As many of you know the General Conference meets this week to decide something which will likely alter the course of the entire Methodist Church.

To me it seems this conversation was born out of a) be increasingly inclusive, and b) put butts in the seats of a declining faith.

The Book of Discipline is somewhat non-commital on the topic of LGBTQ issues, and even where it is clear, many churches just decide that it doesn't apply to them.

In search of something that the church took a definite position on, I searched for the Book's view on abortion. It says:

"Our belief in the sanctity of unborn life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.

But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and unborn child"

I don't intend to equate LGBTQ issues to that of abortion. However, if we're having the conversation now about LGBTQ, why won't we have that same conversation in 10 years about abortion when we're again seen as "backwards" because we don't "shout our abortion"?

We needed another Methodist thread.

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

Between the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists I don't see a denomination that isn't struggling to submit to God's authority and plan for sex and sexuality. Earthly authority or no, we are all afflicted. 'Twas not personal in response either.

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

As a Methodist I agree with you..This should have been addressed and put to bed several years ago but it wasn't. The Conference and some of the churches just appeased the progressives until we've come to this tipping point. I hope the General Conference this week finally addresses this conflict and we can get back to focusing in on what we need to focus on...

88,

Given your position on the matter, I'm curious what your hope is for which resolution/plan they go with.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the LGBT piece...I could see it fitting within the framework of loving thy neighbor. My concern is the continued appeasement. I was discussing with our pastor yesterday and she believes that the abortion conversation is not an "if", but a "when". However, I think if we go with the Traditional Plan, the abortion conversation doesn't even start. Come on, African delegates!

SquareOne07 said:

---

88,

Given your position on the matter, I'm curious what your hope is for which resolution/plan they go with.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the LGBT piece...I could see it fitting within the framework of loving thy neighbor. My concern is the continued appeasement. I was discussing with our pastor yesterday and she believes that the abortion conversation is not an "if", but a "when". However, I think if we go with the Traditional Plan, the abortion conversation doesn't even start. Come on, African delegates!

---

The Traditional Plan would be my hope/vote (if I had one) as it also establishes penalties going forward for not following the official doctrine. Anything less and we become like what the Boy Scouts of America have become..and lost cause... Whether I stay or leave depends on what's decided this week..I hate that it's come to this..

Good Methodist family comes home to find teenager dead. Note says Inspite of my trying my hardest I am a homosexual and that is the only life I could live. Since my family and Church condemn that lifestyle, figure this is my only option. Family and Church can celebrate, a life saved from sin.

88Warrior said:

---

SquareOne07 said:

---

88,

Given your position on the matter, I'm curious what your hope is for which resolution/plan they go with.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the LGBT piece...I could see it fitting within the framework of loving thy neighbor. My concern is the continued appeasement. I was discussing with our pastor yesterday and she believes that the abortion conversation is not an "if", but a "when". However, I think if we go with the Traditional Plan, the abortion conversation doesn't even start. Come on, African delegates!

---

The Traditional Plan would be my hope/vote (if I had one) as it also establishes penalties going forward for not following the official doctrine. Anything less and we become like what the Boy Scouts of America have become..and lost cause... Whether I stay or leave depends on what's decided this week..I hate that it's come to this..

---

Agree, mostly. What if the official doctrine were to change? Then they would no longer be in defiance of it.

Would you accept that, or search for a Methodist Church (under the One Church Plan) that adhered to a more traditional approach?

If you were to find a new church, which denomination would appeal?

SquareOne07 said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

SquareOne07 said:

---

88,

Given your position on the matter, I'm curious what your hope is for which resolution/plan they go with.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the LGBT piece...I could see it fitting within the framework of loving thy neighbor. My concern is the continued appeasement. I was discussing with our pastor yesterday and she believes that the abortion conversation is not an "if", but a "when". However, I think if we go with the Traditional Plan, the abortion conversation doesn't even start. Come on, African delegates!

---

The Traditional Plan would be my hope/vote (if I had one) as it also establishes penalties going forward for not following the official doctrine. Anything less and we become like what the Boy Scouts of America have become..and lost cause... Whether I stay or leave depends on what's decided this week..I hate that it's come to this..

---

Agree, mostly. What if the official doctrine were to change? Then they would no longer be in defiance of it.

Would you accept that, or search for a Methodist Church (under the One Church Plan) that adhered to a more traditional approach?

If you were to find a new church, which denomination would appeal?

---

No if the official doctrine changes I will leave all together because I feel it will have been changed by the same influences that have got us to where we are now and that will continue on to the abortion debate that you correctly predicted is coming..Where (denomination wise) do I go from here? I have no idea...You?

I'm not sure...really struggling with that for a number of reasons.

I grew up catholic, wasn't a good one (or a bad one, really) in college, and just drifted until I married my wife. Her brother is a Methodist pastor.

We're very involved in our church...I'm the head of our admin council and my wife is on a committee considering a daycare at our school.

Our church is old...our kids (5, 2, 6mos) are beloved there, but I have real concerns about a church community for them as they grow up.

A part of me wishes I would've stayed on the catholic route in the sense that they're not as spineless as the Methodists, but given their current (and centuries old) issues, that's a non-starter for me.

I feel like church has left us behind...especially if we ever have a conversation about abortion. My wife's more religiously conservative than I am and while my threshold is abortion, hers is the issue at hand now.

A similar question has been asked about homosexuals on here in the past without a great answer, but I'll ask it again about abortion and churches. What is the practical application of a stance against abortion?
I understand you preach and educate that abortion is wrong, life is sacred, and encourage everyone to not have an abortion, fine. But what about people who have had one in the past or are getting one in the present?

Is any kind of abortion in the past for any reason mean you aren't allowed to become or continue to be a member of a church? Their money and time is not accepted at the church? Do you have to fill out a form or something before joining stating you've never had an abortion? Do you have to disclose all doctor visits to prove you didn't get one? Is it only women excluded, are men who's partner had an abortion not allowed too?

Or can it be forgiven? Someone sinned in the past by having an abortion, we forgive you for that sin, come join our church? You're getting an abortion next week, please don't all life is sacred, but we'll forgive you afterwards and ask you to join?

I'm curious what a stance against abortion looks like practically for a church.

Good response..

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

Between the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists I don't see a denomination that isn't struggling to submit to God's authority and plan for sex and sexuality. Earthly authority or no, we are all afflicted. 'Twas not personal in response either.

---

Honestly, I do not think the Orthodox struggle with this as much. I think it is a bit of a blessing that the hierarchy is not as infected by American politics. That and they really haven't changed anything in 1400 years.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

Between the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists I don't see a denomination that isn't struggling to submit to God's authority and plan for sex and sexuality. Earthly authority or no, we are all afflicted. 'Twas not personal in response either.

---

Honestly, I do not think the Orthodox struggle with this as much. I think it is a bit of a blessing that the hierarchy is not as infected by American politics. That and they really haven't changed anything in 1400 years.

---

I think it has more to do with the Orthodox not catching the media's eye more than a lack of an issue.

I'm reminded of the controversy with Bishop Kallistos Ware that happened last year:

Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

AgLiving06 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

Between the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists I don't see a denomination that isn't struggling to submit to God's authority and plan for sex and sexuality. Earthly authority or no, we are all afflicted. 'Twas not personal in response either.

---

Honestly, I do not think the Orthodox struggle with this as much. I think it is a bit of a blessing that the hierarchy is not as infected by American politics. That and they really haven't changed anything in 1400 years.

---

I think it has more to do with the Orthodox not catching the media's eye more than a lack of an issue.

I'm reminded of the controversy with Bishop Kallistos Ware that happened last year:

Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

---

I'll have to strongly disagree with you here. Having grown up in a mainline denomination and joined a different mainline denomination as an adult, I felt like there was always an underlying current of theological divide on the "issues" of the day. Liberal-minded members and churches were looking to "progress " forward and conservatives were always watching over their backs and trying to defend.

I can tell you that the experience in the Orthodox Church is the complete opposite.

Having read what he wrote, I believe that Met Ware's position has been taken a bit out if context. Nowhere is he in favor of gay marriage. But even if he was, there is zero chance the Orthodox Church changes the definition of marriage. That type of theological innovation is so far afield from the Orthodox mindset that it would be impossible. It's not an issue.

I think we are answering different questions.

If the question is whether the Orthodox or Catholics or other conservative Protestant/Evangelical groups will redefine marriage? I agree with you that none of those groups will truly entertain that concept.

However, if the question is whether there are liberal aspects of each that will push for change? I think the answer is clearly yes across all groups.

I think the original claim was that "I do not think the Orthodox struggle with this as much" which is 100% true. There is no struggle.

This isn't just me saying it. Here's the opening excerpt from the Princeton survey on various Christian confessions:

"History is all about change, and the writing of history seeks to explain processes of change. Of the main strands of Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy is the most resistant to change and the most reluctant to admit that patterns of Christian worship, let alone Christian belief, ought to display any variation in response to shifts in the cultural and political climate. The Orthodox Church views itself as the divinely appointed witness to the unbroken "Tradition" of primitive apostolic Christianity. Through its divine liturgy it unites the faithful in mystical communion with the holy fellowship of saints and martyrs extending backwards through the centuries of Christian history and forwards into the heavenly company of the redeemed. The church is the visible embodiment of heaven on earth.

Protestant and Catholic history since the eighteenth century has substantially been a narrative of either positive or negative responses to the challenges to ecclesiastical authority presented by modernity -- both those intellectual challenges created by the Enlightenment and modern scientific knowledge, and the social or institutional challenges posed by the emergence of democratic politics and an urban industrial society. In comparison with the Protestant or Catholic churches, the Orthodox Church has appeared relatively untroubled by either of these sets of questions. It has seen comparatively little need to adjust the presentation of the faith to the presuppositions of the Age of Reason."
https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Twentieth-Century-History-Princeton/dp/0691157103/

The DNA of the Orthodox Church is fundamentally different than Protestantism. Look no further than how they each view tradition!

Btw, my apologies if the posts above come across as triumphalist...I am less spiritually advanced than most on this board which is why I desperately need what the Orthodox Church offers.

Secular culture whispers in our ear that we should indulge ourselves, live a life of pleasure, avoid any hardships or suffering. The example of Christ on the Cross runs directly counter to these ideas. It is dangerous for the spiritual health of Christians when Christian leaders turn from Christ to align with secular culture.

AgLiving06 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

Between the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists I don't see a denomination that isn't struggling to submit to God's authority and plan for sex and sexuality. Earthly authority or no, we are all afflicted. 'Twas not personal in response either.

---

Honestly, I do not think the Orthodox struggle with this as much. I think it is a bit of a blessing that the hierarchy is not as infected by American politics. That and they really haven't changed anything in 1400 years.

---

I think it has more to do with the Orthodox not catching the media's eye more than a lack of an issue.

I'm reminded of the controversy with Bishop Kallistos Ware that happened last year:

Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

---

This is the beauty of the Orthodox Church. He can think whatever he wants, say whatever he wants and it will never happen. You would have to get Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Priest from the world over to agree to physically get together at an Ecumenical Council, have a vote and approve such a thing.

It will NEVER happen. Most don't even think there is ever a need for a council. Its considered a "closed case" by many and there is never any reason to change anything.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

Between the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists I don't see a denomination that isn't struggling to submit to God's authority and plan for sex and sexuality. Earthly authority or no, we are all afflicted. 'Twas not personal in response either.

---

Honestly, I do not think the Orthodox struggle with this as much. I think it is a bit of a blessing that the hierarchy is not as infected by American politics. That and they really haven't changed anything in 1400 years.

---

I think it has more to do with the Orthodox not catching the media's eye more than a lack of an issue.

I'm reminded of the controversy with Bishop Kallistos Ware that happened last year:

Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

---

This is the beauty of the Orthodox Church. He can think whatever he wants, say whatever he wants and it will never happen. You would have to get Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Priest from the world over to agree to physically get together at an Ecumenical Council, have a vote and approve such a thing.

It will NEVER happen. Most don't even think there is ever a need for a council. Its considered a "closed case" by many and there is never any reason to change anything.

---

As Gator and I talked about, that doesn't make the Orthodox unique in it of itself. I expect that any Catholic, LCMS/WELS Lutheran or PCA Reformed could come on here and make the exact same (or similar enough) statements.

However, if you want to say that the Orthodox are unique in that they don't change any aspect, Theology or other, regardless of any sort of time, then sure you have a case (as does Gator). But that's an entirely different discussion.

Quad Dog said:

---

A similar question has been asked about homosexuals on here in the past without a great answer, but I'll ask it again about abortion and churches. What is the practical application of a stance against abortion?
I understand you preach and educate that abortion is wrong, life is sacred, and encourage everyone to not have an abortion, fine. But what about people who have had one in the past or are getting one in the present?

Is any kind of abortion in the past for any reason mean you aren't allowed to become or continue to be a member of a church? Their money and time is not accepted at the church? Do you have to fill out a form or something before joining stating you've never had an abortion? Do you have to disclose all doctor visits to prove you didn't get one? Is it only women excluded, are men who's partner had an abortion not allowed too?

Or can it be forgiven? Someone sinned in the past by having an abortion, we forgive you for that sin, come join our church? You're getting an abortion next week, please don't all life is sacred, but we'll forgive you afterwards and ask you to join?

I'm curious what a stance against abortion looks like practically for a church.

---

The truth is that they (gays or people who've had abortions) would still be allowed and welcomed in most United Methodist Churches by letter of the rules within the laity.

Officially choosing which way the church goes and what is written in the BoD affects church giving, clergy and their appointments (and benefits), and officiating weddings - if the laity at a singular church decides to shun gays or women who've had abortions, then those folks are gonna have to deal with that themselves spiritually now and when they meet God.

UMC bodies within the US, in my opinion, will still be accepting of people that are gay, have had abortions, or sin regularly for whatever reason. But they don't want their clergy to be violating tenants set forth in the Bible (i.e. they aren't supposed to have sex outside of marriage also); as and I can agree with this clergy are supposed to set an example, but they are still human.

I would say that the church SHOULD be against abortion, but I don't know if it is or isn't or isn't even written down; unless medically necessary to save the mother and even then I think the official stance would be against it. However, this won't affect the laity, unless they feel that it is unfair for the clergy to have to live to a higher standard.

Thank you, that's a good distinction between clergy and laity. I guess they would also have to define the rules for non clergy positions in the church such as office workers, volunteer positions on boards, and teachers.

The head pastor at our Methodist Church is divorced and quietly dating someone. These distinctions between accepting and forgiving some sins and rejecting other sin is always interesting and confusing to me.

I completely agree with you.

It's a strange line. I believe that distinction will be left up to churches to decide, at least for now as it's not being discussed at this GC. (the issue of staff members and not clergy).

Our pastor (only have 1) is divorced and remarried.

I don't think I'm condoning accepting some sins and rejecting others is what I'm saying.

In truth, the changes in documentation speak of avowed homosexuality; meaning I believe that a homosexual pastor is ok as long as they are devout in the celibacy and actions. I'm not my churches or regions representative though so I don't truly know what that answer is.

The UMC should accept all sinners and the UMC should stand-fast in their doctrinal belief that all can be saved. Having specific metrics for what is and is not acceptable by pastors and other clergy of the church is a completely separate discussion.

This is not an example of gay laity are forgiven and a gay pastor isn't forgiven (insert whatever sin you want for gay).

Is it perfect? Probably not, but the UMC has been waffling for years on "progressive" issues. If they continue to do this, they might as well rename themselves The new Unity church formally known as the UMC. They need to make a decision for the future, YES that decision might change in the future, but they need to make a decision for now and stand by it.

SquareOne07 said:

---

I'm not sure...really struggling with that for a number of reasons.

I grew up catholic, wasn't a good one (or a bad one, really) in college, and just drifted until I married my wife. Her brother is a Methodist pastor.

We're very involved in our church...I'm the head of our admin council and my wife is on a committee considering a daycare at our school.

Our church is old...our kids (5, 2, 6mos) are beloved there, but I have real concerns about a church community for them as they grow up.

A part of me wishes I would've stayed on the catholic route in the sense that they're not as spineless as the Methodists, but given their current (and centuries old) issues, that's a non-starter for me.

I feel like church has left us behind...especially if we ever have a conversation about abortion. My wife's more religiously conservative than I am and while my threshold is abortion, hers is the issue at hand now.

---

While the main study was in the UK, you will find the Methodist church (and literally every other faith, and secular organization) has a sexual abuse problem. Don't let that keep you from taking another look at the Catholic faith if you have even semi considered it

That's not an excuse for the Catholic Church, btw. I hope every single one of those priests are locked up. Just saying it's everywhere

Gator03 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AGC said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that Methodists have an authority problem.

---

How's your glass house? Must be a pain keeping it all clean.

---

It's a simple observation. I was not trying to ridicule or be holier than thou. There's no claim of perfection in my observation.

---

Between the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists I don't see a denomination that isn't struggling to submit to God's authority and plan for sex and sexuality. Earthly authority or no, we are all afflicted. 'Twas not personal in response either.

---

Honestly, I do not think the Orthodox struggle with this as much. I think it is a bit of a blessing that the hierarchy is not as infected by American politics. That and they really haven't changed anything in 1400 years.

---

I think it has more to do with the Orthodox not catching the media's eye more than a lack of an issue.

I'm reminded of the controversy with Bishop Kallistos Ware that happened last year:

Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

---

I'll have to strongly disagree with you here. Having grown up in a mainline denomination and joined a different mainline denomination as an adult, I felt like there was always an underlying current of theological divide on the "issues" of the day. Liberal-minded members and churches were looking to "progress " forward and conservatives were always watching over their backs and trying to defend.

I can tell you that the experience in the Orthodox Church is the complete opposite.

Having read what he wrote, I believe that Met Ware's position has been taken a bit out if context. Nowhere is he in favor of gay marriage. But even if he was, there is zero chance the Orthodox Church changes the definition of marriage. That type of theological innovation is so far afield from the Orthodox mindset that it would be impossible. It's not an issue.

---

Well it's kind of an issue.... maybe not for the present Church, but certainly those are seeking to learn more about the Church and the faith

I just picked up Ware's "The Orthodox Way"

Kind of wondering what his angle is before I start

Is he the voice of the "Orthodox" Orthodox, or is he kind of rogue, and if so, is he part of a movement?

EDIT I agree he did not explicitly endorse same sex marriage. But he sure seems "open minded" and critical of Orthodox teaching and ministers about, well, a few things