Communion?

[RomansFiveEight]

Skypair, unlike most Baptist churches which are not connectional, the UMC is a connectional denomination. Maybe you were unaware of that, and that causes confusion. The UMC is led by Bishops, and the churches are all connected. ALL UM Clergy are vetted, trained, and educated at the denominational level. Circuitrider, GraceSeeker and I were not hired by our local churches after a bunch of laypeople vetted our theology; we were appointed by Bishops after a process of being scrutinized by other Clergy, educated, and trained. I'm still undergoing my theological training and am appointed as what is essentially a student Pastor (but still had to pass a LOT of scrutiny to even get this far) and GraceSeeker and Circuitrider, having completed their theological training, are still required to take annual continuing education courses each and every year they serve a church under appointment. An M.Div., a degree that usually takes 3-4 years to complete (And a pre-requisite is a 4 year college degree) is what's required for Ordination. And no matter how strong you might articulate it, someone whose theology is not United Methodist would not be ordained, commissioned, licensed or otherwise. That said, it doesn't preclude them from being members. We don't believe in kicking out those whose theology is different, or who might struggle with something. We believe we have a responsibility to them that includes open doors. So yes, you might find some Methodists whose theology isn't very Methodist. That doesn't mean it opens the door to calling any theology Methodist.

It's well documented, actually, what we believe. In an area of the United Methodist Book of Discipline that outlines our theology and doctrines, right up there in the front. And much of what you're teaching in here, is in direct conflict with that. The Book of Disciplines doctrinal standards were set before Biblical Inerrancy really existed, and harken to the original Methodists. And it's the result of painstaking review of scripture by well educated scholars who didn't just look at their favorite translation of the Bible (which would've been the KJV at the time, if it makes you feel any better. Though they'd have called it the Authorized Version), but broke down the original greek and hebrew and painstakingly attempted to understand the reality and totality of the scripture for us. Something the Clergy and those who lead the denomination continue to do today. As, in another response, GraceSeeker demonstrated. Understanding the origins of our scripture is part of the Master of Divinity education, they don't study some english translation; there is a lot of time spent studying the original scriptures; long before they were translated. In my office I have commentaries and greek dictionaries that help me develop sermons; especially since I'm not yet finished with my theological studies. (Though I'm sure even brilliant guys like Circuitrider and GraceSeeker still reference their commentary and dictionary sets)

Actually, I have a woman in my church who is interested in pursuing ministry in the UMC, and has a Masters degree in Theological Studies. But because that degree does not contain adequate understanding of Biblical languages, it would preclude her from becoming a United Methodist Elder (Ordained Pastor), but instead she could be a Deacon (which a Masters of Theological Studies is an approved educational requirement. Even Deacons in the UMC required Masters degrees), and that's likely the path she'll take.

It occurs to me that maybe that was the confusion, that you thought if someone called themselves a Methodist they were a Methodist, but that's just not the way it goes. While even you with your non-Wesleyan theology would be welcomed with open arms into a UMC congregation; you would not be able to become a Pastor in the UMC without a radical change to your theology. And what you believe is very much in the contrary to the restricted section of the Book of Discipline (It's called the Restricted Section because it requires a very tremendous process to change, and since the formation of Methodism, has never changed)

 

[skypair]

Skypair, unlike most Baptist churches which are not connectional, the UMC is a connectional denomination. Maybe you were unaware of that, and that causes confusion. The UMC is led by Bishops, and the churches are all connected. ALL UM Clergy are vetted, trained, and educated at the denominational level.

Yeah, the fellowship I'm with has existed under 3 pastors in 7 years, 3 or 4 associate pastors, and though the leadership changes, the message stays pretty much the same. It has been a little unsettling to them personally. Personal relationships always get hurt in separations.

...and GraceSeeker and Circuitrider, having completed their theological training, are still required to take annual continuing education courses each and every year they serve a church under appointment.

That's interesting to know. Kind of like me when I was a pilot — standardization.

An M.Div., a degree that usually takes 3-4 years to complete (And a pre-requisite is a 4 year college degree) is what's required for Ordination. And no matter how strong you might articulate it, someone whose theology is not United Methodist would not be ordained, commissioned, licensed or otherwise.

Let me ask you this: My nephew is a strong Calvinist but is serving in an Anglican church and desiring to (maybe is) pursuing his M Div. right now. Aren't you all closer to Anglican than to Calvinism?

We believe we have a responsibility to them that includes open doors. So yes, you might find some Methodists whose theology isn't very Methodist. That doesn't mean it opens the door to calling any theology Methodist.

This is pretty much what I have found as well. And at first, there was some skepticism about where my beliefs were coming from. It is actually by studying the Bible together that differences get muted and we just try to take the best of what each of us says. It's a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] learning situation for all.

It's well documented, actually, what we believe. In an area of the United Methodist Book of Discipline that outlines our theology and doctrines, right up there in the front. And much of what you're teaching in here, is in direct conflict with that. The Book of Disciplines doctrinal standards were set before Biblical Inerrancy really existed, and harken to the original Methodists. And it's the result of painstaking review of scripture by well educated scholars who didn't just look at their favorite translation of the Bible (which would've been the KJV at the time, if it makes you feel any better. Though they'd have called it the Authorized Version), but broke down the original greek and hebrew and painstakingly attempted to understand the reality and totality of the scripture for us.

Yes, the Catholics call them their "Majesterium" I believe. And they convene often when crises arise in the church to deliberate and decide what is to be believed.

Understanding the origins of our scripture is part of the Master of Divinity education, they don't study some english translation; there is a lot of time spent studying the original scriptures; long before they were translated. In my office I have commentaries and greek dictionaries that help me develop sermons; especially since I'm not yet finished with my theological studies. (Though I'm sure even brilliant guys like Circuitrider and GraceSeeker still reference their commentary and dictionary sets)

Yes, this is a basic commonality with all the denominations I know of.

It occurs to me that maybe that was the confusion, that you thought if someone called themselves a Methodist they were a Methodist, but that's just not the way it goes. While even you with your non-Wesleyan theology would be welcomed with open arms into a UMC congregation; you would not be able to become a Pastor in the UMC without a radical change to your theology.

Most churches hold to that as well. I guess it brings into consideration by what authority does any Christian get to teach other Christians, doesn't it? Or do the laity just not have anything worth teaching?

One of the things I find most frustrating with Calvinism, for instance, is there is a desire, even command, to follow the Spirit without understanding what the Spirit is. And how would one follow if one does not even realize how the Spirit speaks to us? Where do you hear the Spirit from, R5? I'll make this multiple choice so you can think about it. 1) Conscience .. 2) Scripture .. 3) Methodist theology.

And what you believe is very much in the contrary to the restricted section of the Book of Discipline (It's called the Restricted Section because it requires a very tremendous process to change, and since the formation of Methodism, has never changed)

Can something be in line with Methodism and not in line with the Bible? Or vice versa? I mean, I realize that the "The Book of Discipline (Part 2)" says that "faith was revealed in scripture, illuminated by tradition, vivified by personal experience, and confirmed by reason." Is there not any friction of scripture with tradition, experience, and reason? I'm sure there is since it is the same with all Christian faiths. Should we just let them lie like "sleeping dogs?"

No, obviously we are all trying to resolve them so that truth prevails, right? So if I bring forward a resolution, does it matter whether I am Methodist or arrived at it in the Methodist way (which I have)?

skypair

 

[RomansFiveEight]

As far as laity teaching, no, there is no prohibition from laity teaching. But there is clergy oversight. I would not, for example, encourage or permit you to teach in my church. Participate? Absolutely. But at some point we DO have to say "This is a Methodist church", and put our foot down, and say "That's not even remotely close, or even in the same ballpark, as Methodist theology, and you can't teach it here". For the most part, laity teach in most Methodist churches. The Pastor might lead an Bible study or an occasional Sunday School class; and of course preaches, leads worship, and presides at the sacraments (In the UMC, Clergy are also responsible for decisions of membership, and who they marry. The churches don't vote on members). But for the most part, trained lay people teach. Many of them going to district or conference training events. We also have a classifications like "Certified Lay Minister" and "Lay Servant", which are not Pastors, not ordained, not Clergy. But they do have to undergo certain training, yearly continuing education, and are supervised by their Pastor (each year, the Pastor has to 'sign off' on continuing them). In addition to teaching and leading in their churches, they are also who often 'fills in' for Pastors when they are away. I serve a two point charge (meaning there are two churches under my care). Each church has a lay servant, and I utilize them when I'm gone to preach for me. Both are well versed and trained in Methodist theology. If they were not available, I just have to call my District and they'll find someone for me!

As a matter of fact, Bryan, who is now a Presbyterian, was at one time a United Methodist Lay Servant. And I believe a "Lay Speaker" before that (which is what we used to call it, before we renamed it 'lay servant' to reflect the role that they have that goes beyond just speaking and preaching)

And I know you'll come back with something about Christians learning and teaching and etc., but let me ask you this; there's a young man doing a speaking tour right now on Biblical acceptance of homosexuals. He presents a Biblical argument for the inclusion of homosexuals, and suggests that the church has it wrong. There's no way on God's green earth he'd be invited into a Southern Baptist congregation, or most fundamentalist denominations. He's a Christian, he's using the Bible; but his theology is so incompatible (since homosexuality has sort of become the most important theological topic these days), that it just wouldn't be wise to let him speak. He's been speaking mostly in UCC, Progressive UMC, and a few other traditions that are more progressive. (There are a number of Christian traditions that endorse gay marriage.)

So, no, a layperson who believed in inerrancy/literalism, opposed women in leadership, etc., would not teach in most Methodist churches I know of. Perhaps in a fellowship outside the church, and perhaps in an occasional church here or there (though the Pastor would be failing in their Book of Discipline written duty to encourage the teaching of the doctrines of the UMC), but for the most part; no.

You haven't brought anything forth in a Methodist way. You've quoted small snippets of scripture out of context and claimed them to be literal and inerrant, suggested God dictated the Bible; and villified any traditions that have origins in Catholicism. That's all pretty much the antithesis of Methodism.

And if I believed that the Doctrinal Standards of the UMC violated the scriptures; I wouldn't be here. So no, they don't. You'll think they do. And we're back to where we started, aren't we?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Jeff Cook shares some thoughts on what Paul's phrase about not receiving the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner might mean.....
Lord’s Supper: Who is Unworthy? (Jeff Cook)

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Jeff Cook shares some thoughts on what Paul's phrase about not receiving the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner might mean.....
Lord’s Supper: Who is Unworthy? (Jeff Cook)

Thanks! He has some great words there.

I, too, have been in ecumenical settings where I wasn't invited to Communion. If it were a sin for the Clergy to allow 'unworthy' people to receive (And I firmly believe it is not. Even if it might be sinful for certain people to receive; which I firmly believe it is not; if anything scripture would indicate the responsibility falls on those receiving, not those presiding) what sort of grave sin might it be to refuse a faithful person who wants to connect with Christ in that way? Whether Baptist or Roman Catholic or otherwise; I am disappointed that I can officiate at the table in one church, and yet not even receive in another.

And I firmly believe, both in my heart and in my study of scriptures; that it would be a sin for me to turn away or discourage anyone from receiving the Eucharist.

 

[circuitrider]

Unfortunately part of the problem here is that people really don't understand King James English anymore. "Unworthily" does have anything to do with personal worthiness. It has to do with taking communion in an "unworthy manner" as many of the modern translations translate it. In other words it is about taking communion seriously not that any person is "worthy" to take communion.

If we only allowed the worthy at the table none of us would ever commune.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Unfortunately part of the problem here is that people really don't understand King James English anymore. "Unworthily" does have anything to do with personal worthiness. It has to do with taking communion in an "unworthy manner" as many of the modern translations translate it. In other words it is about taking communion seriously not that any person is "worthy" to take communion.

If we only allowed the worthy at the table none of us would ever commune.

I agree. Though I think you'd still have people who might consider that "An unworthy manner" would include being sinful, or having done something wrong, etc; since it's been the tradition of their faith.

 

[circuitrider]

I agree. Though I think you'd still have people who might consider that "An unworthy manner" would include being sinful, or having done something wrong, etc; since it's been the tradition of their faith.

They may do that, but I don't think it fits the term in the text or the context itself. I think it all stems back to a poor reading of the KJV.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

They may do that, but I don't think it fits the term in the text or the context itself. I think it all stems back to a poor reading of the KJV.

It really just demonstrates how flawed a literal reading of any english translation can be. The Bible is full of metaphors and euphemisms; some that totally escape modern language. What you and I understand about 'unworthily' doesn't come from a literal reading of one verse; but a broader understanding of the whole passage, the totality of scripture and the nature and character of God; which leads us to what I firmly believe is a more accurate reading of "unworthily". And also leads me to the convicting belief that it's not the sinner in the back row who has to worry; but the person who complains about every hymn, treats the church like their own family social club and not a place to worship God; and shuffles up to communion like it's just some routine and if you change anything about that routine; you'll hear about it!

One of my favorite examples (if only because it's so bizarre, in many ways) is the story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah. Of course, David had an affair with Bathsheba, Uriahs wife. When he discovers she's pregnant, he sends for Uriah. And he tells Uriah to go home and "wash his feet". A good english reading would lead you to believe he was meaning for Uriah to literally wash his feet. Or maybe you'll even take the liberty to say that Uriah was being told to go get cleaned up after spending time out on the field. But actually; he was telling Uriah to go be intimate with his wife. It was a euphemism. King David's thought being, if Uriah slept with Bathsheba, then it would absolve David of having to explain how she got pregnant while Uriah was away!

There's something to be said of our Jewish brothers and sisters who, in some circles, still teach Hebrew to their children; so that they get to a point that they fluently understand the original Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, including contextual information. I really feel like most Christians, United Methodists included, have dropped the ball on young Christian education (Sunday School isn't enough)

 

[GraceSeeker]

It really just demonstrates how flawed a literal reading of any english translation can be. The Bible is full of metaphors and euphemisms; some that totally escape modern language....
One of my favorite examples (if only because it's so bizarre, in many ways) is the story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah. Of course, David had an affair with Bathsheba, Uriahs wife. When he discovers she's pregnant, he sends for Uriah. And he tells Uriah to go home and "wash his feet".

hahaha What translation is that? And what verse as well?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

hahaha What translation is that? And what verse as well?

2 Samuel 11:8;

"Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him." (NIV)

"Then David told Uriah, “Go down to your house and wash your feet.”
Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. " (CEB)

" Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house, and wash your feet.” Uriah went out of the king’s house, and there followed him a present from the king." (NRSV)

A number of commentaries I've read, sermons I've heard on the subject, etc., all point to, however that passage is translated (some translations say 'and relax'), it was a euphemism in the original language encouraging Uriah to sleep with his wife. If I'm not mistaken (it's been a while), the NIB commentary also makes that claim. The NIB (New Interpreters Bible) is the commentary I use most commonly.

The only alternative I've seen, is those who suggest the euphemism was simply to 'spend time' with his wife, in hopes that he would get intimate with her; and the point of the passage remains; David's hope was to alleviate suspicion by not having Bathsheba pregnant with an absentee Husband. Really, even if Uriah would've gone into the home for some time; that would've been enough. But as we know, as the story continues, Uriah refuses to even leave his 'porch', citing that his men were sleeping outside, without their families; and so would he.

 

[circuitrider]

RomansEightFive,

That is similar to the passage when the Bible says Ruth uncovered Boaz' feet. Of course metaphors don't transfer from one language to another so it is easy to miss.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

RomansEightFive,

That is similar to the passage when the Bible says Ruth uncovered Boaz' feet. Of course metaphors don't transfer from one language to another so it is easy to miss.

Makes you wonder what phrases will become antiquated in the future. The English language may not live forever, after all it's really the product of a mashing together of various languages when culture clashed. And culture could clash again.

And it seems every few dozen years the english language coins or drops certain phrases or languages. Surely, culture moved nearly as fast back then. As much as "far out" "Rad" and "Tubular" are already antiquated today; what common phrases will be all but disappeared a few decades from now?

Heck, the euphamisms I used! Someone reading a translation of "Ancient American English" might view 'intimate' by it's definition in relation to closeness, or "Sleeping with" as simply meaning to nap together.

Language is fascinating; and it's one of the reasons I have a hard time grasping literalism; because it's almost always expressed in the form of literalism in the context of a particular English translation, with little concern (by very definition) to the original language, the context, or the changes in culture and language.

 

[circuitrider]

The language is evolving so fast that the KJV will be as useless to most people as Chaucer in middle English is today. That's part of the argument for continued translation. King James English will be a foreign language eventually.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

The language is evolving so fast that the KJV will be as useless to most people as Chaucer in middle English is today. That's part of the argument for continued translation. King James English will be a foreign language eventually.

I am admittedly ignorant to why the KJV is so hallowed. Even some who believe the KJV is somehow inspired, in some special way. It seems, sort of random. Other than being old; but in the grand scheme of things it's not even that old. And many of the people who cling to the KJV also reject other traditions as old or older than the KJV. It seems like a cultural enigma, more than anything. Especially when the KJV is used to 'prove itself', by comparing it to other denominations and pointing out differences that seem heretical; but not comparing those two to the original manuscripts. (Another thing I hear is that certain translations don't capitalize "him", but, neither did Paul or the other writers when they wrote it. That phenomenon came later and came inside the context of the English language. So translations that capitalize "him" are specifically, albeit harmlessly, modifying scripture to fit a cultural trend!)

 

[GraceSeeker]

I am admittedly ignorant to why the KJV is so hallowed.

Because nobody took the time to revise it for a couple of centuries. It wasn't seen as any more hallowed than any other translation originally. But it was done well enough that nobody felt a need to revise it for the longest time. Not until the 1800s did anyone try to improve upon it in England, and not until 1901 in America. You give something that long to be THE Bible and not just individual people but the culture itself begins to create all sorts of attachments that we don't even realize.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Because nobody took the time to revise it for a couple of centuries. It wasn't seen as any more hallowed than any other translation originally. But it was done well enough that nobody felt a need to revise it for the longest time. Not until the 1800s did anyone try to improve upon it in England, and not until 1901 in America. You give something that long to be THE Bible and not just individual people but the culture itself begins to create all sorts of attachments that we don't even realize.

That makes sense. Though the ideas that it is somehow inspired, as much or more than the original manuscripts; which is an ideology that exists; escapes me. Especially because that idea isn't even as old as the KJV itself!

I'm not anti-KJV, I'll use it on Wednesday during my Christmas eve service (I like to read the Christmas story from it); but I don't get the attachment.

Actually, frankly, I am not that attached to any translation and tend to think people apply way to much emphasis. Real exegesis involves much more than an English translation, and I believe it was N.T. Wright who said no English translation has ever represented any real, significant change or challenge to orthodox Christian theology. In other words; although they are worded different, some are more accurate than others and some are more relevant than others; none of them really say anything different.

Though, I might argue that translating "Diakonos" as deacon when it's referring to Paul or another man, but servant when it's referring to Phoebe might generate some ammo for the anti-women-in-ministry camp. But, ultimately, that debate is centered around 1 Timothy anyway.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Though, I might argue that translating "Diakonos" as deacon when it's referring to Paul or another man, but servant when it's referring to Phoebe might generate some ammo for the anti-women-in-ministry camp. But, ultimately, that debate is centered around 1 Timothy anyway.

Now, there's a rabbit trail for anyone wishing to go on a merry chase today.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Now, there's a rabbit trail for anyone wishing to go on a merry chase today.

Absolutely. And I'm sure you're referring at least in part to the 'courier' option of translating that word.

But no, I'm not interested in a rabbit trail chase. Besides, if I were so inclined to beat that horse; there are significantly better, more relevant, and more important ways to discuss women in ministry. But when I read that line from N.T. Wright(?), sometime ago, Pheobe being either "Deacon", "Minister", "Servant" or even nothing at all (some translations elect to omit 'Diakonos' rather than attempting to translate it), that was about the only good theology-shaking example I could think of. Even the most die-hard KJV-onlyist who has presented me with a list of comparisons to, say, the NIV; has presented what is ultimately an omission of a few words here and there that don't mean much. For example, an omission of the words "The Kingdom of God" from the NIV in a particular passage (which probably weren't in the original manuscripts anyway). On it's own, omitting the words "The Kingdom of God" sounds heretical, except that it's not in the oldest manuscripts in that context; and, for crying out loud; in no way could anyone read the NIV and not understand that God has a kingdom.

Just don't tell the KJV-onlyists about the CEB and we'll be okay.