Where will conservatives go if they leave the UMC in a few years?

Albion · Aug 14, 2017

Well, of course, we're just speculating and guessing, and all sorts of scenarios could still come to pass. I do still think that the creation of a new Methodist church would be most likely.

If someone wonders if the TEC option is a real possibility, though, my guess is that it would be.

However, experience does show that with these things the proposal starts off looking like a natural, a piece of cake, and everyone is positive...and then the negotiations for actual union drag on for years and years.

circuitrider · Aug 14, 2017

Right now, I do think that any of the half a dozen or more possible arrangements for the future of the UMC is just speculation. No one knows for sure how it will shake out. But we now have a deadline for that to happen. Decisions will be made in 2019 one way or another and people will then have to make their own choices.

Follow The Narrow · Aug 14, 2017

circuitrider said:
If that happens some kind of split will likely come because after 40+ years of this, the status quo cannot continue.

God hasn't changed in 6000+ years, so why should we? Homosexuality is wrong, and that will never change. Only if the Bible changed (spoiler: it won't) would that become okay. So why should the church change?

With all of the churches changing rules to oppose biblical truths, Hell is going to be quite full.

actionsub · Aug 14, 2017

Follow The Narrow said:
God hasn't changed in 6000+ years, so why should we? Homosexuality is wrong, and that will never change. Only if the Bible changed (spoiler: it won't) would that become okay. So why should the church change?

With all of the churches changing rules to oppose biblical truths, Hell is going to be quite full.

Now that's the thing. There's a significant number who feel as you do (myself included); and (at least in the States) a significant number who believe the Bible to be a dynamic document to be contextualized with the times.
Neither side is going to change. The conflict between these two sides has gone on for 40 years now and the UMC has finally concluded that we've reached an impasse. The center cannot hold, in the words of William Blake, because there is no center remaining.

circuitrider · Aug 14, 2017

actionsub said:
Now that's the thing. There's a significant number who feel as you do (myself included); and (at least in the States) a significant number who believe the Bible to be a dynamic document to be contextualized with the times.
Neither side is going to change. The conflict between these two sides has gone on for 40 years now and the UMC has finally concluded that we've reached an impasse. The center cannot hold, in the words of William Blake, because there is no center remaining.

I hope you can at least revise that “6000 year” statement, unless of course, you are denying the birth, incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ that all have happened within the past 2,000 plus years.

The immutability of God isn’t Christian doctrine. It makes good Greek philosophy. But poor Christian doctrine.

ambc · Aug 21, 2017

Basil the Great said:
I tend to think that a split is coming within a few years, but I could well be wrong. It might just be that if the UMC changes it's policy on sexual mores to become like the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA), maybe a denominational split can be avoided. However, even if a split fails to happen, a policy change could well result in perhaps hundreds of thousands of conservative United Methodists waking out the doors and trying other denominations. It is hard to say where most would go. What do you think?

I heard the news last April when the UMC ordained an openly lesbian bishop. As a conservative and Methodist, I disagree with the decision. It isn’t any different than ordaining a bishop who openly philanders with prostitutes. I wouldn’t have a problem with ordaining bishops who had past relationships with people of the same gender or prostitutes, but only if they repented and are no longer engaging in immorality, since we Christians must forgive sinners. But to appoint active sinners to such positions is going too far. And if the UMC continues doing this sort of thing and the problem gets larger, I may join a Baptist church or some other conservative denomination.

circuitrider · Aug 21, 2017

ambc said:
I heard the news last April when the UMC ordained an openly lesbian bishop. As a conservative and Methodist, I disagree with the decision. It isn’t any different than ordaining a bishop who openly philanders with prostitutes. I wouldn’t have a problem with ordaining bishops who had past relationships with people of the same gender or prostitutes, but only if they repented and are no longer engaging in immorality, since we Christians must forgive sinners. But to appoint active sinners to such positions is going too far. And if the UMC continues doing this sort of thing and the problem gets larger, I may join a Baptist church or some other conservative denomination.

Actually, it isn’t that way at all. There is actually nothing in the Bible that specifically argues against committed loving same sex relationships. To get the Bible to say so you have to press a modern interpretation of sexuality and marriage on the first century.

The Biblical writers would have been appalled at the idea of people marrying for love rather than arranged marriages.

Odds are, you’d be happier as a Baptist. Just make sure it is the SBC and not one of the other mainstream Baptist bodies that does already ordained gay clergy such as the ABC/USA.

ambc · Aug 22, 2017

circuitrider said:
Actually, it isn’t that way at all. There is actually nothing in the Bible that specifically argues against committed loving same sex relationships. To get the Bible to say so you have to press a modern interpretation of sexuality and marriage on the first century.

The Biblical writers would have been appalled at the idea of people marrying for love rather than arranged marriages.

Odds are, you’d be happier as a Baptist. Just make sure it is the SBC and not one of the other mainstream Baptist bodies that does already ordained gay clergy such as the ABC/USA.

There anything in Bible that specifically argues against ordained priests or bishops having noncommittal sexual relationships with prostitutes, either. Nor is there anything in the Bible that directly prohibits a man from having a sexual relationship with his deceased wife. But I know that philandering with prostitutes and necrophilia are both wrong. It's no different with sodomite weddings.

Dave-W · Aug 22, 2017

ambc said:
There anything in Bible that specifically argues against ordained priests or bishops having noncommittal sexual relationships with prostitutes, either.

Actually, there is:

1 Corinthians 6:15
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.”

ambc · Aug 22, 2017

Dave-W said:
Actually, there is:

1 Corinthians 6:15
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.”

Touché. But my point still stands.

circuitrider · Aug 22, 2017

ambc said:
There anything in Bible that specifically argues against ordained priests or bishops having noncommittal sexual relationships with prostitutes, either. Nor is there anything in the Bible that directly prohibits a man from having a sexual relationship with his deceased wife. But I know that philandering with prostitutes and necrophilia are both wrong. It's no different with sodomite weddings.

The sin of sodom was inhospitality, the Bible say so. But I realize that selective reading of the Bible is as much a conservative Christian problem as a liberal Christian problem.

Remember, the Bible supports slavery, depending on your reading. The Bible supports genocide and killing women and children depending on where you read. The Bible calls wearing mixed fabrics and eat shrimp an abomination.

Not everything the Bible says is something that we as Christians are called to follow. We are called to interpret the Bible under the life, teaching and love of Jesus Christ. And as United Methodist we are to use Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience to figure out how we should live.

People running around comparing LGBTQ people to necrophile and prostitutes may well kill the church because, again, the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Human beings want to make the big thing about sex. God seems to be far more concerned about hospitality.

ambc · Aug 22, 2017

circuitrider said:
The sin of sodom was inhospitality, the Bible say so. But I realize that selective reading of the Bible is as much a conservative Christian problem as a liberal Christian problem.

Remember, the Bible supports slavery, depending on your reading. The Bible supports genocide and killing women and children depending on where you read. The Bible calls wearing mixed fabrics and eat shrimp an abomination.

Not everything the Bible says is something that we as Christians are called to follow. We are called to interpret the Bible under the life, teaching and love of Jesus Christ. And as United Methodist we are to use Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience to figure out how we should live.

People running around comparing LGBTQ people to necrophile and prostitutes may well kill the church because, again, the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Human beings want to make the big thing about sex. God seems to be far more concerned about hospitality.

I didn't say that homosexuality is on par with necrophilia, nor do I believe that. My point is that just because there isn't a list of every single behavior we shouldn't engage in such as sodomy, philandering with prostitutes, or necrophilia, doesn't mean that it's okay to do those thing. We have a conscience and know right from wrong, and we know by our reason that vices and deviant conduct aren't morally acceptable.

By the way, prostitute mongering is just as severe a vice as homosexual sex. Again, it's not something I said in my previous post, but it's true.

Also, why are you bringing up the tale of Sodom in the Bible? The word "sodomite" is an English word that means homosexual. And I know the etymology of the term. Just because I used this word doesn't mean that I was referring to the story in Genesis.

And please quit misusing Christianity to promote an unhealthy, dangerous lifestyle. Look up the Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics on HIV/AIDS prevalence among gay men. The CDC is a US public health institute, so their facts are the most reliable. One in five homosexual and bisexual men are infected with HIV, half of whom don’t know they have it. By telling people that it is okay to engage in sodomy, you’re encouraging them to do something that could end their lives.

hedrick · Aug 22, 2017

I don't think we want to base Christian ethics on epidemiology. The biggest problem with AIDS is in Africa. There is primarily a heterosexual problem. Indeed I've seen some suggestions that it's a different strain of HIV, that spreads more easily in heterosexual sex.

One of the most useful things we can do is get people to avoid sex with multiple partners. In that context, gay marriage is a step in the right direction. It sets up a framework to support people who want to be faithful to a single partner. Not all gays do, but some do, and we should support that.

There is also no one "gay lifestyle." There are quite a wide variety of gay lifestyles, ranging from Christians who have been with their partner since before AIDS was in the US to "swingers." These lifestyles have varying health risks. Should that affect our judgement about their ethical status?

ambc · Aug 23, 2017

hedrick said:
One of the most useful things we can do is get people to avoid sex with multiple partners. In that context, gay marriage is a step in the right direction. It sets up a framework to support people who want to be faithful to a single partner. Not all gays do, but some do, and we should support that.

Why would a government contract that officially sanctions a monogamous relationship cause promiscuous homosexuals to suddenly settle for one person? You don’t need a marriage document to be monogamous with someone. I want to get married to a woman when I can, but I sure wouldn’t dump the idea and resort to unending promiscuity if heterosexual marriage became hypothetically illegal.

hedrick · Aug 23, 2017

ambc said:
Why would a government contract that officially sanctions a monogamous relationship cause promiscuous homosexuals to suddenly settle for one person? You don’t need a marriage document to be monogamous with someone. I want to get married to a woman when I can, but I sure wouldn’t dump the idea and resort to unending promiscuity if heterosexual marriage became hypothetically illegal.

As far as I can tell, the purpose of having the State sanction marriage is to provide encouragement and visible community support for people who are married or might be considering marriage.

How useful is that? It's hard to know, but a lot of people seem to think it's worth doing, or marriage would be a purely private arrangement.

I don't think having marriage available will magically turn people who are promiscuous into monogamous partners. But I think public support for people who are willing to consider chastity is worth having. I hope that taking vows before God and the community has at least some affect, as does the ongoing encouragement and counseling that churches commonly provide for married couples.

Anto9us · Aug 25, 2017

I think one of the issues about marriage is TAXES

same-sex couples should get the same tax breaks as hetero couples

circuitrider · Aug 30, 2017

Anto9us said:
I think one of the issues about marriage is TAXES

same-sex couples should get the same tax breaks as hetero couples

Agreed Anto9us. Equal protection under the law is a long standing right of our society. It is one of the reasons, even though Iowa is fairly conservative, that same sex marriage was approved here fairly early on as our state constitution takes a strong stand for equal protection.

Kyrilllos el Antony · Aug 31, 2017

circuitrider said:
They must be pretty right wing if they think the UMC is "super liberal." The Episcopal Church, UCC, Evangelical Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, and even the American Baptists are more liberal on sexuality issues than the UMC.

I don't know what else we are involved in that could be general called all that liberal. It is a pretty middle of the road denomination generally.

I think there are a sizable group of conservatives that might pull out if they don't get their way on human sexuality. The UMC in the south is considerable more conservative, theologically and culturally, than the UMC in the rest of the US. Also African United Methodists, who are a much larger percentage of our membership every year, are quite conservative.

Given this, I have to confess, I don't understand why liberal Methodists don't simply transfer to the UCC, the PCUSA, the ECUSA or the ELCA; the Methodists I believe are in a state of partial communion with some of these. With the ELCA and the ECUSA, you have bishops, which facilitate something similiar in spirit to the connectionalism of the UMC (a typical Episcopal bishop has a diocese somewhere in between the area of a District Superintendent and a Conference Bishop). One could also quote John Wesley's love of the Book of Common Prayer as a reason for liberal Methodists to go Episcopalian. It just seems to me that, since friendly ecumenical relations exist between all these churches, and since the theology is basically the same, it would be better to let the conservatives have one of the mainline Protestant churches as opposed to continuing to have divisive votes at every general conference which seem destined to fail due to the African and Southern conferences.

circuitrider · Aug 31, 2017

Kyrilllos el Antony said:
Given this, I have to confess, I don't understand why liberal Methodists don't simply transfer to the UCC, the PCUSA, the ECUSA or the ELCA; the Methodists I believe are in a state of partial communion with some of these. With the ELCA and the ECUSA, you have bishops, which facilitate something similiar in spirit to the connectionalism of the UMC (a typical Episcopal bishop has a diocese somewhere in between the area of a District Superintendent and a Conference Bishop). One could also quote John Wesley's love of the Book of Common Prayer as a reason for liberal Methodists to go Episcopalian. It just seems to me that, since friendly ecumenical relations exist between all these churches, and since the theology is basically the same, it would be better to let the conservatives have one of the mainline Protestant churches as opposed to continuing to have divisive votes at every general conference which seem destined to fail due to the African and Southern conferences.

Well it just isn't that easy. United Methodists seem to forget that we are far far larger than all the other mainline denominations. We have over 7 Million members in the US and the combined members of the UCC, PCUSA, ELCA and ECUSA is around 6.5 Million. We have over 32,000 US churches. The UCC has 5100, the PCUSA 9,451, etc.

So even if the liberal United Methodists only make up a third of our membership (I think it is closer to 40% and higher in the north) we would overwhelm any other denomination with laity and clergy. There are 45,000 UMC clergy in the US alone. So there also are not clergy jobs for the thousands of liberal pastors in the UMC in other denominations.

Also, very very few churches are 100% liberal or 100% conservative. So it isn't at all easy to tell one side or another to go elsewhere.

But even a bigger reason for many of us is that we are Methodists. We believe like Methodists. We aren't Presbyterians, we don't like John Calvin. We aren't followers of Martin Luther. Historically the Episcopal Church is our closest family. But they are way way too small to take us in. It would be more like a takeover than a merger. They'd never go for that.

seeking.IAM · Aug 31, 2017

circuitrider said:
Well it just isn't that easy. United Methodists seem to forget that we are far far larger than all the other mainline denominations. We have over 7 Million members in the US and the combined members of the UCC, PCUSA, ELCA and ECUSA is around 6.5 Million. We have over 32,000 US churches. ...Historically the Episcopal Church is our closest family. But they are way way too small to take us in. It would be more like a takeover than a merger. They'd never go for that.

I think this is quite correct. The problem as I see it that many, if not most little towns, are likely to have a UMC, without representation by other churches of a similar bent. That is why I think the benefactor of a UMC exodus is more likely to be a non-denom, one of which seems to be cropping up in nearly every community.

That said, one of our local UCCs just took in a number of families - 7 as I recall - from one local UMC. All left the UMC due to this issue and either feeling that they or their children were unwelcome. I am told it was a comment in one sermon that did it, and they were out the door.

Also, consider the financial impact to schism. If we assume that the average pledge is $5,000, those 7 families leaving one congregation would amount to a $35,000 budget reduction. This could be crippling to many churches, which I suppose, is why the UMC keeps kicking the can down the road instead of being decisive on this issue at General Conference. No one wants to see schism.

Where will conservatives go if they leave the UMC in a few years?

If the UMC reverses it's policy, but fails to split, where will conservatives go that leave?

(1) a Baptist Church

(2) a conservative Presbyterian denomination

(3) Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

(4) Church of the Nazarene

(5) Disciples of Christ

(6) other Protestant bodies

(7) Catholic or Eastern Orthodox

Facilitator

United Methodist

UMC Member

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

United Methodist

Mark 12:30-31

United Methodist

Mark 12:30-31

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Mark 12:30-31

United Methodist

Mark 12:30-31

Senior Veteran

Mark 12:30-31

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

United Methodist

Active Member

United Methodist

A View From The Pew

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency