A question about differences

[Anto9us]

CC Riduh -- I am not trolling

I did not "change denominations"

The basic story is -- I changed my little icon because I DID NOT WANT TO EMBARRASS OTHER CF METHODISTS

I rarely go into the TULIP Pit ('Debate a Calvinist' on Reformanda whatever). I am known to be full of urine and vinegar, I foresaw a long war there when I went back in -- but ceased hostilities when a Calvinist I respect pulled the "this is not edifying" card...

I told part of my icon-changing decision story to Romans, either in a PM or on the methodistconnexions board - caint remember

Anyway, Rider -- I will see my arrogance to the hubris I mentioned - and I will just "CALL". It really is kinda of neat to have such a high percentage of pastors in here - you 3 guys and Maid Marie from Nazarenes.

I will return to the Cross and Flame tomorrow.

One other thing I did not like about the "Identity badge" was that in UDD I was on a different side of a topic than a female Methodist -- and a Mormon was taunting -- "Oh, we've got a Methodist against a Methodist now" blah blah blah

I have not "changed denominations". I am caretaker for my 95 year old Father -- it is to the point I am not comfortable leaving the house for that long - even for choir practice and service -- even though Cogdell's UM church is only a mile away.

Online IS my basic fellowship.

And I am a layman, I was a Tenor in the choir, I am not very confrontational in person; I make up for it with online arrogance. I just call things as I see them.

I was Licensed for one year long ago -- decided not to go forward - visited Iliff Seminary in Denver and gave thought to going - but I can't play the game of shoulda- coulda-woulda.

As a point of technicality -- there are "Other Churches" that would be considered Wesleyan -- Free Methodist - "Wesleyan" themselves (oops - they got their OWN icon) -- but some of these are not UMC and would not bear the cross and switchblade - I mean - Cross and Flame. Just saying.

So any way - Clergy -- SING IT OUT!! Let's hear 'bout dem SEMMINERRIES!!

I was always physically close to Perkins - visited ILIFF -- and had an extremely conservative fellow student in undergrad that went to Asbury.

So what institutions were graced by you fine gentlemen?

And Madam Marie?

 

[Anto9us]

"He certainly hates Calvinists with a passion. "

no no no Bryan -- as I said on UDD this morning --

remember that old VERSE -

"Love the Calvinists - Hate the Calvinism!"

lol

I stood up for a handful of Calvinists here that I love when an attack on Calvinism started.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7857488/

I said that verse was

"IN BETWEEN First and Second Isaiah"

rofl

(I can prolly get away with that - they are mainly Lay people - heh heh)

heck, Bryan -- I'll go back right now and put you in the list of "good Calvinists"

and I'll change my icon right now.

(I can hang-glide on the winds of doctrine with the best of 'em - but I really never changed)

I could quote from Hezekiah -- how many would know?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

St. Paul School of Theology for me. I'm a licensed local Pastor still in the 'process'. I'm the newbie around here. GraceSeeker and CircuitRider are the old farts; er... I mean, veterans.

As to confessionalism, I genuinely would support radical education reform in the UMC, including denomination wide, standardized education for new unconfirmed members that follows the pattern of RCIA in the Roman Catholic Church. (Basically for RCC's, everyone is confirmed. Whether as kids through confirmation, or adults through RCIA). It's not a 4 hour new member class, it's an intense doctrinal education spanning several months and is every bit as in depth as Confirmation. Our system values educating young ones with denominationally supported confirmation programs; but pretty much says if you're an adult and want to join; step right up. SOME churches have intense new member requirements; most don't. And with a standardized, denomination wide program; small churches that might only have one or two new members in a year, can send their new folks up to a larger church for a better education with more folks and more discussion (Also, the way RCC folks do things. RCIA classes are sometimes combined in rural areas). I'm not Roman Catholic in my theology, but I think they really know what they are doing when it comes to education. They've got us all beat there.


There's an arrogant part of me that wishes we were confessional. It would be easier, in some ways, if members couldn't be members if their theology wasn't in line with the UMC. While I'd never support closed communion, there's is a part of me deep down that would like to be surrounded by like minded folks; and not have to put up with folks heavily influenced by seemingly every church in town but their own. But; then there's the part of me who recognizes the mission field and believes that's not the way I'm called to work. That I need to have these folks at the table where they might learn.

To be clear, at least my attitude is; no, you can't "Believe whatever you want". But we are a part of the greater universal church which has some basic truths. Those basic truths must be professed to be a member. That's where membership resides because that's where we believe we fit in; as a part of the broader universal church. But there are things we're going to teach and believe. I'm not going to kick you our or berate you or believe differently; but neither am I going to affirm your beliefs that differ. Because if I really BELIEVED what I believe, then it would be immoral for me to encourage people to believe differently, wouldn't it? But there's also in honesty in realizing that I can chase people away and puff my chest out and say I did the right thing; or I can encourage, love, and grow people; and focus on teaching and leading towards the Wesleyan way of viewing the world.

It's a valid criticism though, that we should probably think of better ways to articulate the point that the clergy and those who lead the UMC are very much Methodist in their theology; but not all of the laity are. Perhaps we should also embrace lay leadership. While they aren't expressly required; I don't know of any higher-up laity (like district/conference lay leaders, UMM/UMW Presidents, lay delegates to General Conference; even lay delegates to AC most of the time, who aren't very much United Methodists). I have laity in my congregation who have advanced theological training. They are laity (well, one is ordained in another denomination. The UMC does consider them Clergy. If she were to go to Annual Conference, she'd wear a black "Clergy-Other Denomination" nametag). And they know their UM Theology, and a broader sense of theology, well.

 

[BryanW92]

There's an arrogant part of me that wishes we were confessional. It would be easier, in some ways, if members couldn't be members if their theology wasn't in line with the UMC. While I'd never support closed communion, there's is a part of me deep down that would like to be surrounded by like minded folks; and not have to put up with folks heavily influenced by seemingly every church in town but their own. But; then there's the part of me who recognizes the mission field and believes that's not the way I'm called to work. That I need to have these folks at the table where they might learn.

There has to be some place between "believe what you want" and "believe every word of this confession or get out".

For example, in my church, you don't have to know the Confession or even believe it, even to be a member. But it exists and, if you desire to become an Elder or Deacon, you must learn it. (Teaching Elders are seminary grads. Ruling Elders and Deacons are laity who have stepped up). But to be a member, you must know that it does exist and agree to follow it, as taught by Elders. Basically, if there is a conflict, the Confession defines how we interpret Scripture. But for those who don't really want to know it, or care, you can attend and be a part of the church in every way except actual membership. We strongly encourage membership, but understand that some people just don't want that level of commitment (in time, treasure, talent, and in acceptance of the well-documented beliefs of our denomination).

That covers just about anyone who walks in the doors. Our leaders are well-trained. Our members understand our beliefs and accept the discipine of the church, and the visitors and casual attendees are welcomed with open arms.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

There has to be some place between "believe what you want" and "believe every word of this confession or get out".

For example, in my church, you don't have to know the Confession or even believe it, even to be a member. But it exists and, if you desire to become an Elder or Deacon, you must learn it. (Teaching Elders are seminary grads. Ruling Elders and Deacons are laity who have stepped up). But to be a member, you must know that it does exist and agree to follow it, as taught by Elders. Basically, if there is a conflict, the Confession defines how we interpret Scripture. But for those who don't really want to know it, or care, you can attend and be a part of the church in every way except actual membership. We strongly encourage membership, but understand that some people just don't want that level of commitment (in time, treasure, talent, and in acceptance of the well-documented beliefs of our denomination).

That covers just about anyone who walks in the doors. Our leaders are well-trained. Our members understand our beliefs and accept the discipine of the church, and the visitors and casual attendees are welcomed with open arms.

Which is where education comes in. I have a new Ad Council chairperson beginning January and I just gave her a copy of the "Book of Discipline". She's also enrolled in United Methodist Polity and Doctrine classes online. But, that's rare. I mean, really rare. Not a lot of folks are THAT committed to the work that they do. But if they HAD to be, I think more would.

 

[BryanW92]

Which is where education comes in. I have a new Ad Council chairperson beginning January and I just gave her a copy of the "Book of Discipline". She's also enrolled in United Methodist Polity and Doctrine classes online. But, that's rare. I mean, really rare. Not a lot of folks are THAT committed to the work that they do. But if they HAD to be, I think more would.

That level of commitment should be common among church leadership, at the very least. In my old church, only 4 members of the church council, SPRC, Trustees, and Finance committee were even Lay Servants (and all 4 of us were CLS...and the only 4 Emmaus veterans). The rest were great supporters of the budget and buildings. We practically begged the others to go, but they would always say, "I'm glad that you like that stuff, but its not really my thing."

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That level of commitment should be common among church leadership, at the very least. In my old church, only 4 members of the church council, SPRC, Trustees, and Finance committee were even Lay Servants (and all 4 of us were CLS...and the only 4 Emmaus veterans). The rest were great supporters of the budget and buildings. We practically begged the others to go, but they would always say, "I'm glad that you like that stuff, but its not really my thing."

I'm not disagreeing. But an unfortunate reality is, many of our churches would simply be without leadership. These sort of dynamics are the culture that are contributing to the decline of our faith worldwide and challenging our various denominations. Of the two churches I serve, the other has leadership whose only 'training' has come from their Pastors. One is earnest but is a physician with a very serious workload and simply cannot make it to the classes to become a CLS or otherwise. The rest are like what you experienced; they don't need that fancy book learnin', they can do their job just fine.

And when it came time for nominations, this woman who has an earnest desire to learn more about Methodism and become deeply rooted in her understanding is exactly who I piped up and said needs to be our next ad council chair. And I guess I have enough brownie points saved up that the nominations committee went with it.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm not disagreeing. But an unfortunate reality is, many of our churches would simply be without leadership. These sort of dynamics are the culture that are contributing to the decline of our faith worldwide and challenging our various denominations. Of the two churches I serve, the other has leadership whose only 'training' has come from their Pastors. One is earnest but is a physician with a very serious workload and simply cannot make it to the classes to become a CLS or otherwise. The rest are like what you experienced; they don't need that fancy book learnin', they can do their job just fine.
.

I agree with you. But pragmatism is the enemy of faith. My pastor wanted to institute a rule that said that committee chairs had to be CLS and Emmaus veterans. He mentioned it to our committee chairs and one of them actually said, "I hope you like being chairman of all committees Bryan".

It might be different in your conference, but there are just too many UM churches around here. We have 5 within 10 miles of my house. I know the leadership of all of them through the Emmaus community. All are struggling to find new leaders and struggling to meet budget and the average age of the congregations gets one year older every year.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I agree with you. But pragmatism is the enemy of faith. My pastor wanted to institute a rule that said that committee chairs had to be CLS and Emmaus veterans. He mentioned it to our committee chairs and one of them actually said, "I hope you like being chairman of all committees Bryan".

It might be different in your conference, but there are just too many UM churches around here. We have 5 within 10 miles of my house. I know the leadership of all of them through the Emmaus community. All are struggling to find new leaders and struggling to meet budget and the average age of the congregations gets one year older every year.

In my SPECIFIC area we're just right. Churches are evenly spaced, one per broader community. But not far we do have areas clogged. After all, there are 35,000 UMC churches in the USA. The Roman Catholic Church is bigger, and only has 12,000+/- churches. We're not efficiently laid out.

Each church has it's own personality though, and it's own mission field. Sometimes, multiple churches in one area makes sense. Sometimes it doesn't. I think better, more centralized education system and other ways of better connecting our churches would really help. We are short on leaders, that's for sure.

 

[circuitrider]

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.

Well said Graceseeker!

 

[circuitrider]

It might be different in your conference, but there are just too many UM churches around here. We have 5 within 10 miles of my house. I know the leadership of all of them through the Emmaus community. All are struggling to find new leaders and struggling to meet budget and the average age of the congregations gets one year older every year.

I don't think that is a sign of too many churches. Aging congregations actually is a sign that you need new church starts. Some aging congregations can learn new ways and involve new people. But others cannot. Newer churches re known for being more flexible, open, and able to attract new people.

 

[BryanW92]

Each church has it's own personality though, and it's own mission field. Sometimes, multiple churches in one area makes sense.

It depends on the diversity of the people in the area. My county is historically white, middle class, Republican, military so all 5 UMCs are white, middle class, Republican, military. The biggest differences are that two of them have more luxury sedans in the parking lot, one has more 4WD trucks, and the other two are a good mix of vehicles.

But, the demographics are changing. The UM churches are not.

 

[BryanW92]

I don't think that is a sign of too many churches. Aging congregations actually is a sign that you need new church starts. Some aging congregations can learn new ways and involve new people. But others cannot. Newer churches re known for being more flexible, open, and able to attract new people.

You're right about the new churches.

But, why let the old churches suffer and die like that? People pour their money and labor into a church just to see it die and the property go back to the Conference. Wouldn't it be better to do some resource management and start educating people on the need to combine congregations so they can pool their money and people to form one viable church out of two doomed ones?

No one ever mentions that to the congregations. The people might surprise you. They might even decide to close both and open one new church with all that money and experience and a new outlook on the local mission field.

 

[circuitrider]

You're right about the new churches.

But, why let the old churches suffer and die like that? People pour their money and labor into a church just to see it die and the property go back to the Conference. Wouldn't it be better to do some resource management and start educating people on the need to combine congregations so they can pool their money and people to form one viable church out of two doomed ones?

No one ever mentions that to the congregations. The people might surprise you. They might even decide to close both and open one new church with all that money and experience and a new outlook on the local mission field.

Many pastors in pastoral appointments try to do those things. In fact many of us are trained in visioning and congregational planning. But the church has to be receptive. Only a small percentage of aging congregations are receptive to change, that is why they are aging congregations.

I'm not saying we should not try. But the way Methodism spread across the nation was by starting new Methodist societies, preaching stations, etc.

We need to regain the skills of starting new communities of faith rather than depending on church some of which are probably near the end of their life cycle.

 

[GraceSeeker]

You're right about the new churches.

But, why let the old churches suffer and die like that?

The conference doesn't "let" old churches suffer and die. Churches die because they don't continue to give birth to new generations of believers. Or those they do give birth to move away and the congregation fails to attract any new people from outside themselves.

People pour their money and labor into a church just to see it die and the property go back to the Conference.

The property doesn't go back to the Conference unless the church is abandoned. I've attended too many conference meetings where congregations closed AND also directed the proceeds of the sale of their property to ministries of their own choosing. I had the "privilege" of closing one congregation and the few members who remained at the end transferred their membership to about 4 other congregations and gave a gift to each of those congregations from the resources they had. The property was sold to a non-denominational church that wanted it, and those funds were given to help with new church starts in our conference. The Trustees of the congregation had total control of those assets even after the church closed its doors. The only time the conference steps in and makes decisions for a church is when a building has been abandoned or the Trustee surrender the property to the conference. The trust clause isn't to take control away from local churches, but to give authority to the conference to take care of things when there is no one left to do so.

Wouldn't it be better to do some resource management and start educating people on the need to combine congregations so they can pool their money and people to form one viable church out of two doomed ones?

Yes, it would be. But people who have their names carved into some plaque that is hanging on the wall or a window usually don't see the value of doing that. They continue to hang on to the building long after it is a viable congregation, and still demand that the conference supply them with a pastor even though they can only pay a couple hundred dollars a week and have to cobble something together one or more other churches.

No one ever mentions that to the congregations.

Oh, but we do.

The people might surprise you. They might even decide to close both and open one new church with all that money and experience and a new outlook on the local mission field.

Every now and then they do. I can tell you the story of about a half dozen that have done exactly this in our conference, and so far all have seen growth as a result. But the vast majority aren't interested. And the conference can't force them if they don't have or aren't willing to adopt the vision.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

One of our big 'church growers' suggests there is something bigger at play than appeasing toxic personalities that are killing our churches; and suggest it's better to try something and run them off than do nothing and let them kill the church. Those who are ready to move forward will. The rest will leave. It's a harsh approach; but in the right context, it may be what's right for the church. In my church, I could probably name the people who would lead, who would stay (but not necessarily lead), who would get mad (but not leave); and who would leave and never come back. So there are those who would say, focus on the first three camps, hold the door open for the last camp.

The thing is, these power personalities want THEIR church. The one where their parents/loved ones are immortalized (in good pagan fashion) with a plaque on the wall, where they can dictate everything (I once had a woman at a church I was lay speaking at, filling in for the Pastor on vacation) walk up to me a few minutes before a service, point to a hymn and say "I don't know that one you need to change it" in a very demanding tone. I pulled the "not your Pastor, not my job" card, and just told her that I was going to go with what I had been given, as the Pastor had left me with a bulletin to use. She huffed and puffed and sat in her pew.

They don't want their church to grow. They say they do, but they don't really care if it does. And if it changes, they won't keep going. They'll leave. Because it's not about worship, or service; it's about MY church doing things that way I want to do them. So if MY church changes, then it's not MY church anymore. Again, there's a growing attitude of "Wish them well, pray for them, and don't let the door hit them on the way out". In her later years, my grandmother had a bit of that attitude; and it worked. She went to a dying congregation of about 50, with a lot of rough personalities. There were some angry meetings when she told the church they were going to live, like it or not. Some harsh words, cussing out, late night calls to the D.S. and plenty of folks storming out and leaving. And when she retired, having served that parish (her last) for several years, they were at about 150. They are a little smaller than that today, but continue to be an extremely healthy, vibrant congregation. Not only do they have three times as many folks in worship, but they have several district and conference leaders coming from within that church, Emmaus/Chrysalis leaders, several folks from that church have gone on to pursue ministry in a variety of ways (from missionary work to pursuing orders). And really, it's not because my Grandma was this great charismatic Hamilton type. She was just getting old, getting fed up, and not willing to let the church die. So she was willing to stand up to those power personalities, and willing to let them leave. Not make them leave, not even ask them to leave; but let them leave; as an alternative to pandering to them to make them stay.

My personality doesn't fit that model well. Admittedly. But, it may be what SOME of our churches need. Someone to stand up and say "This is about God; not about your favorite hymns, your 'in memory of' plaques and your dinners"

 

[BryanW92]

In my old church, we had a broken water fountain with a pagan plaque over it. Someone offered to replace it, but was told that it just needed to be fixed because it was donated "In Loving Memory Of..." and the name was that of the mother of one of our most "Influential Members" (as he would call himself when issuing orders to the church council chairman and pastor).

No parts were available and the cost of repairing it would have been 2 or 3 times the cost of a new one.

So, we had new plumbing run so that a new one could be installed 6 feet away. And then that one got an "In Loving Memory Of..." plaque. Some things never change.

 

[Anto9us]

' white, middle class, Republican, military "

I am that - well - EX-military... AF vet...

I did not know it was a sin to be

"white, middle class, Republican, & ex-military"

I do earnestly repent, and art heartily sorry
for these my manifold sins and wickednesses

which I - 24/7 - have been - and now are - guilty of

by omission or commission

the remembrance of them is grievous unto me

we do not presume to come to this thy table, o Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies

we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs of the too-hard-anyway communion wafers under thy table

forgive us - forgive us - O Merciful Father

and grant that we may ever hereafter

serve and please thee in newness of life



(I remember "White Only" water fountains...

things have changed )

 

[circuitrider]

(I remember "White Only" water fountains...

things have changed )

I hope in that case you mean for the better.

 

[BryanW92]

I hope in that case you mean for the better.

When I was in first grade (1968-69), I attended a K-12 school in the mountains of Maryland. It had refrigerated "High School" fountains and non-refrigerated "Elementary School" fountains side-by-side. I never knew why.