UMC Different?

[redblue22]

How is UMC different from Evangelicals? How would you explain it?

 

[Rawtheran]

How is UMC different from Evangelicals? How would you explain it?

I am confused by your question because the UMC is technically an evangelical denomination. One of the founding principles of the church is personal faith in Jesus Christ, and social justice which is what evangelicals are known for.

 

[Qyöt27]

It depends on what your definition of 'evangelical' is*. Because if you mean 'evangelical' as an adjective, "to evangelize", then yes. Or possibly as a generic descriptor for 'simple faith', maybe. But if you're using it as a synonym for the Religious Right/Moral Majority/Fundamentalism-Lite demographic, the answer is pretty decidedly no. It doesn't mean some members don't get close to that, but the denomination as a whole is not, and it could be argued that at least some of the capital-E Evangelical hot button political and cultural issues are in direct opposition to the UMC's doctrine and official resolutions - partially because the history isn't there, partially because as a Mainline church, the UMC is much more similar to the Episcopal/Anglican Church (where Methodism originated) or ELCA (which is one of the denominations the UMC has ecumenical agreements with) than it is the Southern Baptist Convention.

*to wit, even self-avowed evangelicals themselves have trouble defining that sometimes.

 

[redblue22]

It depends on what your definition of 'evangelical' is*. But if you're using it as a synonym for the Religious Right/Moral Majority/Fundamentalism-Lite demographic,

this.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Well, the UMC is different from THAT evangelicalism because the UMC allows for diversity of opinion within its membership. While the UMC has a very strong social creed, it does NOT serve as a litmus for those who wish to be part of the church. The UMC is more about making disciples of Christ in order to transform the world, while it seems to me that some in evangelicalism (emphasis on SOME) would prefer to transform the world into copiers of their particular set of practices BEFORE introducing people to Jesus. In the UMC there is no one-to-one correspondence between theological and political views. Our beliefs with regard to God inform all we do in life, including our politics, but the answers to life's difficult questions don't require everyone to reach the same set of conclusions and march to them in lockstep. Wesley said, "If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand." And so, regardless of politics, Methodists have been walking and working hand and hand with anyone who has a heart for Jesus ever since.

 

[redblue22]

On the other hand, I have run into people who say that UMC is liberal and therefore not evangelical. "Liberal" seems to be one of those slippery words.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Those are the sort of people who think that "liberal" is a bad word, while at the same time having such a narrow definition of "evangelical" that they have turned it into an adjective describing one's politics and having little to nothing to do with theology and the practice of one's faith. I would argue that they aren't even true evangelicals.

Do they even realize that Paul's conversion experience in Acts shows us not one who left Judaism for Christianity as if they were two different religions, but one who went from being a conservative Jew adhering strictly to the traditions passed on from generation to generation as normative interpretations of the Torah to being a liberal Jew capable of a new understanding and application of Torah. For Paul, evangelism requires the sharing of this new understanding as Good News for not just his own faith community but the whole world.

 

[Dave-W]

Do they even realize that Paul's conversion experience in Acts shows us not one who left Judaism for Christianity as if they were two different religions, but one who went from being a conservative Jew adhering strictly to the traditions passed on from generation to generation as normative interpretations of the Torah to being a liberal Jew capable of a new understanding and application of Torah.

There is a long history in Christendom that fights against this truth. Starting in the aftermath of the failed Bar Kochba revolt, the ECFs did everything they could to turn Christianity into another religion, completely severing it from Judaism. So much so that to a traditional religious Jew, Christianity appears completely pagan.

 

[GraceSeeker]

So much so that to a traditional religious Jew, Christianity appears completely pagan.

One's view of the world often depends on where one plants his/her feet.

 

[Dave-W]

One's view of the world often depends on where one plants his/her feet.

And yet we are called to take the gospel (i.e. be evangelical) to the Jew first. Rom 11.11 says the gospel went to us gentiles to make Jews jealous. As far as I can see, that is the ONLY direct reason given in scripture to us being brought into the faith.

So if we have something that looks pagan and foreign to Jews, how do we make them jealous?

Are we that sure our own feet are planted in the right place?

 

[GraceSeeker]

And yet we are called to take the gospel (i.e. be evangelical) to the Jew first. Rom 11.11 says the gospel went to us gentiles to make Jews jealous. As far as I can see, that is the ONLY direct reason given in scripture to us being brought into the faith.

That, and the fact that God so loved THE WORLD, not just the Jews, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes might be saved. I suspect that to be another reason the Gospel was given to us gentiles, because God was manifesting himself in the world in order to reconcile the world back to himself.

In the words of Simeon:

29 “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word;
30 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation
31 which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to thy people Israel.”

So if we have something that looks pagan and foreign to Jews, how do we make them jealous?

I suspect that this is neither because of what we have nor how we worship, nothing to do with style at all, but much to do with the content of our worship; and for the same reason that Paul himself at one time thought that Christian worship was a form of paganism and blasphemy, simply because of WHO we worship. And while we can, and often do, change the style of our worship; I don't believe we can change the focus of it and still be Christian.

Consider the question that is included in the verse you referenced above: "So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?" Even though Paul answers that question "By no means!" Also recall that Paul claimed "we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." If there is something wrong with that (e.g., it looks pagan and foreign to Jews), then it would follow that we should not be preaching Christ crucified. But, of course that would mean not only a radical change in the whole history of Christian preaching and teaching, but to also to radically reinterpret Paul meaning of this and (virtually) every other verse of scripture he ever wrote.

Are we that sure our own feet are planted in the right place?

It is one of the few things I really am confident of.