Kinda long sorry... I'm curious and new to this section of TexAgs. I used to post in the NBA section back in the day but haven't posted in several years. I'm a Presbyterian and senior M.Div. student at a seminary affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I'm pretty familiar with the UMC situation because we have a significant number of UMC students.

My denomination, the PC(USA), sort of had the reverse thing happen where we decided to ordain LGBTQ pastors and allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages. This led many of the more "conservative" churches to feel isolated to the point where they felt as if they were no longer welcome in the PC(USA)... To the extent that many of them left to form a new Presbyterian denomination or join other smaller preexisting ones. Sort of like what might happen with the more progressive churches in the UMC.

The other day I realized that after our Presbyterian "schism" a few years back, I have not really contacted any of my friends who have parted ways with my denomination. And none of them have really contacted me either. We still hold similar theological principles but disagree over certain specific issues. My question is, do you all (Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, non-denoms, whoever) think that when we disagree over certain issues theologically, we have reached a point where we are no longer able to dialogue? I saw an earlier post that seemed to suggest that sometimes we are in fact beyond theological dialogue.

I've been reflecting a lot on Karl Barth's relationship with Billy Graham. The two of them were actually quite different from a theological perspective. They shared some similarities but disagreed on significant aspects of Christian theology, however, they were still friends and considered one another colleagues... And continued to talk to each other about theology. To me at least, I think it's worth exploring being more intentional in our dialogue with those whom we disagree theologically. Do the rest of you think that it is beyond a possibility?

The western jurisdiction of the UMC will likely split off along with other conferences and form a newer denomination. Since I am in the western jurisdiction I will probably leave my church and attend another denomination for a while. We may move back east after a couple more years and find a decent UMC congregation not full of left wing activists. The progressive denominations seem to be in decline in their attempt to pursue "inclusive" theology. The PCUSA is an example.

Staff - the crude language I use below is valid to the thread, and present in Christian theology.

Here is the dividing line with regard to sexual activity:
Does God affirm the act of sodomy.

I have asked this directly to the lead pastor of Missiongathering (Disciples of Christ), Brandan Robertson.

He said, "yes."

My Catholic Church considers this, due to who humans are in the image of Christ, to be a sin that "cries to heaven for vengeance." This is of a different morality than adulterous coitus. It is uniquely wrong.

Obviously many of our priests have a very major problem.

However, to Protestants I say: friends in Christ, please do not associate where this is affirmed! The Apostolic faith, Catholic and Orthodox, for their many faults, will hold the line. Consider it!

We can NEVER affirm peccata clamantia

aggiespursfan said:

---

Kinda long sorry... I'm curious and new to this section of TexAgs. I used to post in the NBA section back in the day but haven't posted in several years. I'm a Presbyterian and senior M.Div. student at a seminary affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I'm pretty familiar with the UMC situation because we have a significant number of UMC students.

My denomination, the PC(USA), sort of had the reverse thing happen where we decided to ordain LGBTQ pastors and allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages. This led many of the more "conservative" churches to feel isolated to the point where they felt as if they were no longer welcome in the PC(USA)... To the extent that many of them left to form a new Presbyterian denomination or join other smaller preexisting ones. Sort of like what might happen with the more progressive churches in the UMC.

The other day I realized that after our Presbyterian "schism" a few years back, I have not really contacted any of my friends who have parted ways with my denomination. And none of them have really contacted me either. We still hold similar theological principles but disagree over certain specific issues. My question is, do you all (Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, non-denoms, whoever) think that when we disagree over certain issues theologically, we have reached a point where we are no longer able to dialogue? I saw an earlier post that seemed to suggest that sometimes we are in fact beyond theological dialogue.

I've been reflecting a lot on Karl Barth's relationship with Billy Graham. The two of them were actually quite different from a theological perspective. They shared some similarities but disagreed on significant aspects of Christian theology, however, they were still friends and considered one another colleagues... And continued to talk to each other about theology. To me at least, I think it's worth exploring being more intentional in our dialogue with those whom we disagree theologically. Do the rest of you think that it is beyond a possibility?

---

It doesn't seem that way. When the Methodist bishops proposed their plan, it was very telling that, contrary to everyone's expectations, they included no provision for gracious exit. Because they expected the liberal plan (changing the definition of marriage, and no longer condemning sex outside heterosexual marriage) to win, they expected to do what their American colleagues in other denominations did, and force the conservatives to buy their way out. When the vote went the other way, the conservatives didn't take the opportunity to twist the knife, and instead offered their own gracious exit provision, which was adopted.

I don't keep up with all the inside baseball, but it looks to me like the liberals are going back to the old playbook, this time at the conference level. The North Texas conference delegates voted 80% for the liberal plan, but I think they are going to be surprised when individual congregations put this to a vote. In any event, the "One Church" plan, even though defeated at the denomination level, is being resurrected at the conference level, and will result in exactly what critics said it would do -- forcing each congregation to debate this divisive issue. In the end, I don't think the denomination will survive.

Yes, Adam Hamilton is trying to position it so the North Texas conference can basically have it's own flavor of UMC but not separate. They're just sore losers, akin to the remain folks after the brexit vote demanding a revote.

But then again, he's always been pretty quick to ignore parts of the Bible which he deems unhelpful.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, Adam Hamilton is trying to position it so the North Texas conference can basically have it's own flavor of UMC but not separate. They're just sore losers, akin to the remain folks after the brexit vote demanding a revote.

But then again, he's always been pretty quick to ignore parts of the Bible which he deems unhelpful.

---

Hamilton certainly lost me in that last piece about using the Crusades as an analogy to Joshua. As historian Bernard Lewis points out, Europe spent centuries under the threat of Muslim invasion and subjugation.