rfvgy12 said:

---

How did your Methodist pastors handle this weeks vote on Sunday?

---

Conservative pastor and congregation..Nothing was mentioned about the outcome of the General Conference...Noticable amount of energy in the building today...

Nothing was mentioned? The bishops council had specified requested that pastors address it and state the outcome and what it means...

Strange.

Our church is mostly traditional, 75/25, it's small though probably less than 250 members total. Our pastor took the first 15 mins of the early service to explain the outcome and read a letter from the Bishops. He emphasized that this effected ordination of pastors and other clergy and allowances of marriage within the church.

Our sermon was about Jesus, James, and Peter on the mountain and the boy who was healed by Jesus after he came down from the mountain.

I went to the 8:30 service which is pretty traditional/older crowd. Nothing directly was said about the vote, but in the sermon the pastor reiterated his commitment to welcome all those that enter. It was good, but fairly neutral.

We have a contemporary/rock band worship that follows the 8:30, I probably should have checked it see the real litmus test.

88Warrior said:

---

The UMC is a global denomination...The One Church and the Simple Plan supporters want to keep "segregating" the American, Russian, African, Philippine churches away from each other in explaining the vote...A combined vote was taken and the Traditional Plan won..Sorry..but American liberal votes don't count any more than those votes from Namibia, Botswana, South Africa etc..etc..Time to move forward...

---

Can you explain what you mean by "keep segregating" the churches? IMO, there are two factions with strong beliefs about the issue. There were two options to move forward. One option was to take a firm stance one way or the other and force those who disagree out. Based on the voting, it's very close to splitting in the middle. The other option was to create a structure under which conferences could operate under their best understanding of the faith while remaining one body. IMO, the progressive faction went out of their way not to force out those who disagree, but that approach was not reciprocated.

It's OK, and I agree with your point that all of the votes should count the same. I am certainly frustrated with how they used them; it wasn't enough that their churches would get to set their policy, it was worth tearing the denomination apart so that...I don't really know. They didn't have to see people who disagreed with them on this one topic at meetings?

t...I don't really know. They didn't have to see people who disagreed with them on this one topic at meetings?"

The issue is that the progressives will not let this one topic go so they need to leave. Adam Hamilton et all are already planning more conferences to circle back again rather than plan an exit to be a Presbyterian

rfvgy12 said:

---

t...I don't really know. They didn't have to see people who disagreed with them on this one topic at meetings?"

The issue is that the progressives will not let this one topic go so they need to leave. Adam Hamilton et all are already planning more conferences to circle back again rather than plan an exit to be a Presbyterian

---

1. Methodism has always accepted a variety of theological positions. That's what happens when you base your denomination on the idea that scripture must be supplemented by tradition, experience, and reason. So, I'm not really sure why this one issue is so critical that disagreement was so problematic that conservatives said we simply cannot associate with anyone who disagrees. You know there are a ton of Methodist pastors who are universalists, right? That is WAY more theologically important than homosexuality. When do the inquisitions start there? How can we possibly say, as a denomination, that we aren't going to have a defined position on that but we have to split over homosexuality?

2. Why would you expect anyone to just...leave? You have a US Methodist denomination which, by large majorities, would like to stay together. You're also talking about people who have likely been part of churches for decades.

3. What, practically, do you imagine the practical implication of this decision will be for those who should "leave?" If you kick churches out of the denomination, do you think they'll suddenly become less welcoming/accepting of homosexuality? I know for certain that the global good that the UMC does (I'm thinking of things like the weeks I've spent at UMCOR in Baldwin, LA loading relief supplies headed around the globe) will absolutely be harmed by this split. If Wesley's first General Rule is "Do No Harm," we seem to have failed here.

Again, what makes THIS issue so crucial that we cannot accept the diversity of theological views that we accept on so many other issues?

FtWorthHorn said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

The UMC is a global denomination...The One Church and the Simple Plan supporters want to keep "segregating" the American, Russian, African, Philippine churches away from each other in explaining the vote...A combined vote was taken and the Traditional Plan won..Sorry..but American liberal votes don't count any more than those votes from Namibia, Botswana, South Africa etc..etc..Time to move forward...

---

Can you explain what you mean by "keep segregating" the churches? IMO, there are two factions with strong beliefs about the issue. There were two options to move forward. One option was to take a firm stance one way or the other and force those who disagree out. Based on the voting, it's very close to splitting in the middle. The other option was to create a structure under which conferences could operate under their best understanding of the faith while remaining one body. IMO, the progressive faction went out of their way not to force out those who disagree, but that approach was not reciprocated.

It's OK, and I agree with your point that all of the votes should count the same. I am certainly frustrated with how they used them; it wasn't enough that their churches would get to set their policy, it was worth tearing the denomination apart so that...I don't really know. They didn't have to see people who disagreed with them on this one topic at meetings?

---

"Segregated" as in all the explanations American progressives have been using to break down the vote and show how the non American conferences are different and swayed the vote..All the General Conference did last week was reaffirm what Methodist have stated for 50 years when the United Brethren and Methodist Church formed as the UMC..As for tearing apart the denomination do you really believe that the conservative churches would have stayed if the One Church Plan or the Simple Plan would have passed?? So it's only tearing apart when the progressives don't get their way?? This is the first of many issues Methodists have to address..As you stated there are other problems with clergy that need to be settled in order to "right the ship". We'll see if the UMC leadership now has the backbone to address this issues that they've lacked over the last 30 years or so..

We've got a fairly progressive pastor with a trending progressive congregation at a fast growing suburb in Collin Co.

Our pastor will be leading classes soon on the General Conference, "homosexuality and the Bible," and questions about moving forward. He was certainly in favor of the One Church Plan. He also mentioned the typical talking points used in support of that position... Paul talking about women in church, "do not store up treasures on earth" yet we have savings/retirement accounts, and how we don't believe those things today.

I'll be interested in hearing about those classes.

Our pastor addressed it for about 10 minutes yesterday.

Typical of what I expected: "I don't like that people were getting hurt by this, regardless of which way it went". "Sorry to all the LGBTQ people who were hurt by this vote", "We welcome anyone through the doors", etc. etc.

What was interesting is that he said he felt he owed the congregation about how he voted and he said he voted in favor of the One Church Plan. I don't agree with his stance, but respect the right to disagree and him to have his own interpretation on the matter.

He then went on to remind us that our church doors will always been open to anyone wanting to come through (which I agree with 100%) and then said the typical other things about acceptance and Jesus. All the stuff we know.


What was interesting is that he never brought up the actual scriptures which deal directly with the issue of homosexuality and it illustrates the biggest problem I have with the Methodist church. The methodists have forgotten what it is to take a stand. While we need gentle voices of acceptance, those also need to be supplemented by people who stand up for what is right and be warriors

Quote:

---

Again, what makes THIS issue so crucial that we cannot accept the diversity of theological views that we accept on so many other issues?

---

It's not. It's merely the idea that's exposing how silly it is to have diversity of theology when it comes to what's sin and what's not. it's one thing to accept diversity in terms of "infant baptism vs adult baptism". It's another to literally have different things sinful among people of the same faith.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

He also mentioned the typical talking points used in support of that position... Paul talking about women in church, "do not store up treasures on earth" yet we have savings/retirement accounts, and how we don't believe those things today.

---

Such a strange path to take. Why would you argue against belief in your own religion.

---

? I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote?
His interpretation (along with all other UMethodists, since they allow female ministers, http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/commentary-why-do-united-methodists-ordain-women ), is that we must use "tradition, experience and reason" to make decisions.

Quote:

---

? I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote?

---

if you start saying "hey, we don't believe in this stuff anyway", what's to stop someone from applying that to the entirety of Jesus?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

? I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote?

---

if you start saying "hey, we don't believe in this stuff anyway", what's to stop someone from applying that to the entirety of Jesus?

---

Where does that line start? Obviously, for you... after saving riches/treasures and women in leadership, but before homosexuality.
But why specifically there?

I'm not fully decided one way or the other on it. I do get uncomfortable to changing the beliefs of the church to fit with current societal standards.

88Warrior said:

---

FtWorthHorn said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

The UMC is a global denomination...The One Church and the Simple Plan supporters want to keep "segregating" the American, Russian, African, Philippine churches away from each other in explaining the vote...A combined vote was taken and the Traditional Plan won..Sorry..but American liberal votes don't count any more than those votes from Namibia, Botswana, South Africa etc..etc..Time to move forward...

---

Can you explain what you mean by "keep segregating" the churches? IMO, there are two factions with strong beliefs about the issue. There were two options to move forward. One option was to take a firm stance one way or the other and force those who disagree out. Based on the voting, it's very close to splitting in the middle. The other option was to create a structure under which conferences could operate under their best understanding of the faith while remaining one body. IMO, the progressive faction went out of their way not to force out those who disagree, but that approach was not reciprocated.

It's OK, and I agree with your point that all of the votes should count the same. I am certainly frustrated with how they used them; it wasn't enough that their churches would get to set their policy, it was worth tearing the denomination apart so that...I don't really know. They didn't have to see people who disagreed with them on this one topic at meetings?

---

"Segregated" as in all the explanations American progressives have been using to break down the vote and show how the non American conferences are different and swayed the vote..All the General Conference did last week was reaffirm what Methodist have stated for 50 years when the United Brethren and Methodist Church formed as the UMC..As for tearing apart the denomination do you really believe that the conservative churches would have stayed if the One Church Plan or the Simple Plan would have passed?? So it's only tearing apart when the progressives don't get their way?? This is the first of many issues Methodists have to address..As you stated there are other problems with clergy that need to be settled in order to "right the ship". We'll see if the UMC leadership now has the backbone to address this issues that they've lacked over the last 30 years or so..

---

Yes, certainly the WCA made their position clear that they would either get their way, enforce their position on the full denomination, or they would leave. The analogous position would be progressive churches threatening to leave under the One Church plan.

Notably, however, the One Church plan was not trying to do the same thing. It didn't say "everyone has to ordain gay clergy or you're kicked out." That's a crucial difference, regardless of the hardline position of the WCA. There was only one group in this debate attempting to enforce their view on everyone, so when you think "who is responsible for driving the split," the answer is it's them. So, no, it's not about who "got their way," it's about who was willing to live with disagreement and who was not.

As for your question about the Simple Plan, there's a reason that the Way Forward commission didn't propose it, and it isn't because they didn't think of it. It's because they knew that would, in fact, force churches and members out of the church.

I'd also challenge your vision of "righting the ship" with the core values of Wesleyan Methodism. If rigid doctrinal adherence enforced by church leadership is your idea of correcting Methodism, I'm not quite sure why you would choose Methodism to begin with.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

? I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote?

---

if you start saying "hey, we don't believe in this stuff anyway", what's to stop someone from applying that to the entirety of Jesus?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again, what makes THIS issue so crucial that we cannot accept the diversity of theological views that we accept on so many other issues?

---

It's not. It's merely the idea that's exposing how silly it is to have diversity of theology when it comes to what's sin and what's not. it's one thing to accept diversity in terms of "infant baptism vs adult baptism". It's another to literally have different things sinful among people of the same faith.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He also mentioned the typical talking points used in support of that position... Paul talking about women in church, "do not store up treasures on earth" yet we have savings/retirement accounts, and how we don't believe those things today.

---

Such a strange path to take. Why would you argue against belief in your own religion.

---

I'm not sure you're very familiar with Methodism. All of your comments make sense only in the context of a top-down theological framework like Catholicism. That's not how Methodism works. As another poster mentioned, when you begin with the understanding that our faith is based on scripture, tradition, experience, and reason, you accept that not every person is going to arrive at the same conclusions...and that's OK.

Quote:

---

Where does that line start? Obviously, for you... after saving riches/treasures and women in leadership, but before homosexuality.
But why specifically there?

I'm not fully decided one way or the other on it. I do get uncomfortable to changing the beliefs of the church to fit with current societal standards.

---

I don't understand your comment, but maybe I can clarify mine. it has nothing to do with the actual issue, just the logic used. Homosexuality is a good topic to see this. I can follow you if you have alternative interpretations of Romans 1, 1 Cor 6?, etc. But this wasn't his argument. It sounded like it was "yeah, Jesus thought it was wrong, but we don't follow other parts so we wont follow this one". This was baffling to me.

..."There was only one group in this debate attempting to enforce their view on everyone, so when you think "who is responsible for driving the split," the answer is it's them."..

Sorry, but it wasn't the conservatives trying to force a change in the beliefs/official stance of the denomination ..The UMC came out of the conference with the same official stance on homosexuality as we went in with...It wasn't the conservative clergy that was willingly defying the Book of Discipline either..So now there will be consequences for clergy for not following official "doctrine" if you will..Look we're obviously on different sides of the issue and not going to agree but that's OK. For now, at least, it's been settled..How or where we (individual conferences and churches) go from here is not as clear..Some churches, I believe, will leave and I hope they find what they're looking for...A lot will depend on the leadership/clergy of the denomination following The Book of Discipline and another part will be on the laity itself to hold those leaders and others accountable...I do believe that the conservatives will be a lot quicker to speak up now when they see things straying off track and not wait until it gets to the point it did...We'll see..God Bless us all..

Quote:

---

That's not how Methodism works. As another poster mentioned, when you begin with the understanding that our faith is based on scripture, tradition, experience, and reason, you accept that not every person is going to arrive at the same conclusions...and that's OK.

---

i don't expect everyone to. But I also expect that whatever conclusions one comes up with are supported by...Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason. it's not a "you have to have at least 3" situation.

Well said..

I think what he's saying is that every Christian has drawn a line at where they have stopped following the laws and rules of the Bible verbatim. We all know the long lists of Biblical rules about clothing, the Sabbath, diet, and treatment of slaves, women, and homosexuals. I think his argument was that some people read the Bible and say that slavery is wrong and sexism is wrong, so we'll ignore what the Bible says and not own slaves, and let women be priests. Other groups of people will read the Bible and say the same thing, but also ignore the parts against homosexuals. Why are some people in the first group and not the second?

Another side conversation I've seen here before, and is interesting, is the Greek word, Arsenokoites, used in the Bible in Romans and Cor. just doesn't mean the same thing as what homosexuality is in 2019. I know I'm not smart enough to make that argument, but I've read smarter people make it.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Where does that line start? Obviously, for you... after saving riches/treasures and women in leadership, but before homosexuality.
But why specifically there?

I'm not fully decided one way or the other on it. I do get uncomfortable to changing the beliefs of the church to fit with current societal standards.

---

I don't understand your comment, but maybe I can clarify mine. it has nothing to do with the actual issue, just the logic used. Homosexuality is a good topic to see this. I can follow you if you have alternative interpretations of Romans 1, 1 Cor 6?, etc. But this wasn't his argument. It sounded like it was "yeah, Jesus thought it was wrong, but we don't follow other parts so we wont follow this one". This was baffling to me.

---

Maybe I wrote it poorly or you misunderstood, but obviously this isn't what he was saying, as no one who is a man of Faith would argue that.
It's more along the lines of: that interpretation was correct in that time in culture, and this interpretation is correct in this time and culture.

I'm not saying that is MY position, but I definitely want to accurately describe my pastor's.

https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/02/27/2019-general-conference/?fbclid=IwAR10WjPORHXyAEFHYLP0-iwNpAecArqaFypHhrtoqvzVp6sX43o8FdmhK2o

Tom Scholz said:

---

They also mentioned ( lots of eye rolls) That some kind final approval still has to be yet done by the Adm Council ( or something like that) to deal with constitutional issues ????

---

The Judicial Council will have to determine which proposals approved by the General Council are in accordance with the rules. Previously, many elements of the Traditional Plan (particularly those regarding enforcement) were deemed unconstitutional. Many of the provisions were passed without alteration after that determination.

So, it seems likely that some portions of the plan will be struck down. Still, a number of the enforcement provisions are likely to stand. What I don't yet know is if there is a break in the proposed new chain of enforcement which would render it toothless after judicial opinion.

Read the article I posted. It's all explained there.

Christ UMC-College Station/Rev. Jerry House response to General Conference. Perhaps the essence of Methodism:

Wow.

Yep. High purity Methodism. Bible based common sense.

Love regardless if the receiver accepts or not.
God's goal is acceptance.
Church Leaders must have accepted God's love to attempt to love regardless of acceptance.

Did you miss the part where he said God loves us too much to let us live in our sinful state?