Live Streaming of General Conference

[civilwarbuff]

I don't think this will be the result. In the future, I think denominations will be less and less important.

Since issues concerning sexuality are coming to dominate theological discussion, Liberals/progressives/pro-LGBT, etc. will coalesce into a group of very similar churches ( I mean, what else really is different between progressive Methodists, Anglicans, UCC, even PCUSA groups?). Traditional Christians who oppose abortion, the LGBT movement, divorce, feminism, and other markers of the sexual revolution will coalesce into two groups; in the US, Roman Catholic if they worship in a High-Church manner and non-denominational/evangelical congregations if they favor Low-Church worship. The only caveat to this is that I can possibly see big increases in EO congregations, as I see traditionalists moving toward even more traditional styles of worship, liturgy and observance.

Either way, the mainline denominations will diminish in numbers and importance.

I believe you make a good point.....

 

[hedrick]

Since issues concerning sexuality are coming to dominate theological discussion, Liberals/progressives/pro-LGBT, etc. will coalesce into a group of very similar churches ( I mean, what else really is different between progressive Methodists, Anglicans, UCC, even PCUSA groups?). Traditional Christians who oppose abortion, the LGBT movement, divorce, feminism, and other markers of the sexual revolution will coalesce into two groups; in the US, Roman Catholic if they worship in a High-Church manner and non-denominational/evangelical congregations if they favor Low-Church worship. The only caveat to this is that I can possibly see big increases in EO congregations, as I see traditionalists moving toward even more traditional styles of worship, liturgy and observance.

Either way, the mainline denominations will diminish in numbers and importance.

The only problem with this scenario is that the next generation of Christians (including Catholics) in the US accept gays. I agree that mainline churches are declining. I think there are reasons beyond theology for that.

But unless all of our young Christians become unchurched, all those kids who accept gays will go somewhere. My prediction is that a growing number of evangelical churches will adopt what is effectively mainline theology. So will the Catholic church: there's not that much difference in theology between them and the mainline as is. It's mostly just traditional stands on sexual / gender role issues. While the current Pope isn't going to change all of that, he shows that it's possible for it to change.

Inerrancy isn't as inflexible as it sounds. It was used in the 19th Cent US to support slavery. But it didn't stay that way. I think there's a good chance that conservative, pro-inerrancy churches will also accept gays and quite possibly other things that today are considered liberal.

Remember in the 19th Cent slavery was the unsolvable problem. Most denominations split. But it wasn't actually unsolvable, and they eventually came back together. I doubt that the current situation will continue unchanged forever.

I predict that the next big issue will be whether to ordain AI's (assuming any humans are left).

 

[St Antony]

The only problem with this scenario is that the next generation of Christians (including Catholics) in the US accept gays. I agree that mainline churches are declining. I think there are reasons beyond theology for that.

But unless all of our young Christians become unchurched, all those kids who accept gays will go somewhere. My prediction is that a growing number of evangelical churches will adopt what is effectively mainline theology. So will the Catholic church: there's not that much difference in theology between them and the mainline as is. It's mostly just traditional stands on sexual / gender role issues. While the current Pope isn't going to change all of that, he shows that it's possible for it to change.

Inerrancy isn't as inflexible as it sounds. It was used in the 19th Cent US to support slavery. But it didn't stay that way. I think there's a good chance that conservative, pro-inerrancy churches will also accept gays and quite possibly other things that today are considered liberal.

Remember in the 19th Cent slavery was the unsolvable problem. Most denominations split. But it wasn't actually unsolvable, and they eventually came back together. I doubt that the current situation will continue unchanged forever.

I predict that the next big issue will be whether to ordain AI's (assuming any humans are left).

I think Canon 2357 of the Catechism reflects the Church's view on this issue for almost 2 millennia:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I think you overestimate "acceptance" of gays among American youth, especially in the South and Midwest and outside of major cities. Many people "accept" gays (whatever that means) as co-workers, co-worshipers, even friends. Still they view gay sexuality as unnatural. I would argue that the majority of gays are either celibate or else practice their sexuality in private. Only a minority seek recognition and acceptance of their lifestyle with ceremonies like gay marriage and adoption. I know of at least two men in my parish who worship every week that I am pretty sure possess homosexual inclinations. I have no idea what they do in their private life, and do not care. This is between them and God, and this is the way a majority of Catholics view this issue.

Ironically, it is the progressives who loudly proclaim that conservatives/traditionalists are anti-science, yet the LGBT issue demonstrates otherwise. According to Charles Darwin, every species on Earth has two fundamental objectives: (1) survival; and (2) propagation of the species. Homosexuality violates this fundamental law of evolution! If every human had primarily homosexual tendencies, the human race would die out pretty quickly.

The progressive agenda has been ascendant for a while now, but the worm always turns and the Church, its theology and institutions have survived much worse over the past 2,000 years.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I think Canon 2357 of the Catechism reflects the Church's view on this issue for almost 2 millennia:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I think you overestimate "acceptance" of gays among American youth, especially in the South and Midwest and outside of major cities. Many people "accept" gays (whatever that means) as co-workers, co-worshipers, even friends. Still they view gay sexuality as unnatural. I would argue that the majority of gays are either celibate or else practice their sexuality in private. Only a minority seek recognition and acceptance of their lifestyle with ceremonies like gay marriage and adoption. I know of at least two men in my parish who worship every week that I am pretty sure possess homosexual inclinations. I have no idea what they do in their private life, and do not care. This is between them and God, and this is the way a majority of Catholics view this issue.

Ironically, it is the progressives who loudly proclaim that conservatives/traditionalists are anti-science, yet the LGBT issue demonstrates otherwise. According to Charles Darwin, every species on Earth has two fundamental objectives: (1) survival; and (2) propagation of the species. Homosexuality violates this fundamental law of evolution! If every human had primarily homosexual tendencies, the human race would die out pretty quickly.

The progressive agenda has been ascendant for a while now, but the worm always turns and the Church, its theology and institutions have survived much worse over the past 2,000 years.

Could not agree more. However, this is a Methodist/Nazarene forum and we should let them speak for themselves though as a former Nazarene I do believe they (Nazarenes) would take exception to much which is being advocated here.

 

[St Antony]

Could not agree more. However, this is a Methodist/Nazarene forum and we should let them speak for themselves though as a former Nazarene I do believe they (Nazarenes) would take exception to much which is being advocated here.

I agree completely! As a former Methodist, I have an interest in the UMC and especially the current LGBT debate.

 

[circuitrider]

You may be right that many of the mainline denominations sound alike on sexuality, we aren't as alike as you might think. A big part of who United Methodists are is the connectional system of conference with appointed clergy. Our churches don't look for their own pastors. That is a much bigger deal than someone in a congregational denomination might realize. We aren't Calvinist, not in the least bit. So some parts of Presbyterian doctrine aren't going to fly with us.

Similarities on social issues doesn't translate to similarity in theology.

Also it is a bit early to write off the millions of active Christians who are still in the mainline. We are declining but we are far far from gone or dead.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JCFantasy23]

I don't think this will be the result. In the future, I think denominations will be less and less important.

Since issues concerning sexuality are coming to dominate theological discussion, Liberals/progressives/pro-LGBT, etc. will coalesce into a group of very similar churches ( I mean, what else really is different between progressive Methodists, Anglicans, UCC, even PCUSA groups?). Traditional Christians who oppose abortion, the LGBT movement, divorce, feminism, and other markers of the sexual revolution will coalesce into two groups; in the US, Roman Catholic if they worship in a High-Church manner and non-denominational/evangelical congregations if they favor Low-Church worship. The only caveat to this is that I can possibly see big increases in EO congregations, as I see traditionalists moving toward even more traditional styles of worship, liturgy and observance.

Either way, the mainline denominations will diminish in numbers and importance.

I do agree with you that denominations will seem less important to the youth that's taking over the church as times change and evolve. I don't necessarily think it's all down to an LGBT movement only though, more of a distrust of organized religion. I also don't see the non-denominational churches in my area as leaning toward a Traditional Christian over a Liberal Christian, at least from the ones I've visited around here. To me they seemed more liberal, but non-denominational churches are not my preference in general anyway. The only thing close to the stricter, conservative mindset I saw at one of these churches are a very lengthy sermon warning against pre-martial relations while the church greeters seemed strangely sexist when my boyfriend and I attended.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I am afraid that is a possibility. But I also believe we have a duty to try. I personally believe the multiplication of denominations over smaller and smaller theological issues is a mistake.

I don't think this will be the result. In the future, I think denominations will be less and less important.

I believe that denominations will be less and less important because:
1) All politics is local. People who look for churches function the same way. They look for the mix of congregation and pastor that serves them and which they can best identify. The name above the door means less and less to more and more people.
2) Despite mergers and unions, division within denominations is growing and deepening, not the other way around. This ultimately leads to divisions that have everyone in a denomination of 1.
3) Where harmony does exist, instruments like "full communion", "mutual ministry", and other manners of formally recognizing the ordination and sacraments of other denominations and expressing a willingness for pastors from one denomination to serve in denomination different than they one they were ordained into make the importance of the denominational label even less compelling.
4) The growth of non-denominational churches that organize themselves according to different criteria will spill over into denominations that are tearing themselves apart. Denominational titles like "UMC" might continue to exist, but what will be important to people who care about the association a church makes with other congregations is whether or not a local congregation is "reconciling" or "renewing" or "charismatic" or uses Beth Moore Bible studies or promotes Samaritan's Purse or hosts Awana. These self-grouping and programming aspects of our local congregations will become the new method by which people make their choices creating defacto denominations within existing ones and crossing over between them.

 

[circuitrider]

Point 4 there is very interesting GraceSeeker. I do think a big part of what causes people to join a local church isn't denomination but is more related to a viewpoint of the congregation and/or its pastor. My own daughter has basically said that she doesn't want to be part of a local congregation that isn't "reconciling" in its theology. She isn't attending a UMC congregation right now but is attending a congregation whose theology fits her views on the issues of human sexuality. But then, she didn't grow up in the UMC and doesn't have a long time loyalty to the denomination to abandon either.

I follow Phyllis Tickle's view that we are going through a "Great Emergence." I believe that some denominations will fall, others will rise, some will merge and that whole other new structures will come into existence that we haven't thought of yet to me the challenges of a new era.

If Tickle's theory holds true we may go through a period with less organized church that may later return again to a more organized structure when the changes coalesce.