Things that surprise me...

[circuitrider]

I am often surprised that there are still Christians that don't think men and women are equal in the eyes of God and want to argue with you over women in ministry despite the fact that so many Christian denominations (even quite conservative ones) have women pastors and have had them before most all of us were born.

I'm surprised that there is a continual stream of people from non-Wesleyan denominations who really do feel they need to talk Wesleyan Christians out of being Wesleyan Christians or out of usual doctrinal beliefs in our own forum. What is the point? Do they think that they are saved by their denomination? Or that it is some how earth shattering that we disagree with them?

I'm surprised that more people don't realize dueling Bible passages isn't actually a good way to prove anything.

Finally, I'm surprised that they think I should care that they or their denomination disagree with me or mine.

 

[Celticflower]

I find it is mainly non-denominationalist that have the hardest time accepting the beliefs of others. Unfortunately for me I have been attending a non-denom because it was my husband's choice (he is now a deacon there) and because when we were looking for a new church this one had a better children/youth program than the Methodist/Presbyterian that is actually closer. It took me 5 years and dragging a friend to a play on John Wesley to convince her that Methodists were just as Christian as those in her non-denom. There are still people there (after more than 15 years) who still think I need to be "converted" or saved. I have not joined this church because I see no need to be re-baptized and they won't accept mine.But I sing for them, pray for them, make prayer shawls for them, contribute to craft sales, dinners, fund raisers etc.
I have ceased to be surprised by what people accept or reject when it comes to churches. I just concern myself with my faith and what I am called to do where I am. If those around me don't agree with my views on things, that is their problem. Sometimes those who are the loudest about getting someone to change are the ones who are very insecure in their own beliefs.

 

[circuitrider]

I'm sure they are very nice people but the situation you are living with would frustrate me. I'm glad you've been able to adapt. I'd not join a church that required re-baptism either.

There is a non-denominational church in the community my daughter lives in that routinely tells Methodists they aren't "saved" and ought to be re-baptized. They troll the local public university for unsuspecting mainline Christians and try to "convert" them when many of them have been Christians their entire lives. Some get sucked into it because the church has a big music program and a large college group that is attractive to folks looking for fellowship. But in the meantime a lot of them get taught messed up doctrine.

I can add an additional surprise.

I'm surprised that some Christian believe the world stood still after the Bible was penned. For United Methodists the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. But not all things. So if modern science disagrees with the Bible we aren't bound to believe the earth is flat.

If we could not re-interpret the Bible based on experience and reason we'd still be supporting slavery with Paul.

In the Bible women were basically considered property. A man could divorce his wife but she had no such right. We don't have to live with patriarchy just because during the time of the writing of the Bible society was partriarchical.

 

[Dave-W]

Well, you know Circuitrider, that everyone is convinced that their particular take on theology is the ONLY path to true salvation. Whether it is being baptized in a particular formula or saying certain words (or NOT saying any words). They zoom in on this or that verse or passage and build an entire structure on it while ignoring other equally important passages. And of course us beliving something ELSE throws their whole salvic structure in question.

So their coming here (or us going there) and supporting said pet scriptures to prove themselves (or ourselves) "right" and everyone else "wrong" in one sense can be from a desire to see all men saved. (so we approach it as we believe it).

OR - it can just mean they are trying to dominate the conversation.

 

[Dave-W]

A friend of mine who recently retired from running a christian book store (and a fill-in pastor ordained in the Assy of God) had a story about a guy who was either a deacon or elder in the United Pentecostal denom. (Jesus only modalists) He had been doing some studying and found out that in the first century Our Lord's Name was not pronounced "Jesus" but something more like "Yeshua." So he was afraid his entire denomination was eternally doomed for being baptized in the wrong name. (they do not allow being re-baptized to correct past errors)

 

[Celticflower]

I'm sure they are very nice people but the situation you are living with would frustrate me. I'm glad you've been able to adapt. I'd not join a church that required re-baptism either.

It does frustrate me at times - when someone says something about my needing to convert (my pet response is "from what to what?" since a Methodist is a Christian I can't convert from what I am to what I am), but I occasionally get to head to the Union church down the street (when Husband is out of town on the week end) and we go to the UMC I was a member of in PA when we are visiting family (bugs the crap out of his family that we won't go to their non-denom). And my mindset is still very Methodist/Wesleyian. But sometimes ya just have to roll with the punches to keep the peace in the household. It will all work out in the end.

 

[circuitrider]

Well, you know Circuitrider, that everyone is convinced that their particular take on theology is the ONLY path to true salvation.

Actually most United Methodists don't believe that. United Methodists believe that all Christians can experience salvation. Many United Methodists believe that persons of other religious faiths other than the Christian faith may experience God's gracious gift of salvation since that is up to God, and even a few United Methodists believe in universal salvation.

 

[circuitrider]

A friend of mine who recently retired from running a christian book store (and a fill-in pastor ordained in the Assy of God) had a story about a guy who was either a deacon or elder in the United Pentecostal denom. (Jesus only modalists) He had been doing some studying and found out that in the first century Our Lord's Name was not pronounced "Jesus" but something more like "Yeshua." So he was afraid his entire denomination was eternally doomed for being baptized in the wrong name. (they do not allow being re-baptized to correct past errors)

Very odd that he would think that one's salvation could fall on the pronunciation of a name. Do we all now have to speak Hebrew to be saved? Jesus has a lot of names. I'm sure any of them would suffice.

 

[circuitrider]

It does frustrate me at times - when someone says something about my needing to convert (my pet response is "from what to what?" since a Methodist is a Christian I can't convert from what I am to what I am), but I occasionally get to head to the Union church down the street (when Husband is out of town on the week end) and we go to the UMC I was a member of in PA when we are visiting family (bugs the crap out of his family that we won't go to their non-denom). And my mindset is still very Methodist/Wesleyian. But sometimes ya just have to roll with the punches to keep the peace in the household. It will all work out in the end.

Yes, we are all worshipping the same Lord even if they don't get it.

It is a shame this whole "conversion" theology that got invented in the revivalist periods of the US worked its way into so many churches.

 

[Dave-W]

Very odd that he would think that one's salvation could fall on the pronunciation of a name. Do we all now have to speak Hebrew to be saved? Jesus has a lot of names. I'm sure any of them would suffice.

My point was how narrowly some can define their salvic formulae.

UPC doctrine places a HUGE DEAL on the verbiage of baptism; with any mention of Father Son and Spirit invalidating the baptism and thereby invalidating salvation. You HAVE to say the phrase "In the Name of JESUS." Because that is what the KJV says in Acts and that was re-inspired in 1611 which invalidated previous editions and manuscrpts.

 

[mrfun83]

Greetings All. Circuitrider, it sounds like you are not a subscriber to salvation as a "crisis experience" vis-a-vis the "conversion theology". Am I reading you wrong? I believe Wesley and Asbury both were very clear on this and both testified to this. Can you expound upon your views?

 

[circuitrider]

Greetings All. Circuitrider, it sounds like you are not a subscriber to salvation as a "crisis experience" vis-a-vis the "conversion theology". Am I reading you wrong? I believe Wesley and Asbury both were very clear on this and both testified to this. Can you expound upon your views?

The problem is that people tend to read just some of John Wesley's works. In his early faith experience not long after Aldersgate he saw the "crisis experience" as you put it as necessary for everyone. Later in his writing he acknowledged that people come to faith in Jesus Christ differently.

For many people raised in the Church there is no faith crisis. I can never remember a time when I did not believe in Jesus. Certainly there is a value to professing your faith. United Methodists do that formally during confirmation. But it doesn't mean those youth were not Christians already. Most had believed for their entire lives.

The idea of the "conversion experience" as necessary to salvation came more out of the revivalist movements of the 17th and 18th centuries. That was not the norm for Protestant Christianity before that.

Certainly an adult convert to the faith will have a much different experience than a lifetime believer. The mistake comes when it is assumed we all have to have the same experience.

 

[mrfun83]

Fair enuff. Bottom line - regardless of experience - if coming to faith as an adult, there needs to be a transformation in the life lived. Jesus, if nothing else, was transformative. For those who have grown up in the Church, there needs to be bearing of fruit "according to repentance". Would you agree to that?

 

[circuitrider]

From a Wesleyan/Methodist perspective transformation (also called sanctification) does indeed need to be happing throughout one's life. It is God's desire to perfect us in love. So continued growth in grace is the purpose of the Christian life.

The danger of "conversion" theology is that many people walk away from the experience thinking they are done and have a done deal with God. While such an experience can be an important spiritual milestone you need to continue to grow in grace throughout your life with Christ.

 

[mrfun83]

Correct - getting a "fire insurance" policy is not enough, and most assuredly is not the end game.
It's a relationship that is dynamic, and involves continuing education through the reading of the Word and the Holy Spirit's guidance.
Speaking of sanctification, I am reading Wesley's "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection." I'm sure it will spark some thoughts and questions as I read it.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Few things have shaped my theology as much as understanding the history of our mostly-American theologies of late. And the marrying of certain political ideologies with Christian ideologies of the 1950's. Frankly, some of our deeply held Christian-American theological ideas are no older than the 1950's and the need for a propaganda against the russians; and making us the good Christians and them the evil heathens work (Adding "Under God" to everything, for example).

Just like a recent poster claiming that the UMC was succumbing to some sort of leftist Agenda by suggesting alms for the poor, demanding fair wages, rejecting various inhumane practices; etc. The problem is, these are Wesleyan and just generally 'Christian' before that. It's only been the last few decades that some of these ideologies have been associated with christianity.

A great example is Pope Francis suggesting things that aren't new, that every Pope before him have said; like the need to care for the poor, that fair wages are the moral thing to do, and so forth. But because Francis has been in the spotlight; people are up in arms that he's this evil "Progressive" pope. And he has reminded interviewers that nothing is new, not in centuries of Catholicism. And, nobody outside of the U.S. thinks thinking along the lines of the poor should be cared for, corporations shouldn't have all the wealth while people starve, etc., are "leftist" ideologies.

 

[circuitrider]

Correct - getting a "fire insurance" policy is not enough, and most assuredly is not the end game.
It's a relationship that is dynamic, and involves continuing education through the reading of the Word and the Holy Spirit's guidance.
Speaking of sanctification, I am reading Wesley's "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection." I'm sure it will spark some thoughts and questions as I read it.

While I'm a big believer in education, it is more than that. We receive more than knowledge from the Holy Spirit. We receive grace to live and walk each day and move ever closer to God.

John Wesley's goal was to spread scriptural holiness through out the land and not just scriptural knowledge.

I hope you enjoy the reading of "A Plain Account." It does give much of the basis of our doctrine of perfection.

 

[circuitrider]

Archbishop Câmara said “When I feed the poor, people call me a saint; when I ask why there is poverty, they call me a communist.”

 

[Dave-W]

Few things have shaped my theology as much as understanding the history of our mostly-American theologies of late. And the marrying of certain political ideologies with Christian ideologies of the 1950's. Frankly, some of our deeply held Christian-American theological ideas are no older than the 1950's and the need for a propaganda against the russians; and making us the good Christians and them the evil heathens work (Adding "Under God" to everything, for example).

Just like a recent poster claiming that the UMC was succumbing to some sort of leftist Agenda by suggesting alms for the poor, demanding fair wages, rejecting various inhumane practices; etc. The problem is, these are Wesleyan and just generally 'Christian' before that. It's only been the last few decades that some of these ideologies have been associated with christianity.

A great example is Pope Francis suggesting things that aren't new, that every Pope before him have said; like the need to care for the poor, that fair wages are the moral thing to do, and so forth. But because Francis has been in the spotlight; people are up in arms that he's this evil "Progressive" pope. And he has reminded interviewers that nothing is new, not in centuries of Catholicism. And, nobody outside of the U.S. thinks thinking along the lines of the poor should be cared for, corporations shouldn't have all the wealth while people starve, etc., are "leftist" ideologies.

I like this viewpoint on US evangelical "theology." I guess I had never seen it from an "anti-communist" angle.

Perhaps it is underpinned by an idea that anything that is OT is no longer relevant; which contains elements of the ancient heresy of Marcionism. (I do understand this is NOT a Wesleyan doctrine) Moses has LOT to say about human fairness including fair wages and treating all men with respect.

 

[Dave-W]

From a Wesleyan/Methodist perspective transformation (also called sanctification) does indeed need to be happing throughout one's life. It is God's desire to perfect us in love. So continued growth in grace is the purpose of the Christian life.

The danger of "conversion" theology is that many people walk away from the experience thinking they are done and have a done deal with God. While such an experience can be an important spiritual milestone you need to continue to grow in grace throughout your life with Christ.

I too see the dangers in that doctrinal slant. One thing the body of Messiah is sorely lacking overall is true Christian maturity. I do not know if you ever heard of a guy from south america named Juan Carlos Ortiz, but he wrote a couple of books back in the 1970s. In one of them, "Call to Discipleship," he tells of starting a mission church which grew from nothing to a megachurch (by our modern definition) but he sensed something was missing. While taking a time of prayer and seeking God, he came to the realization that instead of pastoring a church of strong young believers; he was babysitting an orphanage full of infants.

"Conversion" alone will never produce strong, mature believers. There is an ongoing growth process; and MOST of the bible is geared toward telling us how to live and grow AFTER initial conversion. Why do so many see it the other way around?