Why did you choose Methodism over the other "biggies"?

[Soma Seer]

The point of this thread is not to suggest that UMs should be anything other than UMs. I just am curious what, for you, ruled out some of the other "biggie" faith groups: Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc. (Whatever faith groups you looked into but found wanting in terms of what you want/need out of worship, please, feel free to share that info.)

Thank you,

SS

 

[JCFantasy23]

I liked their views on Open Communion but also taking it seriously as an important sacrament, their views on salvation and emphasis on it being an ongoing journey. There are other reasons now and I love the UMC, but those are big ones when I was struggling on deciding a denomination to explore.

 

[circuitrider]

The point of this thread is not to suggest that UMs should be anything other than UMs. I just am curious what, for you, ruled out some of the other "biggie" faith groups: Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc. (Whatever faith groups you looked into but found wanting in terms of what you want/need out of worship, please, feel free to share that info.)

Thank you,

SS

Well, Soma Seer, the Roman Catholic Church has never been an option for me because I disagree with their views of the papacy and their relegating women to second class roles. I also disagree with required celibacy for the clergy.

I won't join any Reformed denomination because I don't believe Calvinism is a credible theory for salvation and the scriptures.

If I couldn't be United Methodist I'd probably be an Episcopalian.

But as clergy, I believe strongly in the value of the UMC appointment system for pastors. I don't agree with systems where the local church hires the pastor like she/he is the janitor or church secretary. We aren't hirelings.

I believe the Anglican Church in England appoints their pastor. But for some reason the Episcopal Church adopted a semi-congregationalist practice of the church hireling their priest. I disagree with that.

I frankly didn't have a positive experience with Lutheran churches growing up. As the area I was in was almost entirely Missouri Synod. They are way too conservative for me.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

My experience is similar to CircuitWriters. I could write a big dissertation on it but I suppose rather than comparing and contrasting arguments; I'll just say this; United Methodism seemed like the most authentic approach to scripture and church that I know of. The connectional system works and works well, and it's my home.

I cam from the Southern Baptist Church and am a United Methodist Pastor.

 

[circuitrider]

I'd also like to add that some personal experiences with out dysfunctional congregationalism is as a system of church government was a big part of my decision to join a denomination with an episcopal polity.

I might be able to be a lay person in a congregationalist denomination but I would never again work as clergy is that kind of system.

 

[Soma Seer]

...The Roman Catholic Church has never been an option for me because I disagree with their views of the papacy and their relegating women to second class roles. I also disagree with required celibacy for the clergy.

I, too, struggle with the RCC's stance on those issues.

I won't join any Reformed denomination because I don't believe Calvinism is a credible theory for salvation and the scriptures.

What little bit I know of Calvinism, it doesn't sit right with me, either.

If I couldn't be United Methodist I'd probably be an Episcopalian.

I'm considering TEC, as well as other Anglican Church bodies.

But as clergy, I believe strongly in the value of the UMC appointment system for pastors. I don't agree with systems where the local church hires the pastor like she/he is the janitor or church secretary. We aren't hirelings.

I'm unfamiliar with the UMC's appointment system; I have some homework ahead of me.

I believe the Anglican Church in England appoints their pastor. But for some reason the Episcopal Church adopted a semi-congregationalist practice of the church hireling their priest. I disagree with that.

I did not know that about TEC (vs. the Anglican Church in England). That's something else I must study and mull over further.

I frankly didn't have a positive experience with Lutheran churches growing up. As the area I was in was almost entirely Missouri Synod. They are way too conservative for me.

My mom attended two MS churches as a kid. She said the first one was all "fire-and-brimstone" with regard to its sermons. The second one apparently was a bit softer in its approach.

 

[Soma Seer]

I liked their views on Open Communion but also taking it seriously as an important sacrament, their views on salvation and emphasis on it being an ongoing journey.

You raise some very good points, as I, too, believe in open Communion and the idea that salvation is an ongoing journey. It kills me to say that, in the sense that I love the ritual of the RC Mass. But I disagree with the RCC on quite a number of subjects.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I'd also like to add that some personal experiences with out dysfunctional congregationalism is as a system of church government was a big part of my decision to join a denomination with an episcopal polity.

I might be able to be a lay person in a congregationalist denomination but I would never again work as clergy is that kind of system.

Well, I was a lay person in a denomination like that and while I came to the UMC largely for reasons of theology and not necessarily polity; I think I'd struggle to be a lay person in a non-connectional system. I too experienced the dysfunction, the bullying of the Pastor, and this horrid concept that it's not about doing what's right but it's about doing what we vote on. Voting on members, etc. One church not far from me voted on an "approved sermon list" sent forth by a committee and told the Pastor that's what he could preach from. Though I haven't experienced them myself, other "converts" to a connectional system recall horror stories like that.

Some things should be voted on, and should be left up to the congregation. Some things, however, are not supposed to be what's most popular. I think the UMC gets that pretty well. Some connectional denominations mandate the lectionary and have strict rules for buildings and organizations within the church. Whereas the UMC appoints Pastors and has some Discipline-bound regulations and rules that churches must follow; however a lot of things are left up to individual Clergy and/or the congregation; I appreciate that blend.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

You raise some very good points, as I, too, believe in open Communion and the idea that salvation is an ongoing journey. It kills me to say that, in the sense that I love the ritual of the RC Mass. But I disagree with the RCC on quite a number of subjects.

You're likely to experience the ritual of the RCC mass in an Episcopal church while experience open communion as well.

I once heard TEC described (in reference to the RCC) as "All the liturgy, half the guilt"

 

[Soma Seer]

United Methodism seemed like the most authentic approach to scripture and church that I know of. The connectional system works and works well, and it's my home.

Ooooh... More homework for me to do, this time on UMC's connectional system. (A Google search took me right to the UMC's webpage on this topic.)

I came from the Southern Baptist Church and am a United Methodist Pastor.

Admittedly, I know little about the SBC but, somehow, have the feeling that it's a far cry from the belief system of the UMC. In other words, for you to go from being a member of the SBC to a UMC pastor seems like quite a leap. (My apologies if my assumption is way off base.)

 

[Soma Seer]

I once heard TEC described (in reference to the RCC) as "All the liturgy, half the guilt"

I've heard that, too.

I've compiled a list of churches within TEC and the ACNA. I'm on the fence about the UMC, but not because I dislike its core tenets or organization; rather, my biggest issue is that UM churches near me have very relaxed, "modern-style" services; I prefer a service that's a bit more quiet and traditional. (I don't mean to knock anyone's service-style preference.)

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Ooooh... More homework for me to do, this time on UMC's connectional system. (A Google search took me right to the UMC's webpage on this topic.)



Admittedly, I know little about the SBC but, somehow, have the feeling that it's a far cry from the belief system of the UMC. In other words, for you to go from being a member of the SBC to a UMC pastor seems like quite a leap. (My apologies if my assumption is way off base.)

A "quick and dirty" explanation.

The largest governing body of the church is the General Conference. It meets every four years and is made up of delegates from each annual conference. Half laity, half Clergy. They vote on the doctrine and policies of the church. Everything from where to divest Clergy and Conference employee's pension funds, to our stance on issues like homosexuality; to "resolutions" about social issues, like poverty and public education, which aren't necessarily church law but something we, as a denomination, believe.

Next up is the jurisdictional conference, and central conferences. These are each complicated, so I'll skim them over for now, but know that both are controversial for a handful of reasons.

Finally, the annual conference. Every UM church belongs to one, and it's led by a Bishop. The Bishop and his/her cabinet, among other things, oversee appointments. They appoint qualified Pastors (licensed or ordained) to Churches. Next up is the District Superintendent, who oversees smaller geographical areas called a 'district'. They also assign lay people to churches in rare occasions (Someone who is not a licensed or ordained Pastor cannot be appointed to a church, but occasionally, in times of unique need, the DS becomes the 'appointed Pastor' and they assigned a lay person to preach and lead the church. Because each annual conference usually appoints at the exact same time, often July 1st, these assignments are usually temporary, and often the result of a sudden move, death, military deployment, or some other reason the appointed Pastor left 'mid year'. Occasionally, lay ministers are assigned to very, very small churches on an almost volunteer basis, because they cannot afford a Pastor. Often churches with less than 10 in attendance.)

So that's the 'gist' of how our connection or appointment system works, we're happy to answer more questions if you're curious. What it means for the average layperson is that their church never is without a Pastor and that they don't have to go through the often arduous and difficult process of finding and hiring a local Pastor. The local church, through a committee called the "Pastor/Parish Relations Committee" evaluates the appointed Pastor each year, and also gives a 'consultation' to the cabinet (the Bishop and DS's), about what they need in a Pastor. Be that their current one or someone else. While local churches cannot 'fire' a Pastor, they can ask for a new one. Likewise, Pastors can ask that they stay in their appointment, or ask to move. This usually happens once a year, unless there is a unique extenuating circumstances. Every Bishop handles this differently. Ultimately, it's their authority and decision who is appointed to a church.

The SBC and UMC are very different, but I was never a fit in the SBC. It's a long story, but that's where I grew up. And for a while, that's what I believed. Today though, the literal, basic interpretations of the Bible just don't fit who I am. The SBC does vary, a lot actually. They are 100% congregational, churches belong to 'associations' in the same way someone might belong to "clubs" and "groups", they can be kicked out, but those associations have absolutely no authority. The churches are entirely run and organized by what the members vote to do. Which means the SBC has a variety of beliefs and practices. Some SBC churches ordain women, most don't; as one example. The ones that do, merely voted to do it, that's all. Ordination is a function of the local church, and not the larger body. Some congregations will only ordain seminary graduates, some congregations will ordain people without an education at all. It varies a LOT. I didn't like that very much, I thought that belonging to a denomination should 'mean something', and finally, what was being preached just didn't resonate with me. I think the Bible is a living and complex thing and not something that's meant to be distilled into a simplistic and hyper-literal book of things to hate. There's also the polity issues; reducing women to second class citizens for example. Not only were women not ordained but preaching frequently included the role of women as childbearer and stay-at-home mom and any woman who wasn't was less-than. Some women feel called down that path and that's special, but not all women do; and they are certainly not 'less of a woman' because they have a career, may or may not have children, etc. (or, gasp, have a career while the husband stays at home!)

 

[circuitrider]

Whereas the UMC appoints Pastors and has some Discipline-bound regulations and rules that churches must follow; however a lot of things are left up to individual Clergy and/or the congregation; I appreciate that blend.

Agreed. I do believe that the local churches and the lay members in them should have input in many decisions that are made. But most of those decisions are actual representational decision.

United Methodists seldom have church wide votes on things. For the most part the local church leadership is elected to represent the congregation.

My experience with churches that have regular full congregation votes is that it turns into open meetings for cranks who don't really represent the church. People who are happy with the direction of the church don't show up for the congregational vote while the trouble makers do.

I think that the UMC has a good blend of Episcopal and representative governance.

 

[circuitrider]

To add to the great stuff RomansFiveEight has said, the appointment system is one of the reasons that the UMC has been able to maintain smaller churches in many cases when congregationalist churches have closed their doors.

Many small UMC pastors share a pastor in a single "charge" led by one pastor. So a small church that can't afford a full-time pastor shares that pastor with one or more other churches that also can't afford a full-time pastor. Those churches are able to get pastoral leadership while pastors can maintain full-time ministry.

Having pastored both in a congregationalist system and now in the UMC system, I believe the appointment system, while not perfect, has a much better chance of offering matches between the gifts and graces of the pastor and the church and getting the most even deployment o pastors.

Also one of the side effects of congregational systems is that it basically encourages the pastor to ladder climb from one church to another for a big size or a bigger salary. When you make getting the right pastor for the right church the rule rather than the pastor picking her/his own churches you get a fairer distribution of leadership.

You are also less likely to get pastors who are in it for the prestige or the money when someone else appoints you to a church.

 

[Dave-W]

I frankly didn't have a positive experience with Lutheran churches growing up. As the area I was in was almost entirely Missouri Synod. They are way too conservative for me.

Most of my experience with Lutherans have been Wisconsin Synod.

But if you want to talk CONSERVATIVE, try Illinois Synod on for size. They are as reactionary as any Fundamental Baptists I have encountered.

 

[Dave-W]

To add to the great stuff RomansFiveEight has said, the appointment system is one of the reasons that the UMC has been able to maintain smaller churches in many cases when congregationalist churches have closed their doors.

My dad was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom. His best friend was ordained in the Free Methodist church. I remember them bantering back and forth about congregationalist vs the more episcopal government styles of government. Dad said the 2 denoms had been in talks on and off since about 1900 on combining the 2 groups as their doctrinal slants were virtually identical - except for the style of church government. They could never get past that point.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

My dad was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom. His best friend was ordained in the Free Methodist church. I remember them bantering back and forth about congregationalist vs the more episcopal government styles of government. Dad said the 2 denoms had been in talks on and off since about 1900 on combining the 2 groups as their doctrinal slants were virtually identical - except for the style of church government. They could never get past that point.

Similar to TEC, the UMC, and in a smaller part the other "seven sisters". Doctrinally VERY similar. But a handful of caveats with each one that is significant enough to prevent any sort of a 'merger'. Governance is one of them.

To add to the great stuff RomansFiveEight has said, the appointment system is one of the reasons that the UMC has been able to maintain smaller churches in many cases when congregationalist churches have closed their doors.

Many small UMC pastors share a pastor in a single "charge" led by one pastor. So a small church that can't afford a full-time pastor shares that pastor with one or more other churches that also can't afford a full-time pastor. Those churches are able to get pastoral leadership while pastors can maintain full-time ministry.

Having pastored both in a congregationalist system and now in the UMC system, I believe the appointment system, while not perfect, has a much better chance of offering matches between the gifts and graces of the pastor and the church and getting the most even deployment o pastors.

Also one of the side effects of congregational systems is that it basically encourages the pastor to ladder climb from one church to another for a big size or a bigger salary. When you make getting the right pastor for the right church the rule rather than the pastor picking her/his own churches you get a fairer distribution of leadership.

You are also less likely to get pastors who are in it for the prestige or the money when someone else appoints you to a church.

Thanks for the correct on 'church wide voting', I should've added that. Our last "church conference" (for those that don't know; that's the term for a church wide vote; the District Superintendent presides over it) was ten years ago to decide whether or not to purchase a new home from a developer and use it as a parsonage; as the current parsonage was aging, in need of repairs and updating, and was located right next door to the church, practically an attached building. The Pastor at the time had small children and folks in the church, wanting to take care of him and his family, didn't like the idea of those kids growing up on Main Street in a commercially zoned part of town blocks away from any other houses, with no yard (a parking lot on one side; a road on the other side. Buildings on the left and right; the church and a bar!) So they voted, church-wide, to spend the money to buy and build the parsonage. My wife and I sure are appreciative of that decision!

But that was the last time. All other issues, including improvements and renovations, have been left up to the appropriate board. Like most UM churches, we operate with an "ad council" made up of representatives of sub-committees. The Trustees, for example, manage the building and property. They have a budget for the year. If something falls outside of that budget (large, unexpected repair or an opportunity comes up for a renovation, last year we had some storm damage to our room and our trustees thought that would be a great time to install an all new roof, since part of it would be funded with insurance money) then they present that to the ad council. But it's representatives of the congregation, not the WHOLE congregation being mobilized on every vote.

Our Bishop wrote a book, "Just say Yes!" in which he criticized some local church governments (including many UM churches!) saying "They have several committees that can say no, but not any one of them have the power to say 'yes'". This is even MORE true of churches that mobilize a vote for everything. The church I "came from", for example, if any one person decided they didn't like something, the rest would follow along. The feeling was if we didn't unanimously say "yes", then it was a "no". That's a great system for juries in a criminal trial; but not a great system for the church. Sometimes you have to make decisions that aren't every single persons favorite.

I serve one of those two-point charges, and it works very well. I'm sure each church would rather have a sole-Pastor. But they can't afford that. If they were congregational, they'd have to find some bi-vocational Pastor, perhaps one that wasn't really qualified or even felt called to serve in that role (A church near me, for the last TEN YEARS, has had a lay person who has a full time job 'filling in', who doesn't feel called to be a Pastor, doesn't want to be a Pastor, just preaches on Sunday until they finally GET a "Pastor"). What they DO get, is for sharing a portion of my salary (one church pays 2/3, the other pays 1/3), is a Pastor who is available for each church full time, can attend continuing education events, goes to conferences and seminars to better equip himself, can make those 1PM in the afternoon surgery hospital calls or those two in the morning emergency hospital calls, etc.

To be clear, bi-vocational ministry is a very valid form of ministry. I know some, and the workload they have is tremendous. They use all of their vacation time from their secular job to make things like continuing ed and annual conference, and vacation time from church to catch up on their secular job. It's incredible! But that model doesn't work in some churches, and thanks to our connectional system, they aren't forced into that model. Multi-point charges, I think, is a saving grace in the UMC.

I'd even like to see a return of circuits. Appoint a Pastor to 5 or 6 small churches, and empower and equip lay people to preach in the in-between. It does happen still, though it's rare. Usually, the Pastor preaches at two or three one week, then two or three the next week, with lay-people in between. But they are a full-time Pastor serving this clutch of churches, offering them pastoral care, leadership development, et al during the week; and that's the really important part they'd miss out on if they couldn't afford a Pastor.

 

[gtmyers]

Well, I was a lay person in a denomination like that and while I came to the UMC largely for reasons of theology and not necessarily polity; I think I'd struggle to be a lay person in a non-connectional system. I too experienced the dysfunction, the bullying of the Pastor, and this horrid concept that it's not about doing what's right but it's about doing what we vote on. Voting on members, etc. One church not far from me voted on an "approved sermon list" sent forth by a committee and told the Pastor that's what he could preach from. Though I haven't experienced them myself, other "converts" to a connectional system recall horror stories like that.

Some things should be voted on, and should be left up to the congregation. Some things, however, are not supposed to be what's most popular. I think the UMC gets that pretty well. Some connectional denominations mandate the lectionary and have strict rules for buildings and organizations within the church. Whereas the UMC appoints Pastors and has some Discipline-bound regulations and rules that churches must follow; however a lot of things are left up to individual Clergy and/or the congregation; I appreciate that blend.

So can a pastor preach what he feels led to preach or does he/she have to follow the lectionary?

 

[gtmyers]

To add to the great stuff RomansFiveEight has said, the appointment system is one of the reasons that the UMC has been able to maintain smaller churches in many cases when congregationalist churches have closed their doors.

Many small UMC pastors share a pastor in a single "charge" led by one pastor. So a small church that can't afford a full-time pastor shares that pastor with one or more other churches that also can't afford a full-time pastor. Those churches are able to get pastoral leadership while pastors can maintain full-time ministry.

Having pastored both in a congregationalist system and now in the UMC system, I believe the appointment system, while not perfect, has a much better chance of offering matches between the gifts and graces of the pastor and the church and getting the most even deployment o pastors.

Also one of the side effects of congregational systems is that it basically encourages the pastor to ladder climb from one church to another for a big size or a bigger salary. When you make getting the right pastor for the right church the rule rather than the pastor picking her/his own churches you get a fairer distribution of leadership.

You are also less likely to get pastors who are in it for the prestige or the money when someone else appoints you to a church.

Years ago when I was in the SBC I saw pastors that seemed to go from smaller churches to larger ones. And once they attain the large church they stay for 20 plus years. I'm liking the idea of a pastor being appointed. Also I like the fact they don't stay forever because I've seen churches become stagnant because it's had the same pastor for a long long time when they should have left years earlier.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

So can a pastor preach what he feels led to preach or does he/she have to follow the lectionary?

No, we have no requirement to follow the lectionary. Though many of our churches do follow it in some capacity. For example, I preach topically and in series; though I always reference the lectionary during my planning and often include it in part. Our newsletter includes the lectionary scriptures for the month and they are listed in the bulletin each week. Typically, I use the lectionary for all special services and holy days (Easter, Christmas, Maundy Thursday, etc.), and frequently use it for seasons like Advent and Lent. Few things are required in worship. There are requirements to follow components of the liturgies for Communion and Baptism. They are historic and ecumenical and an important part of our tradition.

Years ago when I was in the SBC I saw pastors that seemed to go from smaller churches to larger ones. And once they attain the large church they stay for 20 plus years. I'm liking the idea of a pastor being appointed. Also I like the fact they don't stay forever because I've seen churches become stagnant because it's had the same pastor for a long long time when they should have left years earlier.

Believe it or not, on average, appointed Pastors actually last longer. It's not perfect, but it's a good system. Churches don't go without Pastors, and Pastors aren't unemployed. The Pastor of the UCC church down the street is married to a seminary colleague of hers. They graduated at the same time but he is currently waiting tables, looking for a job. Seminary educations are NOT cheap.

But you're right, generally, smaller churches suffer the most from congregational systems. Even though, oddly enough, many of our small churches think they'd be better off if they could hire their own Pastor. Often they are in multi-point charges and believe they could hire their own, solo Pastor and be better off. But those just don't exist!