Why I Think the Methodist Church Has Gone Astray

[RomansFiveEight]

That is a western approach.

To take a more Semitic approach (all the writers of scripture except part of Daniel were Semites) one has to realize that in Semitic literature there are many levels of meaning and each are true. One of the reasons the Koran is never officially translated out of Arabic is that it (according to Islam) has 7 layers of meaning in Arabic and that CANNOT be duplicated in non-Semitic languages.

Hebrew Scripture (OT) has about 4 levels of meaning** and it makes sense that the NT has those layers as well; just not so easily seen in Greek.


**
1 Pashat or the plain (literal meaning)
2 Remez or "hint" It is what is hinted at or alluded to in the text
3 Drash "search" It is an allegoric or homiletic application of the text
4 Sod "hidden" it is a prophetic or mystical meaning of the text

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/pardes.htm

I would think there are probably more layers as well, especially in the Hebraic poetry sections of the OT. It is important to remember ALL layers are true.

In both Islam and Judaism, at least among certain sects, preservation of the 'mother tongue' is essential, as you say, the Qu'ran and, for some Jews, even the Hebrew Old Testament, may not be translated from it's original language. Many Orthodox, English-speaking Jews are taught Hebrew as children expressly so that they may read the Bible in the tongue it was written in.

Sometimes I wonder what might be different (perhaps, if anything) if the Christian church followed suit. As Christianity grew it adapted to the cultures it evangelized to and was happy to translate, explain, and make metaphors to help folks understand it, even adopting THEIR religious practices with new assigned meanings (Christmas and Easter symbolism comes to mind; trees, wreaths, eggs., all co-opted practices of other religions. That, by the way, doesn't make them bad as some assume when they learn it doesn't have Christian origins. It's just as Christian as if it had it's origins in Christianity; lots of things have co-opted meanings; like Jewish traditions and phrases Jesus himself tweaked to fit a uniquely Christian perspective). But how might it have been if Christian children were expected to learn Greek and Hebrew and the Bible was expected to be read in such a tongue. The church would probably be smaller with few converts and only a familial connection (or perhaps not; Islam continues to grow; but generally, new converts are using English translations).

I'm not saying I support such an idea, so much as thinking out loud about how the church might look different if such an approach to the Bible existed. You certainly would eliminate KJV-onlyism and some of the theologies unique to that segment of fundamentalism; theologies like some of the current end-times views wouldn't have cropped up (but even reading, in earnest, the English translations would do that). Young Earth Creationism would really struggle to hold water if we maintained those semitic ways of reading the Old Testament (and read far enough to read two contradictory creation stories and realize they weren't meant to be lectures on science but imagery of God's hand in creation), and so on and so forth. And perhaps even some UM theologies would be different in such a world.

None of that is right or wrong or here nor there, but I AM curious how it might be 'different' if we approached the scriptures in the same way many of our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters do.

 

[circuitrider]

RF8, that is one of the reasons I don't understand why anyone can believe in taking everything in the Bible literally when it can't even be read by most people in its original languages. Anyone who speaks more than one language or has taken Biblical languages knows that some things can't be translated in a way that it is totally equivalent to what the original said. Often metaphors have to be reframed for the text to make sense. When you don't you get phrases in the KJV like "bowels of compassion" that mean nothing in modern English.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

RF8, that is one of the reasons I don't understand why anyone can believe in taking everything in the Bible literally when it can't even be read by most people in its original languages. Anyone who speaks more than one language or has taken Biblical languages knows that some things can't be translated in a way that it is totally equivalent to what the original said. Often metaphors have to be reframed for the text to make sense. When you don't you get phrases in the KJV like "bowels of compassion" that mean nothing in modern English.

Yep. Young Earth Creationism says one of the two creation stories (usually Genesis 1) is literal and happened exactly as it says. But what about the other one? It just doesn't work.

KJV-onlyism is only more bizarre because it's an English translation with poorer scholarship than what we have today. Rejecting english translations and maintaining greek/hebrew-onlyism I still wouldn't agree with (because I think the Bible should be accessible) but I'd find it defensible. KJV-onlyism is simply completely arbitrary based on the theology of "It's always been that way". And, ironically, it's held by churches who would vehemently oppose much of the theologies, then and now, of the church that commissioned it.

 

[circuitrider]

I don't even find just using the original texts defensible. There is a reason that the Bible was written in street language Greek and not scholarly Greek. The Bible was intended to be accessible. The minute we insist on sticking with Greek and Hebrew, King James English or even 1980s English we are missing the point of the written text.

As far as I'm concerned we are likely to need a new translation of the Bible every 20-30 years as the language changes. Some day the KJV will be like Chaucer. No one but scholars will be able to read it in its original language.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I don't even find just using the original texts defensible. There is a reason that the Bible was written in street language Greek and not scholarly Greek. The Bible was intended to be accessible. The minute we insist on sticking with Greek and Hebrew, King James English or even 1980s English we are missing the point of the written text.

As far as I'm concerned we are likely to need a new translation of the Bible every 20-30 years as the language changes. Some day the KJV will be like Chaucer. No one but scholars will be able to read it in its original language.

I agree, as I said I would find it defensible; but not something I agree with. In other words, I could see a legitimate (but refutable) defense for such a practice; whereas I cannot for the KJV. It's indefensible.

The Bible was intended to be accessible, and to be read as it was written; not turned into something it never was.

 

[Dave-W]

KJV-onlyism is only more bizarre because it's an English translation with poorer scholarship than what we have today. Rejecting english translations and maintaining greek/hebrew-onlyism I still wouldn't agree with (because I think the Bible should be accessible) but I'd find it defensible. KJV-onlyism is simply completely arbitrary based on the theology of "It's always been that way". And, ironically, it's held by churches who would vehemently oppose much of the theologies, then and now, of the church that commissioned it.

The Wesleyan Holiness pentecostal church I went to as a child was KJV-only. And after I got to highschool and started looking at other translations, (and understanding that the bible was NOT originally in English) I took their stance as purely ignorance. Even more so when I went to college and sat under the teaching of a true Greek scholar (taught the Greek philosophers at the graduate level in Greek at Cambridge) who could explain NT passages from his own understanding of the language.

THEN I found out that some of the more educated KJVOs had come up with a theory: that God got so upset that there were multiple manuscripts and versions of Greek and Hebrew texts out that He wiped them all out and "re-inspired" the English translators in 1611. Thereby He invalidated ALL of the original language sources.

I find that belief to be truly disturbing ....

 

[Dave-W]

I don't even find just using the original texts defensible. There is a reason that the Bible was written in street language Greek and not scholarly Greek. The Bible was intended to be accessible. The minute we insist on sticking with Greek and Hebrew, King James English or even 1980s English we are missing the point of the written text.

I agree to a point. Peshat (the plain meaning) is always true and functions just as you are suggesting. It should play well in most languages and cultures. It should be well understood by most normal readers of the text in what ever language.

But that does not eliminate the fact the other layers are there. And I believe that is the reason one of the main ministries Paul listed in Ephesians 4 was "Teacher." Those who have studied out the original languages should be able to bring more depth and life to the texts for all of us.

 

[circuitrider]

I agree to a point. Peshat (the plain meaning) is always true and functions just as you are suggesting. It should play well in most languages and cultures. It should be well understood by most normal readers of the text in what ever language.

But that does not eliminate the fact the other layers are there. And I believe that is the reason one of the main ministries Paul listed in Ephesians 4 was "Teacher." Those who have studied out the original languages should be able to bring more depth and life to the texts for all of us.

DaveW-Ohev,

Yes, most certainly other layers are there. And I'd never want us to lose access to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we base our translations from. But most United Methodists believe in a dynamic view of inspiration rather than a mechanical or dictated view. So we see God working through the words of scripture so that the meaning is what is most important from one language to another and not slavishly trying to make the English sound like Greek, which actually can obscure the original meaning.

 

[Ohorseman]

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 think you are right - Methodist are going astray. To get what they want, people have abandoned interpreting scriptures as a whole in favor of the cherry-picking approach. Worse than that, they have reduced or even thrown out the central Christian belief that Christ was God incarnate. They deny His divinity when they reduce Him to a mere prophet that provided advice only meant for his time and consider such advice as short-sighted and flawed in our modern world. Further, matters of sin have been reduced to mere politics and something that we can "agree to disagree" on. If we had a returning to the true Methodism of John Wesley and Francis Asbury I would not be considering options outside of the Methodist Church.

 

[GraceSeeker]

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.

I would agree that the idea of a "sinless perfection" is a "chasing after the wind", but that isn't what Christian perfection is. There can still be sin in the sense that sin is a falling short of God's perfect plan for us. The type of perfection that we are talking about is holiness where we live as people set apart for God's purposes. When all the focus and intent of our life is in this direction, then that way of living and directing one's life is the essence of Christian perfection.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Nemo Neem. I like what you wrote, and I say that Love is still our strong weapon, in fact Love is a Christian`s
great weapon, and Love is very catching. In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." Verse 40 tells us: " on these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." God is Love, and God wants loving sons and daughters. In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told:" ask and you shall receive," we keep asking for Love and Joy, then thank God and share all love and joy with our neighbour. ( neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friends and not friends) God sees our loving efforts, and God will bless us. The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY.
The Bible tells us: " Repent and be Born Again," give up our selfish wishes and wants, and start loving and caring and be kind and compassionate. Soon we will find that we are changing gradually into the men and women which God wants us to become, loving and caring. We might stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us and carry on loving and caring. It is never too late to change into sincere followers of Christ, and we will find that Jesus will lead us all the Way. God will bless us and we will have life abundant, as God`s loving sons and daughters.
I say this with love, Nemo Neem. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[mrfun83]

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.

I respect your opinions on a lot of things, but this has been going on for 40 years. Way too long - even longer than the internal squabble on slavery that split the church in the 19th Century. Where there is decades of disunity, there isn't the love that ought to permeate Christ's church. Time to fish or cut bait - one side or the other. I suspect that even if the 2016 vote goes conservative, quite a few of our larger congregations in our conference may just leave - like the large church in PA. People are just tired of the drama...and they don't see it ending by the very small minority of folks who cannot/ will not give up the struggle. Many want to move forward in their mission for for the Lord, and are convinced too much time has been wasted with this inwardly-focused feud.
Even God only made the Israelite's trudge the wilderness for forty years - it is time to move on. Anecdotally, I know of several large congregations who are delaying infrastructure investment and larger programs because of the realization that they may no longer be in the conference, so why burden the conference with debt with no parishioners to continue funding? I cannot imagine these are the only churches thinking this way, especially in other conservative conferences like ours. Unfortunate, isn't it...? This needs to be settled so that we can all get back to the Lord's work.
I have been hopeful for an amicable resolution for the past decade, but I think the horse is out of the barn on that now.....His will be done.

 

[circuitrider]

I don't know if those larger churches have thought about it MrFun but since there is no provision for a church pulling out of the UMC in the Discipline the building could very well end up in the hands of the congregants who don't want to leave the UMC and would end up being more of a local church split that a church pulling out.

I can't imagine too many pastors that would want to oversee such a split.

 

[mrfun83]

I know the one in PA kept their pastor and they settled with the property - but I would assume that if many churches decided to leave, would the UM just let the property go? The reason they let this property go was primarily the indebtedness, which is understandable, and makes my point about other churches sitting on their cash and programs until this thing gets settled. Here's the article about that church...http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/fast-growing-church-leaves-with-property

 

[circuitrider]

Mrfun, it would be up to each Annual Conference to decide how they want to handle a church leaving (which by the way is just as much a violation of the Discipline as anything else we've talked about).

There is no national plan for what to do when a local church tries to leave. Remember we aren't Baptists or congregationalists. We are a connectional Church. The local church keeps the property in trust for the denomination. It doesn't belong to the local church.

In our case it isn't a body leaving a federation of church bodies, it is like someone asking to pull off your finger or hand and have the finger or hand live on its own without the rest of the body.

But sadly, a lot of Methodists take their cues from congregationalist polity today.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

It HAS happened. To be clear, the Pastor is no longer a United Methodist Pastor if s/he wishes to split with the church; and that has happened too. Usually, it's been a financially motivated decision. Such as a church saddled with lots of debt wishing to leave. The Annual Conference allows them to 'buy back' their property (The AC doesn't own the property, but they do keep it in trust, which means, legally, they basically do). The AC comes out ahead and isn't saddled with that church's debt.

It has happened, but it's very rare, and nearly impossible in any 'large scale' fashion. Despite the division in the UMC, not many churches are one-sided. Many of our churches are just as divided on these issues as the church as a whole; not nearly enough 'weight' behind them to decide to leave. However, there are churches that are convinced a congregational polity would help them. I serve such a church. Many are Baptist transplants and believe that if they had the authority to run the church themselves the way they want, things would be better. They don't like the Pastor, District, or Denomination telling them what to do. They cringe when I tell them the Discipline doesn't allow for something or requires them to do something. They pay 100% of their apportionments and have liked me enough so far that they are warming up to the idea that the denomination is not the end of the world. But, to them, they see the denomination fulfilling one purpose and one purpose alone; assigning Pastors. And if they get one they don't like or one they like is taken away, they see the denomination as failing it's only purpose. It's a shame, because it's a lack of understanding of what all else the denomination is doing for them. I once had a parishioner say they wish they could just leave the denomination and "hire me", so I wouldn't go away. Though I told him, that the moment they did that, I'd leave. I'm a United Methodist and a member of my conference, I go where the Bishop appoints me. I won't leave that to be hired by them, no matter how much they love me.

The other church I serve is actually much more supportive of the denomination. But they are a bigger church, with a bigger building, right off of a main thoroughfare (Interstate 44). So District events sometimes happen there, they get more visits from District and Conference leadership, etc. It's very very tough for the district and conference to be 'present' at these tiny country churches like my other one; so it's up to the Pastor to be their 'presence' for them. And it does create some difficulty.

I don't expect a split. If the denomination changes it's stance, many will leave; including some Pastors. Perhaps a few will come or come back, too. If the denomination doesn't change it's stance, some may continue to leave for other denominations. Though at the end of the day, the sort of catch-22 is that for most folks who believe our current stance is wrong, it's low on their priority list. Whilst for many conservatives, it's near the top or THE most important issue. So the 'impact' is very lopsided. Plenty of Christians who support SSM are just fine in a church that doesn't. And yet many many Christians who oppose it wouldn't be a part of a church that did. That doesn't mean though that the progressive side isn't going to seek for change; they just are less likely to make large or radical moves for it; like leaving or splitting. Though I do know a few who want exactly that. I know those who have left, or want the progressive churches to 'split'. But they are fewer than conservatives I know who want those things. Though that's only my perception and my circles.

 

[circuitrider]

It HAS happened. To be clear, the Pastor is no longer a United Methodist Pastor if s/he wishes to split with the church;

Right, and that is giving up a lot more than people often realize.

Many are Baptist transplants and believe that if they had the authority to run the church themselves the way they want, things would be better.

Yes, and they are entirely wrong. I was a pastor in a congregationalist denomination. If a small church like you are talking about got into the horse race that is the congregational call system they would find that they actually would have to compete for pastoral candidates with many other churches. If they couldn't attract a candidate that they wanted they'd not get the pastor they want.

I once had a parishioner say they wish they could just leave the denomination and "hire me", so I wouldn't go away. Though I told him, that the moment they did that, I'd leave. I'm a United Methodist and a member of my conference, I go where the Bishop appoints me. I won't leave that to be hired by them, no matter how much they love me.

Exactly! Why would any UMC pastor want to give up her/his conference membership where you receive appointments by qualified and trained Bishops and Superintendents to give your future over to the whims of a local congregation? If that congregation can vote to keep you they can also vote to make you unemployed at a whim as well.

I don't expect a split. If the denomination changes it's stance, many will leave; including some Pastors. Perhaps a few will come or come back, too. If the denomination doesn't change it's stance, some may continue to leave for other denominations.

Agreed.

 

[food4thought]

I would agree that the idea of a "sinless perfection" is a "chasing after the wind", but that isn't what Christian perfection is. There can still be sin in the sense that sin is a falling short of God's perfect plan for us. The type of perfection that we are talking about is holiness where we live as people set apart for God's purposes. When all the focus and intent of our life is in this direction, then that way of living and directing one's life is the essence of Christian perfection.

Hi GraceSeeker. I guess the word perfection got my hackles up a bit Thank you, and Circuitrider, for clarifying the idea for me.

 

[circuitrider]

Hi GraceSeeker. I guess the word perfection got my hackles up a bit Thank you, and Circuitrider, for clarifying the idea for me.

It is a very specific Wesleyan term that often gets misunderstood. So I'm not surprised. As I became a Methodist it was one of those areas of theology I had to explore quite a bit to understand it because my previous church background doesn't have the concept.

 

[mrfun83]

Yep - love the whole concept of holiness/sanctification as "intentional". And it's so cool that all Christians who continue to walk and grow with the Lord will eventually bump into this concept, regardless of church background or upbringing. My wife is a perfect example. Raised Southern Baptist, never hearing of the concept of sanctification or holiness, and while initially kicked back, looking at it "squinty-eyed", finally understood that this concept is what her old pastor's used to call making Christ the "lord of your life" after salvation.