Just got home...

[BryanW92]

...from Florida Annual Conference.

I'm tired.

 

[GraceSeeker]

...from Florida Annual Conference.

I'm tired.

I thought you had left the UMC to joined the Nazarene or Wesleyan church? Am I in error?

 

[BryanW92]

Its complicated. My wife won't leave until she finishes teaching a bible study series in her Sunday school class and AC just arrived with me still being the Lay Delegate, so I went. I got to network with quite a few evangelical Methodists at AC, but we were definitely outnumbered by the Progressives. Dr Timothy Tennant spoke at a luncheon for FL UM evangelicals and that was encouraging (that we are organizing) but also discouraging (that a split is the only workable solution).

A Resolution on recommending an ultrasound prior to abortion was very revealing as to the nature of FL Progressives in the UMC.

So, I'm just hanging out in an uncommitted limbo these days.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Dr Timothy Tennant spoke at a luncheon for FL UM evangelicals and that was encouraging (that we are organizing) but also discouraging (that a split is the only workable solution).

I'm sorry to hear that my seminary president is asserting that a split is the only workable solution. I'm not so quick to throw in the towel as I think there are other options.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm sorry to hear that my seminary president is asserting that a split is the only workable solution. I'm not so quick to throw in the towel as I think there are other options.

Did you read his 7 articles on the "Way Forward"? He isn't saying that it's the only solution, but it is rising to the top as the best solution. However, his proposal to split the one denomination into two branches is still effectively a split. He is just proposing creating two wholly-owned but financially independent subisidiaries under UMC Inc.

What do you see as an "other option"?

The only solutions I keep hearing are:

1) Unconditional surrender to the Progressive position
2) Slow surrender through the Local Option
3) Split

 

[GraceSeeker]

First, I just read this in a blog by Gail Irwin and believe it speaks to whole denominations as much as local congregations.

I had an encounter recently that left me feeling dejected: at a gathering of clergy, a pastor poured out to me his frustration with his declining church. He could not get the congregation to change their behavior, even though they were on a path of steep decline. He was looking for some answer, some ray of hope. All I could do was listen and nod my head.

I went home and asked my husband, “What am I supposed to say to these people? Your church might die. Sorry about that.”

He looked at me for a moment, and then said, “Not today.”

“What?”

“They’re not going to die today,” he repeated.

It took me a second to get my head around that. My husband, a farmer, speaks from experience. This is a guy who works to keep animals alive every day. They get diarrhea and pneumonia and swallow pieces of metal. He is always injecting someone with penicillin or patching a sore eye or bandaging a hoof. When a heifer is gasping for life and he’s pumping her veins with electrolytes, he is saying, “You might die. But not today. Today, it’s my job to keep you alive in case you get stronger tomorrow.”

In his usual sparse way, he had said so much. If you are not closing your doors today, there is still work to be done. Any church that is worrying about the fact that they might close some time in the future is wasting time. There is important ministry to be done today. And I don’t mean cleaning the grout in the church kitchen tile. I mean, there is a mouth to feed, a grieving family to be comforted, a love to be celebrated, a story to be told, a cold body to be warmed.

I know this contradicts so much I have said about planning for a generous, faithful end of life for churches when that end seems inevitable. I still believe in all that. But at the same time, letting church decline sabotage whatever good ministry you are doing now is not the answer.

Just this once, forget about dying tomorrow. Keep being the church, alive, today.

Second, I don't believe that the church is dying because of "the Progressive position." The troubles we are facing in the UMC in the USA stem more from those who view their local position as that of being a country club for saints rather than as a hospital for sinners. Even we who claim to be conservative have not conserved our relationship with the vine. What fruit we have, if any, are dried up institutional raisins.


Third, doctrine has never been as important as praxis, not even to Jesus. His commentary on the Law was often, "You have heard it said ..., but I say to you...." When asked about the greatest commandment, he refused to stop at one and instead gave two, both of which were about actions more than propositional truths. In the end he called his disciples not to believe in him as much as to follow his example. So, even if the progressives "win", it wouldn't be as big of a loss for the truth that Jesus wants to see enacted as if the conservative position were to carry the day, and then everyone just went home to contemplate said truth.

Lastly, if one is trying to avoid a split, I am convinced that "The Way Forward" is absolutely the antithesis of the best way to achieve that end. It most certainly will produce a split, not avoid one.

For another option, look here: A Plan for Amicable Unity: Jurisdictional Solution (Jurisdictional Solution). I'm not offering this as the best answer either; frankly, I don't think that the answer the UMC needs has been created yet, But there are not only other options than A Way Forward, there are better ones, for it is going to create the very division it seeks to alleviate. And anyone who pushes it is pushing for a split.

 

[BryanW92]

The troubles we are facing in the UMC in the USA stem more from those who view their local position as that of being a country club for saints rather than as a hospital for sinners. Even we who claim to be conservative have not conserved our relationship with the vine. What fruit we have, if any, are dried up institutional raisins.

You firmly hit the nail on the head with that statement!! Our weakness is caused by our social club atmosphere and a fear of offending anyone with the truth. After all, we wouldn't want to lose a paying parisioner or someone to help us by serving on a committee, would we?

The conservatives are almost as wrong as the Progessives about homosexuality. We think that its the ONLY sin and they think that its NOT a sin. We're both wrong. And we all ignore the other sexual sins, don't we? Don't want to offend the single people who had sex last night, do we? Don't want to offend the divorced people, do we? Don't want to offend the porn addicts or the women who dress provactively even in church, do we?

Once we get past all the sexual sins, we have a myriad of other sins that we can't mention either. We have the rich people who exploit their employees, the poor who cheat the welfare system, the prideful guy with a $90k car in the parking lot who can't "afford" to tithe, the single mom who can afford tattoos but can't afford to feed her children, etc.

I love the dried up raisins analogy. It really does describe our problem. I can hold a meeting to discuss the Pumpkin Patch and 40 people will show up, ready to speak. I can hold a Prayer Service and I'm lucky to get 10, and 8 of them won't make a sound. Perhaps the threat of a looming split might shake us out of our complacency and willingness to ignore all sin out of fear of uncovering our own.

 

[BryanW92]

Third, doctrine has never been as important as praxis, not even to Jesus. His commentary on the Law was often, "You have heard it said ..., but I say to you...." When asked about the greatest commandment, he refused to stop at one and instead gave two, both of which were about actions more than propositional truths. In the end he called his disciples not to believe in him as much as to follow his example. So, even if the progressives "win", it wouldn't be as big of a loss for the truth that Jesus wants to see enacted as if the conservative position were to carry the day, and then everyone just went home to contemplate said truth.

I think that we need to stop letting the Progressives control the terminology on what constitutes "inclusive". The UMC already includes gays as members. The fight is ONLY over gay marriage and gay clergy. If it were up to me, I'd concede on gay marriage as long as we never have to mention the idea of gay clergy again.

There are plenty of people in our church who are not suitable for ordination for a variety of reasons. We don't speak of them as "excluded from the church". We just accept that being clergy is not for everyone.

 

[ryND]

Well I am looking forward to our Pastor(s) returning from the(I'm in California) Annual Conference to see if they have any interesting info to report.

I'm newer to the UMC has this been an on going issue for awhile?

Funny thing is if they split my Wife will want to go with the Liberals and I will want go with the Conservatives. So for that reason alone I hope they don't split. Lol

 

[BryanW92]

Well I am looking forward to our Pastor(s) returning from the(I'm in California) Annual Conference to see if they have any interesting info to report.

I'm newer to the UMC has this been an on going issue for awhile?

Funny thing is if they split my Wife will want to go with the Liberals and I will want go with the Conservatives. So for that reason alone I hope they don't split. Lol

Its been going on for 42 years, but is all coming to head now.

My wife doesn't care about church politics so she's willing to leave the UMC (one day, when she completes all the things she thinks she is obligated to do), but her choices for a new church are the ELCA church down the road one way, and the PCUSA church down the street the other way. Like I said, she doesn't really follow these issues much. LOL.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The topic has been an issue in the church since before you were born. It first emerged at the 1972 General Conference.

At it the UMC was completing the work of the 1968 GC (General Conference) when the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church had united to form the United Methodist Church. Both predecessor denominations had had their own set of principals by which they described their understanding of the church's relationship to the world. The 1968 GC had left them in place and the 1972 GC was now attempting to harmonize them with something that we called our "Social Principles". The document brought to the GC (and I'm not actually quoting) something to the effect that "all persons, regardless of sexually, are equally persons of sacred worth."

I was at this GC and I remember that most people thought this was an innocuous enough statement and generally approved of it. However, there were some that saw in it a potential for it to be open to interpretation in the future as tacitly endorsing homosexuality. Thus, they proposed an amendment and added the now famous language that we hold "the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching."

In 1972 there were few who really had a problem with that language. And even among those who were pushing for language that was as fully inclusive as possible many saw this as an acceptable compromise to get the "of sacred worth" language included. And the Social Principals passed with both statements as part of it by a little more than a 2/3 vote on the key passages. But by the 1980s that sentiment was changing.

Actually, if I remember it right, it was the conservatives who struck the first legislative blow. There had always been homosexuals active in the UMC and in most other churches as well. In the wake of the AIDS crisis, some of these folks sought to distinguish themselves from those whose sexual promiscuity was exacerbating the problem of HIV/AIDS in the gay community. They had found their significant other, were living in long-term monogamous relationships, and now wished to affirm this publically. While the state might not recognize this commitment, they wanted their friends and family to do so; this naturally included their church family whose blessing they also sought. And so some pastors (not necessarily UMC pastors) began not to do gay weddings but blessing ceremonies. Other gay individuals saw this and wondered why they couldn't have an actual marriage? Maybe the church wouldn't recognize homosexual marriage for various religions reasons, but why should the state not do so -- after all, they reasoned, wasn't there separation of church and state in this country? The AIDS crisis resulted in a spike in deaths in the gay community, many of these people had been abandoned by their family, but because their partner(s) was not their spouse they had no rights, often not even visiting privileges in the hospitals. And so they sought changes at the legal level that would rectify what they saw/experienced as a problem. With this, some of the conservatives voices in the UMC wanted to make it clear that since the practice of homosexuality was "incompatible with Christian teaching" that they viewed it inappropriate for UMC pastors to be blessing these relationships. Charges were brought against pastors for not keeping the Discipline of the Church in engaging in these sorts of blessings, especially when some of them began to use the term "marriage" implying that it was recognized by the church even though it would not be recognized by the state. And thus the debate entered a new phase when charges were brought, and cases had to be heard, and pastors were defrocked, and appeals were made to the Judicial Council.

Almost universally, those pastors who stood their ground were initially defrocked. But in some cases because they found new employment in the church, or they were merely suspended to later be restored, those who objected felt that the UMC was not taking this seriously enough and upped the pressure. Others, seeing that there was this nearly universal legal response that was based on following the wordage in the Discipline, even by people who had some degree of sympathy for those they were disciplining, sought to have the Discipline changed. Every General Conference for the last 20 years has had multiple petitions seeking to change the language of the Discipline one way or the other. Usually both types of petitions are presented. And so far, the vote has remained right at 2:1 (a few percentage points up or down) to keep the language as it is.

But that is not because views are not changing. Indeed the vote has remained roughly consistent because two contrasting changes are cancelling each other out. In the US the UMC, like the USA citizenry, is becoming more accepting. Now, I certainly don't mean universally accepting. And at the grassroots my personal sense (at least where I live in the Midwest) is that it is probably 60:40 to recognize gay marriages or at least civil unions on the secular level, but not as a ceremony sanctioned by the church. However, among the church leadership that gets elected to national boards and agencies, who often become our delegates to General Conference, I suspect that the ratio is 60:40, perhaps even higher, to allow for pastors to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies with the full blessing of the United Methodist Church.

However, the UMC is a global church. And while our membership in the USA has been slipping for decades, it is growing (almost exponentially growing) overseas, especially in Africa. Right now, while the USA still represents the largest portion of the UMC membership, and therefore has the largest portion of delegates to General Conference, the numbers are declining in the US and increasing overseas in what we call our Central Conferences. The African delegations in particular, even amongst the leadership that comes to General Conference, are almost exclusively against the acceptance of homosexuality in any form. With 40% of our membership presently from the Central Conference, with the projection that by 2020 the UMC in Africa will represent a majority of all UMC members from around the world, the writing is on the wall regarding this issue. Thus concerted efforts are being made to make changes by those who want change. The last two General Conferences have been dominated by this issue as if it was the only issue before us. And the fight over it for 2016 was already shaping up even before the delegates left Tampa (site of the 2012 GC).

An example of this can be seen in the action coming out of the 2012 Jurisdictional Conference in the Western Jurisdiction. They passed a resolution that basically said the Annual Conferences of the Western Jurisdiction are free to receive the Social Principals of the Book of Discipline as instructive for guidance, but not required to interpret them as the law of the church. This was, of course, challenged, went to the Judicial Council to determine if such action was allowed. They gave their ruling just this past winter and it was interpreted that it was. So, in California effectively there are no rules one way or the other, only guidelines which may be accepted or ignored depending on the action of the local Annual Conference, its bishop and the decisions of the Board of Ordained Ministry in the annual conference.

Earlier this year, in New York, the bishop decided that even if charges were brought, he read the Discipline to say that he could determine whether a trial was needed or discipline could be handled in some other manner. He has chosen the other manner of consultation, and openly announced that he will hold no more church trials on this matter.

So, to answer your question, yes this has been going on for awhile. But it is also very much coming to a head just now.


BTW, I primarily spoke of the issue of conducting same sex marriages. There is also the issue of whether or not a person who is a homosexual can be ordained in the UMC. But the two are related because of our principal that there is to be celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage. If we do not recognize same-sex marriage, then gay and lesbian individuals can serve in the church but would be expected to remain celibate. Indeed, this position was articulated in the 1980s by the Judicial Council as their interpretation of the present wordage in response to some of the earliest challenges. But, if today we live in a time when homosexual marriages are being recognized by the state, and then we allow UMC pastors to celebrate them, on what grounds would the UMC say that a pastor should themselves not be allowed to receive the same blessing that they are allowed by both civil and church law to celebrate on behalf of others? And that is the question before us today.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Bryan, just to throw a wrench in your oatmeal;

Most progressive CLERGY and LAY LEADERS I know (in other words beyond the occasional pew warmer; let's set aside general progressive Christians, who like many other Christians, put their faith on a backburner and their social points of view ARE more important to their faith. I know Progressive Christians who think it's biblically wrong but personally find no fault in it. I've heard no such statement from any Progressive clergy); believe homosexuality is acceptable because of their scriptural interpretation. I know you don't agree with it and that's fine; but it would be unfair for us to say that anyones understanding is entirely invalid and re-write their understanding for them.

What I mean by that is, when a person tells us they believe the Bible says something; we shouldn't tell them "No, you're just fitting in with society". So when Progressive leaders in the UMC say "We think it's acceptable", they are NOT saying "We think the Bible says it's wrong but we don't want to lose people". On the contrary. They think it's scripturally valid and that's why they have the point of view.

You are entitled to disagree; and likewise I would just as much (as I have in the past) discourage any of my more progressive friends from using the sort of Progressive rhetoric (You must be a bigot if you don't support full inclusion and marriage, etc.) that is launched on evangelicals.

That's all! I don't mind everyones points of view; but I have a personal pet peeve when people fail to recognize the validity and worth of their brothers and sisters in Christ and the way they view things; and 'cheapen' it by ignoring what they say is the reason for their conclusion and instead inject their own reason.

 

[BryanW92]

They think it's scripturally valid and that's why they have the point of view.

Therein lies the problem. Jesus' second commandment has become the catch-all scriptural proof like the "Commerce Clause" has been overused for decades to justify so many government overreaches.

I've done a lot of thinking on this since I got home from AC. I'm starting to believe that Wesleyan theology was something that worked in a time when being a Christian was the default, so the church could afford to have varying and competing scriptural validity since everyone worked from the same basic rules.

But, in a post-Christian nation, a Christian set of morals and the shared experiences of a childhood spent in Sunday school no longer exist so the variances between scriptural validity range from one end of the spectrum to the other.

I've always been strongly against Calvinism, but I am starting to believe that there really may be elect and non-elect. In a post-Christian society, there is a significant number of people who just won't/can't/refuse to "get it". Is their desire for rebellion so strong that they can deny the Holy Spirit for a lifetime or are they just not children of God?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Therein lies the problem. Jesus' second commandment has become the catch-all scriptural proof like the "Commerce Clause" has been overused for decades to justify so many government overreaches.

I've done a lot of thinking on this since I got home from AC. I'm starting to believe that Wesleyan theology was something that worked in a time when being a Christian was the default, so the church could afford to have varying and competing scriptural validity since everyone worked from the same basic rules.

But, in a post-Christian nation, a Christian set of morals and the shared experiences of a childhood spent in Sunday school no longer exist so the variances between scriptural validity range from one end of the spectrum to the other.

I've always been strongly against Calvinism, but I am starting to believe that there really may be elect and non-elect. In a post-Christian society, there is a significant number of people who just won't/can't/refuse to "get it". Is their desire for rebellion so strong that they can deny the Holy Spirit for a lifetime or are they just not children of God?

I understand what you're trying to say; but my point was less about why they think it's valid and more that they just do. I think it's unfair to say that they are just trying to 'fit in' and trying to 'keep people from leaving'. Frankly our laity are fairly conservative anyway (except in some very liberal parts of the country). That's all I was trying to say; I would caution you from saying that progressives feel the way they do about homosexuality for fear of offending people; because I just don't think that's true.

 

[BryanW92]

but my point was less about why they think it's valid and more that they just do.

That was my point too. Their "why" requires a stretch of the imagination (just like the Commerce Clause in most cases). So, they have to rely mostly on "because I want to believe it." So, why do they want to believe it? Because they have identified a group that they feel is marginalized and they want to be part of a Great Civil Rights Struggle as we had in the 1950s and 60s.

Of course, that struggle was about skin color. This one is about choices and giving in to unnatural lusts.

They say that you can't "pray away the gay" so we must embrace it as an alternative lifestyle.

But, then the same people tell us that men should pray away heterosexual lusts in the form of porn, adultery, and fornication. Now, if something biologically unnatural cannot be prayed away, then why do they believe that something natural can be? (Yes, even porn is natural because men are hardwired for visual sexual stimulation.)

Simple: they don't want to offend two "victim groups", the women and the gays.

 

[Joykins]

That was my point too. Their "why" requires a stretch of the imagination (just like the Commerce Clause in most cases). So, they have to rely mostly on "because I want to believe it." So, why do they want to believe it? Because they have identified a group that they feel is marginalized and they want to be part of a Great Civil Rights Struggle as we had in the 1950s and 60s.

Of course, that struggle was about skin color. This one is about choices and giving in to unnatural lusts.

They say that you can't "pray away the gay" so we must embrace it as an alternative lifestyle.

But, then the same people tell us that men should pray away heterosexual lusts in the form of porn, adultery, and fornication. Now, if something biologically unnatural cannot be prayed away, then why do they believe that something natural can be? (Yes, even porn is natural because men are hardwired for visual sexual stimulation.)

Simple: they don't want to offend two "victim groups", the women and the gays.

I see how you would see it that way but from the other side, WE don't see it that way.

Many people (including myself, mostly) sincerely believe that the verses in question have to do with temple prostitution or pederasty or idolatry or sexual thrill-seeking or any number of things that are not the same as what we see today as the sexual orientation of homosexuality or a committed monogamous same-sex relationship (which themselves are quite different things).

(As for a stretch in Biblical interpretation, I don't think it is any more of a stretch than what Matthew does to much of the Old Testament; probably much less. Sometimes I think the NT writers were much more creative with their interpretations of scriptures than we allow ourselves to be).

Where you see us finding a "victim group" to fixate on, we simply perceive the situation as unjust, and we don't believe God perpetuates injustices. And we promise in our baptismal vows to resist injustice(*). Heterosexual people, regardless of any lusts or porn problems (and these occur among women too, I'm not sure why you focus on men here), have an honorable, socially and legally recognized way to practice their sexuality and have their chosen family member perceived as such. Why do we deny this recognition to people whose chosen mate is the same sex? I am not speaking of "giving into unnatural lusts" but the ability to love one's life partner--as if some straight man's visit to a prostitute is on the same level as a lifelong faithful commitment to one person??? The whole idea is insulting.


* this is not to say that this is the only injustice out there, it is one of many.

 

[BryanW92]

Many people (including myself, mostly) sincerely believe that the verses in question have to do with temple prostitution or pederasty or idolatry or sexual thrill-seeking or any number of things that are not the same as what we see today as the sexual orientation of homosexuality or a committed monogamous same-sex relationship (which themselves are quite different things).

I would like to believe that my favorite sin is not really a sin either. But I am not so invested in that sin that I self-identify as the sin with a distinctively colored ribbon on my sign.

All you need to see is the big word PRIDE on your parades and you have your answer. You have inadvertently revealed your true sin with that choice of words. Your PRIDE makes you take an unnatural lust that all experience briefly and occaisionally and decide to make that be your source of PRIDE. The source of PRIDE is Satan. A Gay PRIDE parade is thumbing your nose at the biology that God created and then dedicating it to Satan.

 

[Joykins]

I would like to believe that my favorite sin is not really a sin either.

You're not getting what I'm saying.

How do you feel being told being married to your wife is your "favorite sin"?

ETA: I am not, at least, advocating for the inclusion of "gay pride parades" in church. That's outs of scope.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

The progressive perspective doesn't see it as sin, Bryan. That's the point many conservatives fail (or refuse) to see. So many times I hear that they are willfully sinning in a manner as you describe. You might think they are sinning, but they don't. This is not a case of "Gee, I know it's a sin but I really like it so let's change the rules". This is a case of "The church is condemning me for something it has no authority to condemn me for and that's an issue of justice".

Not saying you should agree; but I do believe anyone who holds to the traditional view of homosexuality and marriage should allow enough grace to understand that those who differ do not view it as sin, and do not believe the Bible condemns it. I have yet to meet a Christian progressive who said "I think it's a sin but the church should allow it anyway", but many of my more conservative friends have used that same rhetoric, and it's just not fair.

Again, not asking you to agree with them. Just asking you to have enough grace in your heart to understand where they are coming from. It's not fair to claim that they are trying to "justify their favorite sin".

And yes, identity is a big part of sexuality. That's basic psychology. (In fact, I think they touched on that in General Psychology!). My wife is a big part of my identity. She is a big part of who I am. I have a semi-working knowledge of a field I've never ever worked a day in because I am married to a professional in that field. My wife is an enormous part of my identity and I bet your wife is a big part of yours. So if someone tells me I can't be married to my wife because it's morally wrong (Oh, and I've had that happen. She was raised Catholic and some of her fundamentalist Catholic family felt she was 'marrying out of the faith' as if I were a Jew or a Hindu or something!) I would not 'appease' them by pretending not to be married to her and living in hiding so as not to offend. No, they'll just have to get used to the fact that we're married; by a bond that transcends their own understandings of morality.

Again; not asking you to agree with the progressive arm of Christianity; just asking you to extend Grace to them and understand where they come from. It's frankly not fair some of the rhetoric used. I don't like the rhetoric they use on Conservatives, either, by the way!

 

[BryanW92]

Again; not asking you to agree with the progressive arm of Christianity; just asking you to extend Grace to them and understand where they come from. It's frankly not fair some of the rhetoric used. I don't like the rhetoric they use on Conservatives, either, by the way!

I do understand where they come from. I know a lot better than you because you seem to seem to have been a church guy for your whole life. I was an atheist for most of my adult life and I took the approach that homosexuality is OK if that's what you like to do. I felt the same about fornication, porn, and adultery (as long as it wasn't my wife committing it). I believed that Christians were just being nosy meddlers for even commenting on people's sexual choices because sex of any kind is natural and fun, so why would they hate it so much? I always thought that Christians should worry more about the money they bilked out of old people to make them think they were going to heaven when they died.

The sinner in me still wants to believe all that and sleep in on Sunday.