing denominations the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church) it was suggested that I must be bringing in some heresy from outside the true (EUB) faith to the congregation. So, the following week I simply read from the "Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethern Church" and that is when I was told I had gone too far. For the point that she objected to was stated even more strongly in the EUB documents than in my Methodist language. And they left the church to become active in a Baptist congregation.

Now, to show how it doesn't pay to be the messenger of truth. I understand that now that I am gone they have returned to the church. I wonder if their present pastor knows that it is OK if he preaches on sin, but he isn't supposed to preach or teach on sanctification and Christian perfection, at least not in a United Methodist church?

 

[Maid Marie]

I remember how I lost a long time member, mother was one of the charter members of the church, because I taught a short Sunday school class I called Methodism 101. And about half-way through I taught on the subject of sanctification and Christian perfection. His wife had been born and raised a Baptist. She couldn't believe that I was serious about some of the things I mentioned. But, it was at the end of the Sunday school class and we didn't really have time to go into it in detail. So, she asked if I could cover it in more depth the next week. I did, and she found it even more upsetting. She wanted to know if she could come back the next week to share why everything I had said was wrong, and she was going to do so from the Bible. I agree to allow that. Since this was a former EUB congregation and I was former Methodist (for the unitiated the UMC is a merger of two pre-existing denominations the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church) it was suggested that I must be bringing in some heresy from outside the true (EUB) faith to the congregation. So, the following week I simply read from the "Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethern Church" and that is when I was told I had gone too far. For the point that she objected to was stated even more strongly in the EUB documents than in my Methodist language. And they left the church to become active in a Baptist congregation.

Now, to show how it doesn't pay to be the messenger of truth. I understand that now that I am gone they have returned to the church. I wonder if their present pastor knows that it is OK if he preaches on sin, but he isn't supposed to preach or teach on sanctification and Christian perfection, at least not in a United Methodist church?

Yikes, YIKES, Yikes!!

But, I am concerned that the same thing would happen in a Nazarene church. In fact, I know that it already has in some parts of my district.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Yikes, YIKES, Yikes!!

But, I am concerned that the same thing would happen in a Nazarene church. In fact, I know that it already has in some parts of my district.

Interestingly, I did a sermon series similar to GraceSeekers Sunday School series. I had someone come up to me and said they disagreed. They didn't leave, get upset, or fuss. They just wanted me to know they disagreed with what I was preaching; which was basic textbook Methodism. They are still active members of the church, we have a great relationship. But their theology is far from Methodist. Go figure?

Naturally, they are most certainly welcome and will always be welcomed by me with open arms, and I am VERY glad they are here. But It's puzzling to me that those folks ARE here. I wouldn't feel comfortable in a Southern Baptist or fundamentalist non-denom where my theology is just so incompatible. But, I don't know that theology is all that important to a lot of these folks. Just being a part of that church.

 

[BryanW92]

But, I don't know that theology is all that important to a lot of these folks. Just being a part of that church.

It's hard to leave a church where you are established and comfortable. In the non-confessional UMC, a person can have a theology that is a disjointed mess of varying and even conflicting beliefs and still function as part of the church. As long as they like the people and the music and the potlucks, most people are happy.

We had a woman in the church who was raised Roman Catholic, married a Southern Baptist and attended for 20 years until he died, and then became a Methodist. She had the craziest quilt of theologies you ever saw. One day, she said something to the pastor about what she believed and he lit into her, telling her that "WE BELIEVE x ABOUT THAT!"

He definitely proved her wrong and explained what Methodists believe.

We never saw her again.

 

[Qyöt27]

I remember how I lost a long time member, mother was one of the charter members of the church, because I taught a short Sunday school class I called Methodism 101. And about half-way through I taught on the subject of sanctification and Christian perfection. His wife had been born and raised a Baptist. She couldn't believe that I was serious about some of the things I mentioned. But, it was at the end of the Sunday school class and we didn't really have time to go into it in detail. So, she asked if I could cover it in more depth the next week. I did, and she found it even more upsetting. She wanted to know if she could come back the next week to share why everything I had said was wrong, and she was going to do so from the Bible. I agree to allow that. Since this was a former EUB congregation and I was former Methodist (for the unitiated the UMC is a merger of two pre-existing denominations the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church) it was suggested that I must be bringing in some heresy from outside the true (EUB) faith to the congregation. So, the following week I simply read from the "Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethern Church" and that is when I was told I had gone too far. For the point that she objected to was stated even more strongly in the EUB documents than in my Methodist language. And they left the church to become active in a Baptist congregation.

Now, to show how it doesn't pay to be the messenger of truth. I understand that now that I am gone they have returned to the church. I wonder if their present pastor knows that it is OK if he preaches on sin, but he isn't supposed to preach or teach on sanctification and Christian perfection, at least not in a United Methodist church?

I could totally see this happening if someone were to start teaching actual UMC doctrine in front of my dad.

In his case, it's a critical lack of discernment over who to listen to. He was raised Catholic and his side of the family are Democrats. My mom's side of the family was Methodist and for all intents and purposes, moderate Republican (the sort that think highly of both Eisenhower and FDR). After marrying my mom, he converted to both, but in a lot of cases like this, you're also dealing with the zealousness of the convert, and the lack of discernment meant that he wasn't careful about who to listen to. The end result: the words of televangelists and AM radio preachers were more important than what was taught at the physical church we actually attended, and the hysterical rantings of pundits took precedence over reasoned viewpoints (over the past 6 years this has gotten even worse, with buying into all sorts of cranks shilling fad diets and snake oil, and parroting back things about survivalism gleaned from doomsday preppers* - normally, none of us ever brought this up, but my sisters have said they get concerned).

*quite literally that we all should be taking archery lessons because we'll need to 'know how to hunt' (the implication, spoken or unspoken, being 'when the impending economic collapse happens'). And he's entertained fantasies about moving into the Appalachians since we were kids. It's all pure romanticism, but the worrying thing is that it's been getting more and more intense lately.

An example of this is precisely why I'm so rabidly opposed to dispensationalism: when we were kids (this was probably around 1995, judging from some of the history I've read on eschatological paranoia), I distinctly remember him telling us one time that the European Union was the Beast of Revelation - since at the time, it had or was very soon to have 7 members - and the Euro was going to be the Mark. I was 10. Of course, that came and went, and now whenever talk about the US Dollar being the de facto trade currency comes up, it's probably not even half a second before he goes 'well, they say the Mark...', which also - probably not coincidentally - plays into the anti-government/authoritarian tirades he starts on anymore whenever any sort of talk about social responsibility or public backlash over celebrity controversies come up.

My parents also explicitly told me as a kid that they 'were afraid I'd become an atheist because I was smart'. I regularly was put in advanced groups at my elementary school, was admitted to the Gifted program at the end of 2nd grade, followed by passing the tests to get into the advanced math and science Magnet program in middle school, and the International Baccalaureate program in high school.

All of this crazy was only at home, of course, all the while we were ostensibly members of the UMC when we went to church. There were times growing up that I asked what the difference between Methodists and Baptists/Pentecostals/Lutherans/Presbyterians were (as well as Catholics, which my parents regularly deny as even being Christian, or Eastern Orthodox, whose only tadbit of info I ever got was that they were like Catholics, but rejected the Pope - enough of a reason for a small bit of praise, apparently, but nothing else), but I never got real answers (about the only thing was a 'Methodists don't believe in predestination', but that's more of a common rejection of Calvinism than anything). More recently, the fact that they really don't know what they believe aside from the nebulous 'anything that calls itself Christian is good' Fundagelical talking points is becoming clearer and clearer, wanting to church shop at nearby non-denoms and such because denominations apparently don't matter, and how dare you call yourself a Methodist or a Catholic or a Lutheran instead of a Christian (because the two are obviously mutually-exclusive). But they still humored me in my interest in theology post-high school and actually did get me objectively-written reference books about denominational differences.

I came very close to asking for a copy of The Sickness Unto Death for Christmas (I ultimately didn't), but I suspect that would do one of three things: A) spark uncomfortable discussions about 'where I'm going with my faith', B) refusing to get it because of the title alone (oh, the irony), or C) refusing to get it because they read from one of the Moral Majority/Religious Right mouthpieces (Francis Schaeffer or not) that Kierkegaard is some sort of Evangelical public enemy #1. It'd be somewhat of a salient counterpoint to the 'Christian capitalist' books my dad has been inhaling recently, though. I won't outright call them 'Prosperity Gospel', since I'm not certain that's what they teach; instead, these things are basically saying 'God wants you to be rich so you can give to the poor, and the way you do that is by buying into our 'financial advice' wholesale, with diatribes about how you should be reading Mises, Rothbard, and Rand, voting for the Tea Party, and basically being a greedy, selfish [expletive], and that the parable of the Good Samaritan wasn't about loving your neighbor, it was about the fact that the Samaritan was rich'. Absolutely disgusting, to say the least. But my reason for wanting to read Kierkegaard has nothing to do with that; I've had strong existentialist leanings since high school, I simply want to finally get to reading the source texts.

It took me years to purge that negative, paranoid garbage from my system, and what was left actually was that core of Methodist values. Of course, I'm sure that if what I actually believe, religiously or politically, comes to light, my dad will immediately jump to the conclusion that it's me 'rebelling against' or 'trying to hurt' him.




Wow, this post was...not what I initially intended it to be (it turned more into a personal testimony). I still think it sheds some light on this thread's topic or meandering subtopics, though, so I'll leave it as-is.

 

[circuitrider]

Thanks for sharing your story Qyot27!

When I was preaching in the American Baptist Churches, USA (a non-calvinist free will Baptist denomination) I often ran into Southern Baptists that had joined the ABC/USA and didn't know there was a difference. So they'd be totally shocked when I started teaching ABC views on free will and claimed I wasn't teaching Baptist theology. Truth be told I was teaching American Baptist and not Southern Baptist theology.

Now that I'm convinced United Methodist pastoring in the UMC, I also discover people who came here because they liked something about the local church but never really learned what United Methodists believe. Because I quite opening teach United Methodism it has shocked a person or two.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Thanks for sharing your story Qyot27!

When I was preaching in the American Baptist Churches, USA (a non-calvinist free will Baptist denomination) I often ran into Southern Baptists that had joined the ABC/USA and didn't know there was a difference. So they'd be totally shocked when I started teaching ABC views on free will and claimed I wasn't teaching Baptist theology. Truth be told I was teaching American Baptist and not Southern Baptist theology.

Now that I'm convinced United Methodist pastoring in the UMC, I also discover people who came here because they liked something about the local church but never really learned what United Methodists believe. Because I quite opening teach United Methodism it has shocked a person or two.

I've had the same experience. A lot of people, frankly, don't know the theology of the denomination.

It might be easy to wish we were confessional; but I'm not sure that's really the way God would want us to operate. What would be the 'punishment' for failing to confess? Roman Catholics would, in most cases, deny communion. Other denominations might deny membership or even the ability to attend worship. Still others might publicly denounce those people or claim they are going to hell. None of those situations do anything but take people away from Christ and the opportunity to be in connection with Christ. To me, being non-confessional helps at least bring people to the table so they might learn and grow. We're not non-confessional because we don't firmly believe what we believe; but simply because we think it's the best way to help propagate what we believe. Although unlike other denominations, we are willing to say "That's not really an important issue, so we aren't going to have an official theology". We don't need to have a doctrinal point of view on every little non-essential issue. It doesn't mean folks don't have opinions; but there are plenty of minor theological and political issues the Church doesn't really have a teaching on.

If there's one thing we could learn from the RCC though; it's education. Frankly I (and I think John Wesley would agree) would love for us to have a universal, denominationally wide system from religious education that was a requirement for membership. Non-members would, just as they are now, certainly not be denied communion or the ability to worship. But those who want to join the church would have to go through a series of educational milestones. For young people, confirmation. For older people, Roman Catholics have what they call "RCIA", which is essentially "adult confirmation". Because it's denomination wide, smaller churches send people to larger churches for RCIA. My uncle teaches an RCIA class at his church, (He's Roman Catholic obviously), and a couple of smaller churches from the area send folks. It takes months and at the end, those people are confirmed into the RCC. While SOME UM churches do that; others don't at all. And smaller ones often don't have the opportunity or resources. But I think a lot of this incompatibility could be fixed if we did the very much Wesleyan thing; and put a focus on education before Membership. And as I remind folks, Membership is not for your soul; it's for your church. You don't need to be a member! The only thing you 'can't' do as a non-member is vote or serve on CERTAIN committees- though certain committees even non-members can serve! I think such a system of education would also help us move away from membership-as-a-social-status and towards membership-as-a-responsibility. And also if we were maybe a little bit more willing to say "You are always welcome in worship, you are always welcome to Christ's table, and I for sure am your Pastor. But you simply must complete these things before the church is ready to call you a member".

 

[BryanW92]

If there's one thing we could learn from the RCC though; it's education. Frankly I (and I think John Wesley would agree) would love for us to have a universal, denominationally wide system from religious education that was a requirement for membership.

When we joined the PCA earlier this year, we had to attend a weekend-long (Friday evening, all day Saturday, and Sunday evening) class where the fundamentals of Reformed theology were taught. On Friday night, my wife just raised her hand and stated, "I don't buy the whole predestination thing. Just wanted to get that out there before we begin." The pastor was very nice about it and told her, "I don't expect you to believe it, but I hope that you will come to understand it as we believe it and not as others say that we believe it. Then, you can believe it one day if it begins to make sense to you."

But, the class was very informative and by the end of the weekend, we all knew some of the basics of our Confession of Faith and we had to say that we agreed with it to join. No, predestination was not a part that you had to agree with, but you did have to agree on the sovereignty of God, the nature of Christ, and the basics of salvation.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

When we joined the PCA earlier this year, we had to attend a weekend-long (Friday evening, all day Saturday, and Sunday evening) class where the fundamentals of Reformed theology were taught. On Friday night, my wife just raised her hand and stated, "I don't buy the whole predestination thing. Just wanted to get that out there before we begin." The pastor was very nice about it and told her, "I don't expect you to believe it, but I hope that you will come to understand it as we believe it and not as others say that we believe it. Then, you can believe it one day if it begins to make sense to you."

But, the class was very informative and by the end of the weekend, we all knew some of the basics of our Confession of Faith and we had to say that we agreed with it to join. No, predestination was not a part that you had to agree with, but you did have to agree on the sovereignty of God, the nature of Christ, and the basics of salvation.

Yes, that sounds similar to what RCIA is, though it's a lot longer and more in depth. In my perfect world where the UMC has this universally (I'm not sure if the PCA does that universally or not. Some UMC churches have similar programs, some that even take years!), certainly nothing at the end would change but our already existing membership vows and the basic nature of Christianity that must be confessed. But there would be plenty of time for deeply rooted education into Wesleyan Christianity, and why we believe these things.

I'm tempted to wonder how someone can go from a Wesleyan to a Reformed church; but then, as I've made a similar (albeit opposite) switch in my own life, I do understand how ones personal theology can change radically. I hope you and your wife find what you're looking for and draw closer to God in your new home.

 

[circuitrider]

Bryan,

I appreciate the way your new pastor said that. It is important not only to understand the teachings of a denomination but to understand as they really believe, not as someone else has told you they believe.

One of the things that makes it difficult to have discussions between denominations is that it is easy to interpret what we hear about Methodism through Baptist theology or Baptist theology through Methodism. Or whatever groups.

So we often misunderstand because we hear someone else's theology and it doesn't fit the terminology we use or the way we are used to using it.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm tempted to wonder how someone can go from a Wesleyan to a Reformed church; but then, as I've made a similar (albeit opposite) switch in my own life, I do understand how ones personal theology can change radically. I hope you and your wife find what you're looking for and draw closer to God in your new home.

It was an interesting change and it's still ongoing, but it has been very rewarding to finally accept God in his fullness and grandeur. Many of the theological dilemmas that bugged me for year have been answered.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm tempted to wonder how someone can go from a Wesleyan to a Reformed church; but then, as I've made a similar (albeit opposite) switch in my own life, I do understand how ones personal theology can change radically. I hope you and your wife find what you're looking for and draw closer to God in your new home.

Somehow I managed to serve in Lutheran Church (ELCA) while still an ordained United Methodist pastor. I know that we have a "Full Communion" agreement with them now, but we didn't then. And trust me on this one, there are bigger differences between the two than a little wordage around Holy Communion. Indeed, it was Lutheran baptismal theology that I found most difficult to live with, almost sacrementalism in nature. In fact, to this day I'm not convinced it wasn't, though of course they would never have seen it that way.