Why I Think the Methodist Church Has Gone Astray

[Nemo Neem]

Hi, all.

My first two weeks in seminary have been absolutely wonderful. I am learning a lot and discerning God's call to be a pastor!

I think the Methodist church has lost its touch with its roots. It's gone astray from what John Wesley intended it to be. The social justice aspect of the church is wonderful, and I fully support it. But the church is more than social justice. It's about sanctification and reaching Christian perfection, as John Wesley envisioned it.

Here in Massachusetts, the NE Conference has created "open and affirming churches" to be a "safe haven" for the LGBT community. I think that should be changed to "open and loving churches committed to God." God calls us to love our neighbors and to bless our enemies, for sure, and I think it can be done in a much better way by returning to the true Methodism of John Wesley and Francis Asbury.

What do you think?

 

[circuitrider]

I personally think the UMC should change its polity to allow individual congregations and pastors to decide if their church will be "reconciling" or "open and affirming" (two titles for the same thing). Votes at recent General Conference give me the impression that we have a nearly 50/50 split on opinion on this issue. When the difference is that close I believe that both sides need to be given some leeway rather than force a close majority's view on the whole.

 

[Nemo Neem]

I personally think the UMC should change its polity to allow individual congregations and pastors to decide if their church will be "reconciling" or "open and affirming" (two titles for the same thing). Votes at recent General Conference give me the impression that we have a nearly 50/50 split on opinion on this issue. When the difference is that close I believe that both sides need to be given some leeway rather than force a close majority's view on the whole.

Great insight!

Do you think the UMC as a whole as abandoned Wesley's original teachings?

 

[circuitrider]

Great insight!

Do you think the UMC as a whole as abandoned Wesley's original teachings?

No, I think the UMC tends to emphasize the later writings of Wesley more than his early writings. If you read a lot of Wesley's sermons his views didn't always stay the same so you can cherry pick Wesley. Wesley tended to be more open and flexible in his later years than he was as a young firebrand preacher. He developed over his lifetime to. So why shouldn't we?

I don't think there is anything wrong with denominational development of theology. I personally appreciate the contribution of people like Albert Outler's Wesleyan quadrilateral to the faith. I don't think we should ignore the developments of Methodism since John Wesley. I doubt he would have wanted the movement to remain the same or stagnate. There have been a lot of leaders in Methodism since Wesley and Asbury. Francis Asbury may have been one of our first American Bishops but it doesn't mean ideas of everyone who has come after him is unimportant. Being first does not mean you are always right about everything.

There are a number of things the UMC teaching that Wesley didn't specifically teach that I fully support such as women having an equal role in the ministry of the Church. In Wesley's day the General Conference was only clergy. I support the leadership of lay people in the Church too.

 

[Nemo Neem]

Great points!

I just think the UMC is getting away from Wesley's teachings of Christian perfection and sanctification. The Methodist churches I've been to in New Jersey and Massachusetts rarely mention those ideas, if at all. I think they are important ideas, and I'll use them when I preach.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What do you think?

John Wesley felt that people were getting away from the central message of holiness - sanctification and purity while he was still alive. A lot of the reason he felt was that people were just to content and complacent. The church became a victim of its own success so that people just did not feel the need to do more.

Now we live in a time when the bride is being prepared and there will be a call for the sort of "sinless perfection" that so many people do not believe in. So the question remains: What sin is God NOT able to deliver us from?

 

[food4thought]

I think the idea of sinless perfection is a "chasing after the wind", if I can borrow from Solomon. I do think Wesley's idea of perfected in love is attainable, though, and agree that holiness and sanctification should be emphasized more by all churches.

 

[tulipbee]

Hi, all.

My first two weeks in seminary have been absolutely wonderful. I am learning a lot and discerning God's call to be a pastor!

I think the Methodist church has lost its touch with its roots. It's gone astray from what John Wesley intended it to be. The social justice aspect of the church is wonderful, and I fully support it. But the church is more than social justice. It's about sanctification and reaching Christian perfection, as John Wesley envisioned it.

Here in Massachusetts, the NE Conference has created "open and affirming churches" to be a "safe haven" for the LGBT community. I think that should be changed to "open and loving churches committed to God." God calls us to love our neighbors and to bless our enemies, for sure, and I think it can be done in a much better way by returning to the true Methodism of John Wesley and Francis Asbury.

What do you think?

I'm a PCUSA. I don't mind having gays in our church. They are like us as sinners. We all sin. But I don't like my pastor marrying same sex couples. After thinking very hard and long on both sides of the issue, I believe there's a marriage designed by the state and governments and there a marriage designed by the church. I believe we have two totally different types of marriage. If a man can't carry a baby nor the eggs, I believe women can't do certain things, spiritually. So that means marriage is a spiritual thing. I believe deeper that marriage means two become one flesh. Man and woman can't have a baby, that one flesh. Same sex can't have one flesh, a baby. That sort of looks like remarriage don't count it the couple don't plan having babies. What's the point of remarriage?

 

[tulipbee]

Great insight!

Do you think the UMC as a whole as abandoned Wesley's original teachings?

PCUSA has somewhat fleed from Calvinism so I would think the Wesleyans are fleeing from arminianism. I suppose the PCUSA wants more arminianism while the Wesleyans wants more Calvinism. I don't know what's in between, do you?

 

[Celticflower]

I'm a PCUSA. I don't mind having gays in our church. They are like us as sinners. We all sin. But I don't like my pastor marrying same sex couples. After thinking very hard and long on both sides of the issue, I believe there's a marriage designed by the state and governments and there a marriage designed by the church. I believe we have two totally different types of marriage. If a man can't carry a baby nor the eggs, I believe women can't do certain things, spiritually. So that means marriage is a spiritual thing. I believe deeper that marriage means two become one flesh. Man and woman can't have a baby, that one flesh. Same sex can't have one flesh, a baby. That sort of looks like remarriage don't count it the couple don't plan having babies. What's the point of remarriage?

You view seems to be quite harsh towards older couples who remarry (or marry for the first time) for love and companionship and couples who are unable to have children. Do you advocate fertility testing prior to marriage? Are people past the age of childbearing who are widowed or divorced sentenced to a life lived alone? Are they to be denied a chance to love again? That is what I get from your post and it is not what I would wish on my friends or family.

 

[tulipbee]

You view seems to be quite harsh towards older couples who remarry (or marry for the first time) for love and companionship and couples who are unable to have children. Do you advocate fertility testing prior to marriage? Are people past the age of childbearing who are widowed or divorced sentenced to a life lived alone? Are they to be denied a chance to love again? That is what I get from your post and it is not what I would wish on my friends or family.

I sure gay couples agree with you

 

[circuitrider]

PCUSA has somewhat fleed from Calvinism so I would think the Wesleyans are fleeing from arminianism. I suppose the PCUSA wants more arminianism while the Wesleyans wants more Calvinism. I don't know what's in between, do you?

No, actually we aren't fleeing Arminianism. Two different denominations, different issues sets of issues. If anything the PCUSA leans towards arminianism.

 

[Nemo Neem]

No, actually we aren't fleeing Arminianism. Two different denominations, different issues sets of issues. If anything the PCUSA leans towards arminianism.

I've noticed that in a lot of Presbyterian theologians I've been reading in seminary. Many promote holiness and sanctification, such as J. I. Packer and Donald Barnhouse.

 

[circuitrider]

Strict Calvinism leads to determinism. Few people really believe that.

 

[circuitrider]

I think the idea of sinless perfection is a "chasing after the wind", if I can borrow from Solomon. I do think Wesley's idea of perfected in love is attainable, though, and agree that holiness and sanctification should be emphasized more by all churches.

You've misunderstood John Wesley's doctrine of perfection. It isn't something you "chase after." Perfection is a gift from God it is not "attained" by us. God can choose to work on us for a life time or sanctify us in an instant. But it is God that does the sanctifying. We can resist God's grace. But we don't manufacture or attain it.

 

[tulipbee]

No, actually we aren't fleeing Arminianism. Two different denominations, different issues sets of issues. If anything the PCUSA leans towards arminianism.

Yeah, I'm sort of thinking of leaving PCUSA and joining PCA. I'll need a more inerrent type of belief. I learned the 66 book bible was really inspired by God. I'll need to return to the Westminster confessions cause the PCUSA is running wild and free without any boundaries. I don't think we need any new inventions cause the reformed are pretty well doing right.

 

[circuitrider]

Yeah, I'm sort of thinking of leaving PCUSA and joining PCA. I'll need a more inerrent type of belief. I learned the 66 book bible was really inspired by God. I'll need to return to the Westminster confessions cause the PCUSA is running wild and free without any boundaries. I don't think we need any new inventions cause the reformed are pretty well doing right.

Inerrancy isn't related to either Calvinism or Arminianism. Neither person (Calvin or Arminius) had ever heard of the theory of inspiration known as "inerrancy." It is recent theory from the 19th century. So none of the founders of our denominational families would have ever heard of the idea.

United Methodists also believe the Bible was inspired by God. We just don't believe in newbie theories about how the Bible was inspired. We prefer to stick to the historic views of Protestantism.

 

[tulipbee]

Inerrancy isn't related to either Calvinism or Arminianism. Neither person (Calvin or Arminius) had ever heard of the theory of inspiration known as "inerrancy." It is recent theory from the 19th century. So none of the founders of our denominational families would have ever heard of the idea.

United Methodists also believe the Bible was inspired by God. We just don't believe in newbie theories about how the Bible was inspired. We prefer to stick to the historic views of Protestantism.

Arminianians don't care for the bible cause they think its just written by men, unaided by God. The Calvinists reads the bible in the inerrent way cause God told them how it really is. The Bible itself states clearly that it is the literal “God-breathed” living word of the Creator. The words “Thus saith the Lord”‘ and “God said”‘ occur more than 2500 times throughout scripture.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”. Then in 2 Peter 1:20-21 it plainly states: “No prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”.

 

[circuitrider]

Arminianians don't care for the bible cause they think its just written by men, unaided by God. The Calvinists reads the bible in the inerrent way cause God told them how it really is.

I'm afraid you are seriously misinformed about Calvinism and Arminianism as well as the differing theories of Biblical inspiration.

There is no connection between being a Calvinist and being an inerrantist or or being Arminian and not being an inerrantist. There are conservatives in the Arminian tradition who believe in inerrancy. There are many Calvinist that don't believe in inerrancy. There is no connection between the two.

Also not believing inerrancy does not mean that you don't believe the Bible. There are several theories as to how God inspired the Bible. Inerrancy is just one of them and not the most commonly held at that. Again, the idea of the Bible being "inerrant" didn't come along until the 19th century. The Church got along for 1900 years without teaching inerrancy.

And as to the idea that "Arminians don't care for the Bible," that is entirely untrue. Those of us who are Arminian Christians in the Wesleyan tradition of Arminianism believe what we believe because we believe the Bible teaches it. We believe the Bible does not teach Calvinism and that the Bible itself does not teach inerrancy. You cannot, in fact, find the term "inerrant" in the Bible. The Bible refers to itself as "inspired" and not inerrant. Inspired does not equal "inerrant."

 

[tulipbee]

I'm afraid you are seriously misinformed about Calvinism and Arminianism as well as the differing theories of Biblical inspiration.

There is no connection between being a Calvinist and being an inerrantist or or being Arminian and not being an inerrantist. There are conservatives in the Arminian tradition who believe in inerrancy. There are many Calvinist that don't believe in inerrancy. There is no connection between the two.

Also not believing inerrancy does not mean that you don't believe the Bible. There are several theories as to how God inspired the Bible. Inerrancy is just one of them and not the most commonly held at that. Again, the idea of the Bible being "inerrant" didn't come along until the 19th century. The Church got along for 1900 years without teaching inerrancy.

And as to the idea that "Arminians don't care for the Bible," that is entirely untrue. Those of us who are Arminian Christians in the Wesleyan tradition of Arminianism believe what we believe because we believe the Bible teaches it. We believe the Bible does not teach Calvinism and that the Bible itself does not teach inerrancy. You cannot, in fact, find the term "inerrant" in the Bible. The Bible refers to itself as "inspired" and not inerrant. Inspired does not equal "inerrant."

Bible itself teaches inerrancy according to http://www.theomatics.com or Ivan panin works. I'm a Calvinist and I believe in inerrancy. I'm proof that it does go together. Arminianians believe in co-operation. If arminianism save themselves then they don't even need the bible. I better not post here anymore since I'm not allowed to say those things here. I'm outta here.