A question about differences

[BryanW92]

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.

Very true! I'm always being told by Baptists what Methodists believe. Most of it is just crazy. I still defend you guys because everyone seems to think that the Methodists are everything that you aren't. Now, I have to defend what TULIP really means too.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Now, I have to defend what TULIP really means too.

 

[Maid Marie]

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. ...

My parents also explicitly told me as a kid that they 'were afraid I'd become an atheist because I was smart'. ...

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.

Wow...thanks for this insight into your family dynamics. In a tiny way, I experienced something similar not from my parents but from my SS teachers and church folks. They were well meaning but didn't know how to handle a smart kid who asked too many questions. It was learning Wesleyan theology in my classes that helped purge me of the negative, paranoid garbage from my soul and set my spirit free.

 

[preacherinblack]

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!

Were I live some people don't believe much about differences it's just tastes apparently. I guess even tho I don't ask about peoples theology I betting most people here are southern baptist. I myself am southern baptist because that's were God converted me.

 

[circuitrider]

Were I live some people don't believe much about differences it's just tastes apparently. I guess even tho I don't ask about peoples theology I betting most people here are southern baptist. I myself am southern baptist because that's were God converted me.

Even lay people who can't always explain why the are Methodists or Baptists or whatever do articulate a theology. Often they just don't know what to call what they believe.

Certainly on a lot faith basics (faith in Christ etc.) there isn't a difference. But there are differences of emphasis that people will notice if they hang in a church long enough. Prevenient Grace and infant baptism are obvious differences. The UMC emphasis on communion is considerably different than the Baptist view.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Even lay people who can't always explain why the are Methodists or Baptists or whatever do articulate a theology. Often they just don't know what to call what they believe.

Certainly on a lot faith basics (faith in Christ etc.) there isn't a difference. But there are differences of emphasis that people will notice if they hang in a church long enough. Prevenient Grace and infant baptism are obvious differences. The UMC emphasis on communion is considerably different than the Baptist view.

We did "Christianity's Family Tree" by Adam Hamilton a couple of years ago. Some folks know very little about other faiths! It's also interesting what they pointed out. On the week we talked about Roman Catholics; the discussion mostly focused around closed communion and their view on divorce (i.e., if you get divorced, you can't take communion). One person mentioned that their brand of connectionalism is maybe a little too "global", in the sense that when their Catholic family members are in the hospital, the hospitals priest comes to visit them; not the Pastor of their home Parish (At least in their experience. I've certainly known Catholic Pastors who visited the sick in the hospitals); and how Roman Catholics essentially demand that you attend the parish closest to your home. When we talked about Southern Baptists; actually, voting on who gets to be a member because a major topic. Along with closed communion, infrequent communion, and some discussion on Bible Literalism.

Certainly, the discussion (until we got into the book to break it down) rarely formed around Calvinism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism, etc. But more/less the tangible, obvious differences in the way they work.

 

[preacherinblack]

I got another question . Are Methodist that believe in only Full immersion baptism ?

 

[circuitrider]

Not if they really believe in Methodist doctrine. While United Methodists believe immersion is a perfectly good mode of baptism there is nothing in United Methodist doctrine that would give any idea that the amount of water used in baptism is of theological significance.

(Also Babies really dislike immersion. ;-) )

 

[Anto9us]

"Even lay people"

the very phrase reveals the hubris...

 

[circuitrider]

Anto9us, why? The assumption is that an ordained trained clergy person better know what UMC teachings are. I've never run into UMC clergy who couldn't explain what it means to be a Methodist. When I do run into Methodists who can't it is lay persons who joined the church and managed to side step any kind of new member class, confirmation, or other instruction in Methodist beliefs.

The phrase was "even lay people who can't explain why they are Methodists..." I wasn't speaking of all lay people. But simply those who have no idea why they are in a Uniited Methodist Church.

There is no hubris in knowing UMC clergy are required to be trained and lay people aren't.

 

[Anto9us]

It's condescending to lay people , circuitrider.

The WP sub-forum is kinda top-heavy with clergy.

I don't think you clergy realize how condescending you sound at times -- so I tried to point it out.

If you're not gonna see it -- you're not gonna see it.

But the condescension is obvious to me -- not in just the one quote - the one post -- but throughout WP

 

[circuitrider]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one then. It is a basic fact of the United Methodist Church's membership rules and clergy expectations that lay people don't have to know the doctrines of the Church to join the Church. I don't see how that is condescending to point out what is a known fact of our own structure.

At the same time, the UMC has one of the highest standards for required clergy education in Christendom. That is also a well known fact.

We can ignore that if you want.

 

[GraceSeeker]

It's condescending to lay people , circuitrider.

The WP sub-forum is kinda top-heavy with clergy.

I don't think you clergy realize how condescending you sound at times -- so I tried to point it out.

If you're not gonna see it -- you're not gonna see it.

But the condescension is obvious to me -- not in just the one quote - the one post -- but throughout WP

I notice you changed your faith icon, Anto9us. I have a lot of respect for laity in general; they are hard working faithful followers of Christ. Then there are those who think that because they've read a book they know as much or more than the clergy and are prepared to tell us where we are wrong. That fits, there are some clergy who think the same thing. Just so you know, I'll condescend to accept such arrogance from another Methodist. But for those who change their denominational label faster than some people change their clothes and then seek to argue theology I won't be condescending because I'll have little tolerance for those who break CF forum rules on debating.

 

[circuitrider]

I notice you changed your faith icon, Anto9us. I have a lot of respect for laity in general; they are hard working faithful followers of Christ. Then there are those who think that because they've read a book they know as much or more than the clergy and are prepared to tell us where we are wrong. That fits, there are some clergy who think the same thing. Just so you know, I'll condescend to accept such arrogance from another Methodist. But for those who change their denominational label faster than some people change their clothes and then seek to argue theology I won't be condescending because I'll have little tolerance for those who break CF forum rules on debating.

Good grief. What is this with non-Wesleyan Christians trolling this forum?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Good grief. What is this with non-Wesleyan Christians trolling this forum?

I don't know that Anto9us was trolling. Last week he was displaying a UMC icon. So, he may have been Wesleyan; indeed, may still be Wesleyan even in his new denomination.

But, I do disagree with his comments regarding condescending.

 

[circuitrider]

I don't know that Anto9us was trolling. Last week he was displaying a UMC icon. So, he may have been Wesleyan; indeed, may still be Wesleyan even in his new denomination.

But, I do disagree with his comments regarding condescending.

Maybe not GraceSeeker. But it is odd, to say the least, to change your denominational affiliation in the middle of a conversation.

As you said above, I have a great deal of respect for lay people. But I don't apologize for my theological education or the expectation that UM clergy are theologically educated.

I have learned over the years that some people will join a church and manage not to know much of anything about that church's beliefs. They joined because they liked the preaching or some friends in the church. Then when they find out the doctrine of the church they are even sometimes shocked.

I had someone get into an argument with me about open communion in a previous church. I couldn't figure out how they'd gone two years as a member and even through a membership class and not realized that was a doctrine of our church??

 

[GraceSeeker]

I had someone get into an argument with me about open communion in a previous church. I couldn't figure out how they'd gone two years as a member and even through a membership class and not realized that was a doctrine of our church??

Well, what do you know? You're just the pastor, vetted by the annual conference, and evaluated annually by every congregation you've ever served. This other person no doubt has read the Bible, perhaps even in the "Authorized" version, and could probably teach you a thing or too if you would just listen.

Now, THAT ^^ was condescending!

The sad thing is that they I've found lay people really can, and often do, have the ability to teach us pastors a great deal about life and how to apply the Christian faith in ways that build people up or model sanctified Christian living. As I've said before, I've learned a great deal from my laity. But, when it comes to challenging us on what it is that the church should be teaching -- well, that is the area in which the church has trained and vetted us. If we were to teach differently than the church has said we should, it is then that that people would have a right to complain. But when we are teaching in accord with Methodist polity and discipline, don't expect us to change. We have been over and over these arguments for nearly 300 years and we're unlikely to change just because some closet-Baptist or other non-Wesleyan differs. If they feel strongly about it, it is best that they do what my member did when he found out we taught Christian Perfection and practiced infant baptism and accepted women in the pulpit. Either seek to understand it or find some place more to your choosing. We won't require you to have your children baptized to be a part of us, but we aren't going to quit inviting and baptizing other people's children or keep women out of our pulpits just because you disagree with it.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I think Anton9us changed his faith icon in response to folks jumping on him when he was in the Reformed, et al forums. He's more active in the debate and theology sections of this forum than he is in WP. By changing his icon he's free to espouse his theology (which, by all accounts, is Wesleyan); without pre-conceived judgements and notions. I don't know how it is where you guys are but there are places in this forum where the cross and flame are an automatic "That guy must be wrong" symbol.

So, here's my perspective. We're not a confessional denomination. That means our laity do not have to 'confess' Wesleyan theology (just very basic Christian theology, and they must profess; not confess but profess, a faith in Jesus Christ). However, as has been pointed out, our Clergy ARE, in a way, confessional. Vetted and trained, etc. While a person can join my church, become the president of the Ad Council, go to Annual Conference, become a district officer, get elected to General Conference; and not believe in Infant Baptism (I'm not saying these are likely, I'm saying these are possible); I could NOT become a United Methodist Pastor if I said "Full Immersion, Believers Baptism only". They'd probably come up with some grace-filled response on a cross-and-flame letterhead that says something like "We don't feel God is calling you here, and would encourage you to fulfill your call elsewhere". And that's how it works. Nobody in (most) District or Conference Ordained Ministry committees are going to debate or chastise you, but if your theology isn't Wesleyan, then you don't have a place in the UMC as Clergy.

United Methodist still put a large emphasis on God's call when it comes to ministry. All Clergy must also demonstrate that God has called them to the UMC, and the UMC is then responsible for discerning that call.

I do have lay people in my church who struggle with the idea of pouring and infant baptism. They've grown in their time here, (They grew up Baptist, "Dad" is our pianist. He's in the UMC because of a paycheck, not theology, but we have really rubbed off on him in the last several years). To the point that they are actually going to move their membership from FBC to here, after more than 10 years of attending. The kids haven't been baptized, and they want to be immersed.

And you know what? That's fine. I'll immerse them. They are free to have that wish. It was important to me that we sit down and they understood why I was willing to immerse them, AND why we as United Methodists accept all three Biblical methods of Baptism (sprinkling, pouring, and immersion). After some discussion and prayer, we agreed to do immersion. And then, suddenly, they decided that they were fine with pouring, in the church; so we didn't have to somehow do it somewhere else. It's funny what can happen when you're willing to sit down with someone, hear their side, concede to what's important to them, and teach what it means to be a United Methodist.

To answer your question OP; infant Baptism when the child has Baptized, professing Christian parents or caretakers and later being confirmed as adults; or Baptism as an adult when they are able to take the yoke of their faith on for themselves, and Baptism by all three methods is what the UMC teaches is the biblical way Baptism is supposed to work. So that is UMC theology, and you aren't going to find a UMC church that espouses Immersion, only, etc. (though you will find UMC churches with immersion Baptismals! Especially down south.)

But, just as I know Southern Baptist laity who support the ordination of women, Roman Catholics who support open communion, I know United Methodists who differ with the church on issues of doctrine. And they are free to do so. Sometimes, I'll admit, I wonder why they are here (when their theology is so fundamentally different); but I'm happy to have them anyway. But, and perhaps it's condescending but I hope it isn't and that's not my intention; I'll certainly echo the sentiments of our colleagues; the Clergy are required to uphold UM Doctrine; which means our Clergy would not have a theology of "Immersion Only" or "Adults Only" Baptism.

 

[BryanW92]

I don't know that Anto9us was trolling. Last week he was displaying a UMC icon. So, he may have been Wesleyan; indeed, may still be Wesleyan even in his new denomination.

But, I do disagree with his comments regarding condescending.

He certainly hates Calvinists with a passion.

 

[BryanW92]

So, here's my perspective. We're not a confessional denomination. That means our laity do not have to 'confess' Wesleyan theology (just very basic Christian theology, and they must profess; not confess but profess, a faith in Jesus Christ). However, as has been pointed out, our Clergy ARE, in a way, confessional. .

Therein lies a big problem with the UMC (for me, at least). The clergy does talk a lot about being vetting, educated, tried, tested, etc a lot but then you tell your laypeople that you aren't confessional. When you explain what that means, it comes out sounding like "You can believe what you want. We know what's right."

I'm not going to say that's condescending, but it does give the impression that the beliefs of laity are not that important to you. I know that's not true, but it does sound that way. I hope that your wish would be for all Methodists to be firmly trained in Wesleyan theology. Is it? I always tried to maintain a strong Wesleyan set of beliefs when I was Methodist because I felt that it was of vital importance to share a theology with my clergy.

I did go to a confessional church because having a confession and catechism became important enough to me that I wanted a place where all are expected to understand it (somewhat--no one bothers with the Larger Catechism anymore, but I think its much better than the SC).