Question About Methodist Pastors!

[RomansFiveEight]

I don't want to dive into the debate on human sexuality. We have two smart folks on opposing sides to let you chew the fat. But in reading every post here, I did struggle a bit with your equating progressive Christians with a low view of scripture.

There's really three 'factions' of Progressive Christians when it comes to the Bible.

1) The first you've experience. Pick and choose Bible. Frankly, I think there are lots of those on the very conservative side. Both far extremes of the spectrum tend to fixate on a small list of passages, drawing to a confirmation bias, that support their points of view. The difference here is the far-left tends to admit to more/less tossing out most of the Bible, and the far-right tends to close it's ears and while blatantly ignoring much of the Gospel, claims to understand and believe it fully. (If I say it loud enough and often enough, it's true. No matter how true it actually is.) In this case the far right would hang on to a couple of passages about sin or judgement and hold them above all else; and the far left will cling to a couple of passages about grace and ignore any mention of sin, or the need for salvation. Generally speaking, the far-left will toss out miracles and perhaps even the resurrection or even the divinity of Jesus. (Those are generalizations though; there are variations, of course.)

2) The second is a growing movement of "red letter Christianity". This is probably what you might've already experienced. This is a system of ideologies in where people fixate on Jesus Christ and reference the rest of the Bible; but draw their doctrine only from the "red letters". I.e., their doctrine, theology, etc., comes exclusively or almost exclusively from the words of Jesus. Thus, Paul and the Old Testament have little bearing on their understanding of God's will.

3) The third, you don't seem to have experienced. But in my circles, seem to be the majority. As a United Methodist; the Progressive Christians I interact with tend to be UM's, as opposed to Unitarians or some UCC'ers who tend to be "far left". Rather, these folks are left-to-left-of-center. These folks maintain a high view of Scripture. Believing it, in it's entirety, to be the final authority. They don't view the Bible as literal or inerrant (but then, neither do Evangelicals in the denomination. That's sort of a foregone conclusion in our denomination). But they also free themselves to other interpretations of scripture. They don't ignore passages concerning homosexuality, they interpret them differently. They genuinely, and earnestly, believe the Bible; in it's entirety, without excluding anything, does not prohibit same-sex marriage, sex, attraction, etc. I think it's unfair to them to claim that they have a low view of Scripture just because they interpret it differently than you do. After all, I wouldn't call a Baptist "Low view of Scripture" who ignores scripture that, to me, seems to obviously affirm Ordained Women, Open Communion, and a connectional polity in the church.

Just an attempt to broaden horizons. Most Progressive Christians don't say "The Bible is an outdated book". But they do commonly say "Our interpretations of the Bible are outdated and affected greatly by the culture in the times they were interpreted". They'd probably remind you that in the past, the Bible "clearly" permitted slavery, prohibited marrying for love, prohibited interracial marriage, the ordination of women, and so on and so forth. So, they might suggest, if the Bible can have been misinterpreted for centuries on those issues (and we can't believe the Bible does not permit slavery without also believing our ancestors had it wrong); then it could be today as well.

I'm not sure how to identify myself, really. Some days I feel like a progressive Christian. Then I get around other Progressives and I'm the conservative of the bunch. But around strong Evangelicals I'm certainly left of them. I could say I'm a "middle" but I'm not so sure that's true either. I'm certainly Orthodox in a lot of beliefs. But I couldn't honestly identify myself as an Evangelical either. I've heard the term "Progressive Orthodox" which I kind of like. So who knows.

Also; most clergy I know maintain a very high view of the sacraments. Along with most laypeople. Though I know some who don't. And our church is certainly plagued, in many congregations, with "shuffle, take, sit" communion. That is, it isn't viewed as highly as it should be. I firmly believe Pauls strong warning about taking communion unworthily was not about being some sort of 'sinner', but rather, not having the right reverence for what we were participating in.

Also, you mentioned wanting 'more' than just to be a pew-warmer. AWESOME! There are all sorts of opportunities for you to serve. From the local congregation onward. If you feel called to preach but maybe not be an Ordained Pastor; we have a program called "Certified Lay Servant Ministries" that train and equip folks to help lead their churches, and even send them out as 'fill ins' to preach for Pastors in their area. The ministry of the Clergy ranges from bi-vocational and full-time Local Pastors (unordained, undergoing continuing education. Some on a path to Ordination, some remaining Local Pastors forever); Ordained Deacons (who serve in unique roles; sometimes as the Pastor of a church, sometimes not); and Ordained Elders (Ordained Pastors of a church, and in our polity, that means full-time, dedicated to ministry.)

As far as how much you need to align with the denomination? Well that all depends on how you want to serve. As an Elder? You'll have to work out some things to figure out whether you align enough to be ordained. But as a layperson? If you're willing to work with us, we'd love to have you. My ad council chairperson (The Ad Council is the basic governing body of the local church. Makes most of the day-to-day decisions. The only governing body with more authority than that is the church/charge conference which is called infrequently, requires the DS to be present, and makes the largest decisions. That happens at least, and not usually more than, once a year, to elect church officers, set the Pastors salary, etc.) is a Calvinist, with a Masters from a conservative Calvinist PCA seminary, and a big fan of Authors I think are just flat wrong about almost everything. With her current theology, she probably could not be ordained in the UMC (even though she sort of meets the qualifications; though her seminary isn't an approved seminary), but there is absolutely nothing barring her from serving very important lay positions in the church. Heck, I wouldn't even mind her preaching once in a while; though of course, anyone who preaches in a church I've been appointed to would need to stay within the confines of the UMC's doctrine (i.e., preaching Calvinist Predestination wouldn't be kosher).

 

[jinc1019]

I don't want to dive into the debate on human sexuality. We have two smart folks on opposing sides to let you chew the fat. But in reading every post here, I did struggle a bit with your equating progressive Christians with a low view of scripture.

There's really three 'factions' of Progressive Christians when it comes to the Bible.

1) The first you've experience. Pick and choose Bible. Frankly, I think there are lots of those on the very conservative side. Both far extremes of the spectrum tend to fixate on a small list of passages, drawing to a confirmation bias, that support their points of view. The difference here is the far-left tends to admit to more/less tossing out most of the Bible, and the far-right tends to close it's ears and while blatantly ignoring much of the Gospel, claims to understand and believe it fully. (If I say it loud enough and often enough, it's true. No matter how true it actually is.) In this case the far right would hang on to a couple of passages about sin or judgement and hold them above all else; and the far left will cling to a couple of passages about grace and ignore any mention of sin, or the need for salvation. Generally speaking, the far-left will toss out miracles and perhaps even the resurrection or even the divinity of Jesus. (Those are generalizations though; there are variations, of course.)

2) The second is a growing movement of "red letter Christianity". This is probably what you might've already experienced. This is a system of ideologies in where people fixate on Jesus Christ and reference the rest of the Bible; but draw their doctrine only from the "red letters". I.e., their doctrine, theology, etc., comes exclusively or almost exclusively from the words of Jesus. Thus, Paul and the Old Testament have little bearing on their understanding of God's will.

3) The third, you don't seem to have experienced. But in my circles, seem to be the majority. As a United Methodist; the Progressive Christians I interact with tend to be UM's, as opposed to Unitarians or some UCC'ers who tend to be "far left". Rather, these folks are left-to-left-of-center. These folks maintain a high view of Scripture. Believing it, in it's entirety, to be the final authority. They don't view the Bible as literal or inerrant (but then, neither do Evangelicals in the denomination. That's sort of a foregone conclusion in our denomination). But they also free themselves to other interpretations of scripture. They don't ignore passages concerning homosexuality, they interpret them differently. They genuinely, and earnestly, believe the Bible; in it's entirety, without excluding anything, does not prohibit same-sex marriage, sex, attraction, etc. I think it's unfair to them to claim that they have a low view of Scripture just because they interpret it differently than we do. After all, I wouldn't call a Baptist "Low view of Scripture" who ignores scripture that, to me, seems to obviously affirm Ordained Women, Open Communion, and a connectional polity in the church.

Just an attempt to broaden horizons. Most Progressive Christians don't say "The Bible is an outdated book". But they do commonly say "Our interpretations of the Bible are outdated and affected greatly by the culture in the times they were interpreted". They'd probably remind you that in the past, the Bible "clearly" permitted slavery, prohibited marrying for love, prohibited interracial marriage, the ordination of women, and so on and so forth. So, they might suggest, if the Bible can have been misinterpreted for centuries on those issues (and we can't believe the Bible does not permit slavery without also believing our ancestors had it wrong); then it could be today as well.

I'm not sure how to identify myself, really. Some days I feel like a progressive Christian. Then I get around other Progressives and I'm the conservative of the bunch. But around strong Evangelicals I'm certainly left of them. I could say I'm a "middle" but I'm not so sure that's true either. I'm certainly Orthodox in a lot of beliefs. But I couldn't honestly identify myself as an Evangelical either. I've heard the term "Progressive Orthodox" which I kind of like. So who knows.

Also; most clergy I know maintain a very high view of the sacraments. Along with most laypeople. Though I know some who don't. And our church is certainly plagued, in many congregations, with "shuffle, take, sit" communion. That is, it isn't viewed as highly as it should be. I firmly believe Pauls strong warning about taking communion unworthily was not about being some sort of 'sinner', but rather, not having the right reverence for what we were participating in.

Also, you mentioned wanting 'more' than just to be a pew-warmer. AWESOME! There are all sorts of opportunities for you to serve. From the local congregation onward. If you feel called to preach but maybe not be an Ordained Pastor; we have a program called "Certified Lay Servant Ministries" that train and equip folks to help lead their churches, and even send them out as 'fill ins' to preach for Pastors in their area. The ministry of the Clergy ranges from bi-vocational and full-time Local Pastors (unordained, undergoing continuing education. Some on a path to Ordination, some remaining Local Pastors forever); Ordained Deacons (who serve in unique roles; sometimes as the Pastor of a church, sometimes not); and Ordained Elders (Ordained Pastors of a church, and in our polity, that means full-time, dedicated to ministry.)

As far as how much you need to align with the denomination? Well that all depends on how you want to serve. As an Elder? You'll have to work out some things to figure out whether you align enough to be ordained. But as a layperson? If you're willing to work with us, we'd love to have you. My ad council chairperson (The Ad Council is the basic governing body of the local church. Makes most of the day-to-day decisions. The only governing body with more authority than that is the church/charge conference which is called infrequently, requires the DS to be present, and makes the largest decisions. That happens at least, and not usually more than, once a year, to elect church officers, set the Pastors salary, etc.) is a Calvinist, with a Masters from a conservative Calvinist PCA seminary, and a big fan of Authors I think are just flat wrong about almost everything. With her current theology, she probably could not be ordained in the UMC (even though she sort of meets the qualifications; though her seminary isn't an approved seminary), but there is absolutely nothing barring her from serving very important lay positions in the church. Heck, I wouldn't even mind her preaching once in a while; though of course, anyone who preaches in a church I've been appointed to would need to stay within the confines of the UMC's doctrine (i.e., preaching Calvinist Predestination wouldn't be kosher).

Thanks for providing your thoughts here...I greatly appreciate it. Rather than respond with what I disagree with, I'll just leave your wise comment as-is. God bless and thank you again for your time!

-J

 

[circuitrider]

"3) The third, you don't seem to have experienced. But in my circles, seem to be the majority. As a United Methodist; the Progressive Christians I interact with tend to be UM's, as opposed to Unitarians or some UCC'ers who tend to be "far left". Rather, these folks are left-to-left-of-center. These folks maintain a high view of Scripture. Believing it, in it's entirety, to be the final authority. They don't view the Bible as literal or inerrant (but then, neither do Evangelicals in the denomination. That's sort of a foregone conclusion in our denomination). But they also free themselves to other interpretations of scripture. They don't ignore passages concerning homosexuality, they interpret them differently. They genuinely, and earnestly, believe the Bible; in it's entirety, without excluding anything, does not prohibit same-sex marriage, sex, attraction, etc. I think it's unfair to them to claim that they have a low view of Scripture just because they interpret it differently than we do. [/quote]

This is where I also see most progressives. Progressive theology isn't about believing the Bible is less authoritative but instead it is more often about right interpretation of the scripture.

We all interpret the Bible any time we read it. We do it in several ways. We read the Bible in the language and from the culture we live in. And we interpret the Bible often in the way we've been taught to interpret it. So if we were taught that women can't be clergy then we will gloss over or ignore passages that disagree with that interpretation. If we were taught that the passages about sexuality in the New Testament are about homosexuality then that is how we often read them unquestioningly.

After all, I wouldn't call a Baptist "Low view of Scripture" who ignores scripture that, to me, seems to obviously affirm Ordained Women, Open Communion, and a connectional polity in the church."

Here I disagree. IMHO a literalistic reading of the Bible is a low view of scripture because it cuts out the work of the Holy Spirit in the use of the Bible. The Bible becomes a flat, mechanical, and one dimensional book.

Also the problem with such interpretations is that the are literalistic and individualistic. The way it reads to you has to be the right way. Ultimately that places single individual interpretations over the Bible.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Here I disagree. IMHO a literalistic reading of the Bible is a low view of scripture because it cuts out the work of the Holy Spirit in the use of the Bible. The Bible becomes a flat, mechanical, and one dimensional book.

Also the problem with such interpretations is that the are literalistic and individualistic. The way it reads to you has to be the right way. Ultimately that places single individual interpretations over the Bible.

I believe that literalism discounts and devalues scripture and ignored the work of the Holy Spirit and inflated human ego (literalism only works if you know what it's supposed to literally mean. Interpreting scripture while claiming not to; it's an extremely ego-centric way to look at the Bible).

Even so, I still recognize that folks with that scriptural point of view care about the Bible. Even if, all too often, they are really using the Bible to craft an elitist version of faith that is more about berating others than serving God. I worry about them, pray for them, vehemently disagree with their toxic points of view about God. But I don't think it's any more fair to me to say "You don't care about the Bible" than it is for them to say to you or I (As they do frequently) that we don't care about the Bible (to them, if you don't believe their interpretation, then you don't believe the Bible at all). Maybe it's because I'm sick of hearing "You don't believe the Bible because you believe X" Where X is something I believe scripture upholds (like, ordaining women); that I'm sensitive to how unfair it can be.

Maybe I'm wrong; I don't know. I will say this; I don't think the far-left and the far-right are all that different at all in how they interpret the Bible. The only difference is the far-left admits to tossing out most or all of the Bible; whilst the far-right claims to uphold it in it's entirety whilst simultaneously ignoring most of it's theology. (A great example is Westboro Baptist Church who clings to a select couple of passages on sin while ignoring the entire thesis of the Gospel on repentance, forgiveness, and love; something WBC says is impossible.)

 

[circuitrider]

Maybe I'm wrong; I don't know. I will say this; I don't think the far-left and the far-right are all that different at all in how they interpret the Bible. The only difference is the far-left admits to tossing out most or all of the Bible; whilst the far-right claims to uphold it in it's entirety whilst simultaneously ignoring most of it's theology. (A great example is Westboro Baptist Church who clings to a select couple of passages on sin while ignoring the entire thesis of the Gospel on repentance, forgiveness, and love; something WBC says is impossible.)

I'm likely to the left of you RFive8 but I think one of the errors of the "middle" is saying that both the left and the right are the same.

When I considered myself middle of the road theologically (my theology has move leftward for the last 25 years starting as fairly conservative) I found that liberal and progressive Christians were willing to accept me though they disagreed with me. They wanted me to be more liberal but they accepted me liberal or not. What I always got from the far right was that if you aren't far right theologically you cannot ever be accepted. And in fact those far right folks either wanted me disfellowshipped or they wanted to break fellowship themselves. But it was never acceptable to be more liberal than they are.

I realize this is personal experience and cannot be applied to all people left or right but that is the experience I've had in three denominations. I even see it applying to some on the right in the UMC who now see the only solution to many in the UMC being more liberal than they are on sexuality is division. IMHO division is the default answer for conservative Christians to differences.

The left is usually about radical acceptance while the right is often about radical exclusion. Both views may be "radical" but the end result of the views are quite different.

I've also never seen the far left "toss out" all or most of the Bible. But I have seen the left consistently insist that the Bible isn't a book of inerrant propositional law.

Sure we openly toss out holiness code laws that Paul himself also refused to follow. We don't eat Kosher. We aren't Judaizers. Yes we give the New Testament and Jesus primacy over Paul and the Apostles. As He is savior that seems to me to be legitimate.

I honestly have met almost no one who claims to be an active Christian who tosses out much of the Bible. They just refuse to prioritize it in a conservative way to please a conservative viewpoint or try to build progressive theology from a conservative slant on the Bible.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm likely to the left of you RFive8 but I think one of the errors of the "middle" is saying that both the left and the right are the same.

When I considered myself middle of the road theologically (my theology has move leftward for the last 25 years starting as fairly conservative) I found that liberal and progressive Christians were willing to accept me though they disagreed with me. They wanted me to be more liberal but they accepted me liberal or not. What I always got from the far right was that if you aren't far right theologically you cannot ever be accepted. And in fact those far right folks either wanted me disfellowshipped or they wanted to break fellowship themselves. But it was never acceptable to be more liberal than they are.

This is specifically why I agree with RomansFive8 that the left is no different than the right when one is talking about the extreme forms of it. My experience is that even posting as a moderate on a liberal forum is sufficient reason to be mocked, ridiculed and excoriated for one's beliefs. Even empathy shown for other beliefs are enough to make one a target and to have preconceived ideas about what one must therefore also believe projected on to you. It went so far once, that because I expressed disagreement with those UM pastors who have engaged in what they term "civil disobedience" of the Discipline with regard to not performing weddings for gay and lesbian members of one's church that I was accused of being closeted as that would be the only possible explanation of what these more "progressive" persons perceived to be hate on my part. I'm glad your experience has been different, but please don't tell me that the right is worse than the left, for the left is fully capable of being so intolerant that they are off the chart and often are.

 

[circuitrider]

As in most things Graceseeker, your and my milage may vary. The difference may be that I grew up in a very conservative denomination that moved from being conservative to fundamentalist in my lifetime. So my movement has always been leftward. (Or perceived by leftward to those who were moving further to the right.)

I can honestly say I've never known of a denomination that was involved in a hostile takeover by the left but I know of two such denominations that experienced it from the right (SBC and Missouri Synod Lutherans).

I know of no denomination where churches were kicked out for being conservative but I know that in my lifetime churches that are welcoming and affirming were kicked out of both the SBC and the American Baptist Churches. I actually saw two fundamentalists give each other the high five sign in the hall after four ABC churches were booted from the denomination for being welcoming to LGBT people. The glee and celebration was nauseating.

I know of no liberal denomination that has removed someone's credentials for being conservative. But many denominations at different times, including the mostly moderate UMC, have removed the credentials of more liberal pastors for performing same sex marriages.

If you can think of a single liberal denomination that has kicked out conservative clergy or churches I'd love to hear about it. Because so far I only know of less than liberal Christian groups that have kicked people or churches out.

At least from the perspective of the reaction of liberal and conservative denominations I think I have pretty good evidence that conservatives choose to divide more often than liberals.

I'm sorry you expressed nastiness from liberals. Nor am I suggesting either that the best response to fixing our problems is disobedience to the Discipline. I'd like to see us change the Discipline rather than break it.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I know of no liberal denomination that has removed someone's credentials for being conservative. But many denominations at different times, including the mostly moderate UMC, have removed the credentials of more liberal pastors for performing same sex marriages.

If you can think of a single liberal denomination that has kicked out conservative clergy or churches I'd love to hear about it. Because so far I only know of less than liberal Christian groups that have kicked people or churches out.

Then I invite you to listen....

Ron Flessner, a college classmate of mine, was a candidate for ministry in the Central Illinois Conference. Ron's father was a pastor in the conference, and Ron was known and well respected by many of his father's peers. Ron was active in the religious life committee at our Methodist university, but he was also both more conservative than the majority of Methodists in our conference and strongly influenced by the Assemblies of God so that the charismatic gifts were important to him. Ron had been admitted to candidacy, but his theology of gifts was viewed as unacceptable by our BOM because he believed that all Christians had some discernible spiritual gift at a time when such views were anathema in our conference that had just the year before had a couple of churches torn apart of the issue. On those grounds, and those alone, Ron's candidacy was discontinued. Four years later, holding nearly identical views to Ron on the issue, I was passed through without even being questioned on the matter. But, don't fool yourself. Everyone, liberals no less than conservatives, are capable of pushing away those who don't fit their views.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I guess I should clear up my definition of "far left". I have read their blogs. I have met them. They are rare. I like to read; especially positions that aren't like my own. And there are plenty of self-identified Christian bloggers who take either the Red Letter approach (like Mark Sandlin; who will clearly tell you that he only holds authoritative the words of Jesus, and not the rest of the Bible), or take the approach that they will articulate along the lines of "The Bible has been too modified, politicized, and re-translated/re-written to be taken seriously". And yes, I have heard folks who self-identify as Christians, who basically believe the Bible is irrelevant. To be fair; they have a very 'liberal' (using the definition of the word here, not it's political connotation) understanding of Christianity. Meaning, largely, these folks don't necessarily even believe in heaven or an afterlife; they might not even believe Jesus is God's son. But they claim to follow Jesus; and perhaps just feel Jesus is meant to be followed on earth to make us better. (Don't ask me where they draw their understanding of Jesus if they think the Bible is irrelevant!). It's not my position. It's the antithesis of my position. But it is a position I have been made aware of. And so I was pointing it out. It is exceedingly rare in my experience. Just to the right of that would be the "Red Letter" crowd and to the right of that (but still Progressive in the minds of most); would be the understanding that you and I have which is that the Bible is authoritative but it's interpretations may need updating. The fun part about that is, a person can have a 'progressive' view of Scripture; rejecting literalism, inerrantism, or even traditional interpretations; and still draw 'conservative' theology from it. I'm not saying that's necessarily what I do; but saying it can be done. Which is why those labels are hard to make. And I know you feel the same way I do on not calling folks who claim to be Christian anything but. They might not fit our understanding of what a Christian should be; but if they say they are Christian, then I'll love them as such.

In my experiences, I've been more welcomed by Progressives than Conservatives. But then, I have more in common with them. Even if I probably couldn't earnestly identify myself as a 'liberal', because of a couple of theologies and political ideologies that I wrestle with. And, I tend to talk about what I have in common with. I'm a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals; so there's no good reason to talk baseball with a Cubs fan. I know they're wrong, and they know I'm wrong. No point in airing grievances.

But, conservatives in my experience tend to prod. Especially when they find out I'm a United Methodist. And they have such, er... interesting notions about what that means. In fact, I've been stopped in a crowd at a FUNERAL, by an individual who wanted to debate me, then and there (And they were ANGRY. I mean, face red, fuming, ANGRY) about ordaining women. He knew I was a United Methodist because his deceased relative was and I was her Pastor. He walks up to me, grabs me by the shoulder, and barks "I wanna talk to you!", and I of course, said sure! He immediately goes into a tirade, quoting scriptures from 1 Timothy, and says "Explain to me why you think it's okay to just ignore the Bible. It clearly says..." and so on and so forth. But again, I don't talk baseball with cubs fans. He was abrupt, I was abrupt. I told him this wasn't the time or the place, and I was not going to have that conversation with him. He muttered something about me probably not having any good excuse, and ended with "Liberals have big mouths until you ask them to explain themselves. Then they shut up" and sat down. Obviously, this man had a lot of deeply rooted hurt, and anger.

But that's not my only experience as such. My first year at Annual Conference, I must've looked lost, because two clergywomen introduced themselves and helped me find my way around. I was a DS assigned layperson serving a church at the time, headed for licensing school. They were interested in hearing my story and excited, seemingly, to talk to someone new into the ministry. They asked if I'd like to have lunch with them and I said sure! I met them at a local pizza place, they bought. It was nice!

Then I realized, I was being ambushed. These were two very liberal UM Clergywomen, who have a reputation as such (that I wasn't aware of). As soon as we began to eat our food, the conversation shifted from what our local churches were doing and our call to ministry, to homosexuality, guns, politics, war, and so on. I made it pretty clear that I struggled with a lot of issues theologically (especially at that time); and suggested we talk about something else. Fingers flew into my face. It was like being in the second grade and being scolded by my teacher. With fingers literally being pointed at my face they barked about how I had a responsibility to lead my flock the way they saw fit; and demanded I tell them how I felt about the issue of homosexuality. It was... weird, to say the least. I almost just got up and left. But I told them, I struggled with it. One of my closest friends, and the friend I've known the longest, is gay. And his faith was destroyed by the way the church treated him (he grew up Southern Baptist). But I also wanted to be obedient to scripture and I wasn't convinced, at least not then, that the scripture had any other reasonable way to be interpreted. I was called a bigot, told I was no better than those people who had hurt my friend when they called him names and told him to come back to church with a girlfriend or don't come back at all, etc. All for admitting to struggling with the issue. It was a very uncomfortable, very painful experience. At least when dealing with the Right-Wing Rambo at the funeral parlor, I was in a position to control the conversation. Here I was awaiting to absorb knowledge from experienced future-colleagues, and instead left questioning whether the denomination was what I thought it was (thankfully, repeated positive experiences solidified that. Especially as I learned these two women were troublemakers and known for it; and that this sort of behavior was very uncommon).

So I don't think it's fair to say that one side or the other is or isn't something. Likewise, I think we should recognize that it IS easier for folks more liberal than us to accept us when we're already to the left at least a little bit. You might be farther lost.. I mean, left (just kidding) than me. But I can't honestly call myself an Evangelical, and you know that. You probably know more about my own personal theology than anyone here. So that means I can get along great with liberals; because I'm closer to them than I am to the far-right conservatives, such as the SBC'ers. I think Progressives in my area also understand they are sorely outnumbered; so they aren't in the business of alienating friends. Whereas the Conservatives can berate us, then go back for hi-5's and "Amens" for telling off some dumb liberal.

I also think that Evangelical UM's are in a different class than most Evangelicals. I have some friends who are very Evangelical. And I get along with them just fine. We just don't talk about those issues, and it's fine. They are willing to co-exist in a denomination that is broad. But, one look at the Clergy Facebook groups will tell you there are Evangelicals who are NOT of that state of mind. So it all goes in circles. And comes down, largely, to our own experiences; and generalizations that just don't work.

 

[circuitrider]

Then I invite you to listen....

Ron Flessner, a college classmate of mine, was a candidate for ministry in the Central Illinois Conference. Ron's father was a pastor in the conference, and Ron was known and well respected by many of his father's peers. Ron was active in the religious life committee at our Methodist university, but he was also both more conservative than the majority of Methodists in our conference and strongly influenced by the Assemblies of God so that the charismatic gifts were important to him. Ron had been admitted to candidacy, but his theology of gifts was viewed as unacceptable by our BOM because he believed that all Christians had some discernible spiritual gift at a time when such views were anathema in our conference that had just the year before had a couple of churches torn apart of the issue. On those grounds, and those alone, Ron's candidacy was discontinued. Four years later, holding nearly identical views to Ron on the issue, I was passed through without even being questioned on the matter. But, don't fool yourself. Everyone, liberals no less than conservatives, are capable of pushing away those who don't fit their views.

I don't doubt at all what you are saying and that may be a conservative/liberal issue. But when I was a Baptist if you wanted to scare the living heck out of everyone (liberal or conservative) then claim to be a part of the charismatic movement and all heck would break lose. The reason was that quite a number of Baptist churches split over this issue. So no one, left or right, was very accepting of the viewpoint. They were in fact nearly terrified of the movement.

So do you see that as a conservative versus liberal issue in the UMC? (I'm asking because I've not dealt with that here in Iowa) Or just a fear of a different view of the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Because I'm not entirely sure how conservatives or liberals either one on the BOM in Iowa would feel about that.

Also don't hear me saying I'm critiquing you spiritual views. I don't have any problem with someone feeling led to express the gifts of the Holy Spirit in different ways.

 

[circuitrider]

RomansFiveEight,

Wow, some interesting experiences. Maybe it is all my gray hair that means I don't get grabbed like that any more. If someone shoved a finger in my face they might get it twisted. ;-)

Graceseeker and RFive8 I will certainly concede you both have had some really bad experiences I've not had.

But personally I still think it is a mistake to suggest that both groups are alike. They each have sins of their own but they are sins in differing directions most often.

 

[Dave-W]

I believe that literalism discounts and devalues scripture and ignored the work of the Holy Spirit and inflated human ego (literalism only works if you know what it's supposed to literally mean. Interpreting scripture while claiming not to; it's an extremely ego-centric way to look at the Bible).

Even so, I still recognize that folks with that scriptural point of view care about the Bible. Even if, all too often, they are really using the Bible to craft an elitist version of faith that is more about berating others than serving God. I worry about them, pray for them, vehemently disagree with their toxic points of view about God. But I don't think it's any more fair to me to say "You don't care about the Bible" than it is for them to say to you or I (As they do frequently) that we don't care about the Bible (to them, if you don't believe their interpretation, then you don't believe the Bible at all). Maybe it's because I'm sick of hearing "You don't believe the Bible because you believe X" Where X is something I believe scripture upholds (like, ordaining women); that I'm sensitive to how unfair it can be.

R58 - that is an amazing post and I very much agree.

 

[Dave-W]

I know of no liberal denomination that has removed someone's credentials for being conservative. But many denominations at different times, including the mostly moderate UMC, have removed the credentials of more liberal pastors for performing same sex marriages.

If you can think of a single liberal denomination that has kicked out conservative clergy or churches I'd love to hear about it. Because so far I only know of less than liberal Christian groups that have kicked people or churches out.

I get around a lot - have connections with several different faith streams. (mostly fairly conservative ones)

The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) has gone fairly liberal in the last 2 decades and in 2012 filed suit against one of their member congregations (Montreat NC) for being the home turf of a missionary group Global Missions Conference; and a conservative group called Presbyterian Reform Ministries Int'l (PRMI) which is led by Rev. Brad Long. (this congregation was the home congregation of Billy Graham's wife Ruth)

The denomination came in and ousted the pastor and took over the congreation with 250 voting "members" that had never steped foot inside that building.

From one of Brad Long's prayer request emails dated 9/11/2012:

Tragically, this persecution has not only targeted the evangelical Montreat Presbyterian Church, but has also come against all others who have dared to be faithful to the evangelical foundation and tradition of Montreat. I am an eyewitness to this.

For instance: The Global Missions Conference, dating back to 1901, and the gathering of missionaries in Montreat, used to be the high point of the summer. But in 1984-1985 after reunion, there was a shift away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the center of missions to social justice. Evangelical missionaries were no longer welcome at the Global Missions Conference. And the Home Assignment Conference for returning missionaries was a spiritual atrocity in which liberal/progressive speakers condemned the missionary movement itself. .....

IT ended up that the entire congregation had to leave their building and their ordination in the PC (USA) and started a new EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) which is a more conservative organization.

If anyone wants the entire email from Rev Long, leave me a PM and I will forward it to you.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That sounds like the Presbyterian Church USA though; not the UMC or the groups mentioned in the earlier post.

From more fundamentalist/conservative groups, I often hear that whole line about being 'persecuted' in places like here. In fact, I once had a person stop me and tell me that the UMC would 'oust' me if I didn't do exactly what it said and agree with everything it taught. This person was a Southern Baptist Pastor who clearly had no clue what the UMC looks like or how it works. The reality is, the denominations does a good job of weeding people out. Very, very rarely is anyone ever disciplined, much less ousted; and it's usually for egregious violations of church law and/or clear acts of defiance; it's not for preaching. Although, yes, technically, our polity DOES allow for those who don't espouse UM Theology to be ousted. It's just exceedingly rare because, frankly, folks who are far off of the UMC Spectrum don't ever end up with a pastorate. Unlike the PCUSA, where an individual church can hire an individual Pastor (and the denomination feels it has to play 'clean up' when that church doesn't align with the rest of the denomination); in the UMC, you have to go through the denomination to even get to the church and the denomination (through the Bishop and District Superintendents) appoints you to a church. That system isn't everyones cup of tea; BUT, it does prevent folks way off of the spectrum from ending up behind the pulpit. There is a lot more wiggle room, left and right, in the UMC than most other denominations I'm familiar with. (Some have no wiggle room; some will only let you wiggle one direction.)

I can't answer for the Wesleyan/Nazarene church, which similarly use a call system of hiring Pastors. But I am unaware, personally, of a situation where they were ousted for merely suggesting a theology unlike the doctrine of the church.

It also seems, from what I know of the situation with Rev. Long, is that he wasn't "merely suggesting" anything, he was very much opposed to much of his own denomination and saw himself as someone who could change it back into his and his congregations image of what the denomination should look like. And we have those in the UMC as well. From mild (I want this one issue changed) to huge (I want the denomination to be something entirely different).

Not trying to cut you down, of course. But you made the claim that "merely suggesting" was going to get someone ousted; and I just don't think that's true. If you lead an entire church against the denomination (whether you agree with his points of view or not isn't the discussion; but that is, even by his own admission, what was happening); then almost any denomination would do the same. Whether you were a liberal Southern Baptist who built up a Liberal local congregation that sought to radically change the denomination, or a Roman Catholic Bishop who began "illegally" ordaining women in a defiant "If the denomination won't change I'll change it for them" action. Both real examples, both individuals ousted from two very different denominations. And I'm sure we could find examples all over the spectrum. Frankly, if you don't fit your denomination and you're preaching, teaching, or leading in that denomination; then you aren't bound to have a long career. Whether ousted or you yourself realizing you could better serve God elsewhere.

Fankly, I wouldn't WANT to preach in a denominations who had theologies as essential as salvation differently than my own. That sounds miserable.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

RomansFiveEight,

Wow, some interesting experiences. Maybe it is all my gray hair that means I don't get grabbed like that any more. If someone shoved a finger in my face they might get it twisted. ;-)

Graceseeker and RFive8 I will certainly concede you both have had some really bad experiences I've not had.

But personally I still think it is a mistake to suggest that both groups are alike. They each have sins of their own but they are sins in differing directions most often.

I certainly believe they are different. But I do think there are some intrinsic similarities. I will admit that I can generally get along better with those on the extreme of one side than the other. Personalities, ultimately, are the defining characteristic. Whether folks are abrasive or not, whether they are willing to understand the broad spectrum of human understanding or have a narrow worldview that they demand everyone fit into; and yes, I do believe both conservatives and liberals, and moderates, and everything else can have those personalities.

I strive (not perfect, that's why I'm a Christian, and not yet a saint in heaven!); to have an open mind, to understand points of view. I find it's helpful to try to understand why a person might have a perspective different than mine, and find truth in all that I can. But I have to admit to often times being so turned off by someones perspective that I am less than open with those people, less than I should be. Often preferring to just avoid them. I do especially poor with "My way or the highway" personalities. It's just the antithesis of who I am and who I strive to be, and it just drains me to be around folks who have all the answers.

 

[Dave-W]

But you made the claim that "merely suggesting" was going to get someone ousted; and I just don't think that's true. If you lead an entire church against the denomination (whether you agree with his points of view or not isn't the discussion; but that is, even by his own admission, what was happening); then almost any denomination would do the same.

It happened to an Assy of God pastor my wife knew. He did not say it from the pulpit but just mentioned to someone in the congregation that he thought OSAS may be right. He was gone in less than a month.

I heard rumors in the C o Nazarene of the same thing happening, but it did not happen in the congregation I grew up in.

From my investigation, I have found little difference doctrinally between the Assy of God and the Nazarenes. (except for the issue of the gifts of the Spirit)

Fankly, I wouldn't WANT to preach in a denominations who had theologies as essential as salvation differently than my own. That sounds miserable.

Indeed it does.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

It happened to an Assy of God pastor my wife knew. He did not say it from the pulpit but just mentioned to someone in the congregation that he thought OSAS may be right. He was gone in less than a month.

I heard rumors in the C o Nazarene of the same thing happening, but it did not happen in the congregation I grew up in.

From my investigation, I have found little difference doctrinally between the Assy of God and the Nazarenes. (except for the issue of the gifts of the Spirit)



Indeed it does.

How was he ousted though. By the denomination or the local church? The latter I could believe. It's one of the struggles with congregationalism. Often there's a contingency of individuals who don't like the Pastor (and that's true in connectional churches too, they just have less power). They find some 'excuse' to rile everyone else up, blow it out of proportion, and boom. There's a moving truck outside the parsonage. But in the UMC; such an act would require A) Convincing the bishop to move you; which does happen from time to time, but it's from one church to another; not 'out' of the church. Or B)In the case of Ordained Elders, they usually need to be met with charges and go through the Judicial Council. It's a long arduous process to remove an Elder. And it wouldn't be for anything as petty as suggesting the possibility of a doctrine outside of the UMC.

Now Licensed Local Pastors, who are often part-time, bivocational, or in the process of becoming Ordained (there are a few full time, itinerate, Local Pastors called Associate Members); are a little easier to 'get rid of'. But it would still require the District Committee on Ministry and the Bishop to dismiss them (it just doesn't necessarily require a trial), not a few upset people at the local church.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

As in most things Graceseeker, your and my milage may vary. The difference may be that I grew up in a very conservative denomination that moved from being conservative to fundamentalist in my lifetime. So my movement has always been leftward. (Or perceived by leftward to those who were moving further to the right.)

I can honestly say I've never known of a denomination that was involved in a hostile takeover by the left but I know of two such denominations that experienced it from the right (SBC and Missouri Synod Lutherans).

I know of no denomination where churches were kicked out for being conservative but I know that in my lifetime churches that are welcoming and affirming were kicked out of both the SBC and the American Baptist Churches. I actually saw two fundamentalists give each other the high five sign in the hall after four ABC churches were booted from the denomination for being welcoming to LGBT people. The glee and celebration was nauseating.

I know of no liberal denomination that has removed someone's credentials for being conservative. But many denominations at different times, including the mostly moderate UMC, have removed the credentials of more liberal pastors for performing same sex marriages.

If you can think of a single liberal denomination that has kicked out conservative clergy or churches I'd love to hear about it. Because so far I only know of less than liberal Christian groups that have kicked people or churches out.

At least from the perspective of the reaction of liberal and conservative denominations I think I have pretty good evidence that conservatives choose to divide more often than liberals.

I'm sorry you expressed nastiness from liberals. Nor am I suggesting either that the best response to fixing our problems is disobedience to the Discipline. I'd like to see us change the Discipline rather than break it.

The Church of Sweden [Lutheran] has taken action against priests who do not support same-sex marriage or clergy.

 

[circuitrider]

The Church of Sweden [Lutheran] has taken action against priests who do not support same-sex marriage or clergy.

I was thinking in the US. But that you for the information. I think the culture of the Church is quite a bit different in Europe than in the US so I don't know that my arguments would hold outside of our culture.

 

[Dave-W]

How was he ousted though. By the denomination or the local church? The latter I could believe. It's one of the struggles with congregationalism. Often there's a contingency of individuals who don't like the Pastor (and that's true in connectional churches too, they just have less power). They find some 'excuse' to rile everyone else up, blow it out of proportion, and boom. There's a moving truck outside the parsonage.

In those cases it was both. A/G and CoN both have congregational autonomy meaning that the local board and/or congregation can vote anyone in or out. But in cases like this, a report gets forwarded to the district or state level board of the denomination suggesting the person's credentials be revoked and they usually comply with that request.

But I agree that this can be a problem of congregational autonomy. (and other problems besides IMO) My dad (ordained in the WM denom) and his best friend (ordained in Free Methodist) used to rib each other constantly over congregational style church gov't vs. episcopal style church gov't.