https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/01/03/united-methodist-church-is-expected-split-over-gay-marriage-disagreement-fracturing-nations-third-largest-denomination/

Will be very interesting to see how each local church picks which "side" they will be a part of.

Looks like the traditionalists got taken to the woodshed on this one.

They were the ones adhering to the rules and they got the boot.

My neighbors are going through a split right now. Somehow she coaxed him into leaving the house to go live with his brothers and she continues to enjoy their beautiful home. She was the one who called on the split and I suspect was unfaithful.

Parallels.

SquareOne07 said:

---

Looks like the traditionalists got taken to the woodshed on this one.

They were the ones adhering to the rules and they got the boot.

My neighbors are going through a split right now. Somehow she coaxed him into leaving the house to go live with his brothers and she continues to enjoy their beautiful home. She was the one who called on the split and I suspect was unfaithful.

Parallels.

---

The traditionalists get to take their property, and, it would seem, don't get saddled with any liabilities. That part of the deal is probably fair.

I have no idea how my church will vote. I'm afraid that some folks who would have voted to join the traditional branch have already left, but I still think there are a lot more conservatives than the local leadership believes. The clergy is all for the liberal path.

Most of what I read says that the local conference gets to take their assets and liabilities. It didn't get down to the local church level with full detail, however I'd assume the same for each individual church.

I think what you'll end up seeing is there will be a conservative church and a liberal one that will basically swap members in order to support the cost of the property.

An interesting thought: what if you're a retired liberal pastor in a conference that chooses the traditional path? Who gets the pension burden?

cgh1999 said:

---

Most of what I read says that the local conference gets to take their assets and liabilities. It didn't get down to the local church level with full detail, however I'd assume the same for each individual church.

I think what you'll end up seeing is there will be a conservative church and a liberal one that will basically swap members in order to support the cost of the property.

An interesting thought: what if you're a retired liberal pastor in a conference that chooses the traditional path? Who gets the pension burden?

---

All I've read is the news article, but based on those from today, and prior positions, it seems like the liberals will keep the assets AND the liabilities (including pensions, for all). Probably a smart move since the clergy is way more liberal than the laymen.

There was an article on a conservative Methodist website that had more detail. https://wesleyancovenant.org/2020/01/02/jan-2020/

twk said:

---

cgh1999 said:

---

Most of what I read says that the local conference gets to take their assets and liabilities. It didn't get down to the local church level with full detail, however I'd assume the same for each individual church.

I think what you'll end up seeing is there will be a conservative church and a liberal one that will basically swap members in order to support the cost of the property.

An interesting thought: what if you're a retired liberal pastor in a conference that chooses the traditional path? Who gets the pension burden?

---

All I've read is the news article, but based on those from today, and prior positions, it seems like the liberals will keep the assets AND the liabilities (including pensions, for all). Probably a smart move since the clergy is way more liberal than the laymen.

---

Now it makes sense. Pension liabilities are huge.

Quote:

---

Under the terms of the protocol agreement central conferences, by a two-thirds vote, could vote to join a new traditionalist Methodist denomination, and annual conferences, by a 57 percent vote, could vote to do the same. However, central and annual conferences are not required to hold such votes, and if they do not do so, they will remain with the "post-separation United Methodist Church," the body that will continue the name and infrastructure of the present church.

---

This seems designed to make it very difficult to leave.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Really good thread on the subject

---

You beat me to it!! What a turn of events, that conservatives have decolonized and submit to African authority while white moderates and elites can't cede control.

In addition to dying out from interrupting people's brunch, the idea that rebellion is justified doesn't really sustain a congregation. If you'll overthrow your congregational authorities why should anyone submit to their priest instead of casting them out when there's a disagreement?

The Shank Ag said:

---

As a Methodist, here's my issue.

For millineum, the official church stance was that homosexuality was considered a sin. It was widely taught across both Catholicism and the numerous Protestant denominations. There was no questioning of the words from both testaments that speak to it as a sin. I was taught it in the Methodist church as a child and young adult.

Then, in the past decade or so, there comes these leading arguments from the leadership and scholars of the Methodist church that these verses were both mistranslated and misinterpreted. They argue that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality being a sin

So what happened? Was it the changing of societal acceptance of LGBT people? If so, that's where I am going to have a problem. We don't change the word of God to make sure all people don't have their toes stepped on.

I'm all for government recognizing marriages of LGBT people, have no problem with LGBT people on a personal level, and have many friends married and not that are LGBT. I am just not a fan of the church participating in what nearly every scholar and leader of my denomination has spoken from the time of John Wesley until the 2000's considered without question a sin. We accept all sinners, but we don't offer to book hotel rooms for people to commit adultery or the pipes for people to smoke narcotics. Facilitating sin is a sin itself.

---

If you read some of the statements of the current Methodist "leadership" regarding this matter, they refer to "human sexuality"; that leaves a lot of theological wiggle room. What's next? Polyamory? Temporary marriages as tolerated in Islam? Incest? The frontiers are wide open once this goes through. It isn't about LGBTQ alone. It is about deconstruction of Christian sexual ethics which go back to Jesus' time.

The mistranslation part is the most interesting to me. The wikipedia page is a good rundown of the different interpretations. I'll also suggest that anyone with an agenda pro or con homosexual marriage could translate these three words anyway they want to fit their agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

Quote:

---

In the New Testament (NT), there are at least three passages that refer to homosexual activity: Romans 1:2627, 1 Corinthians 6:910, and 1 Timothy 1:910. A fourth passage, Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. Jesus discusses marriage only in a heterosexual context when he cites the Book of Genesis during a discussion of marriage (Matthew 19:46 and Mark 10:69).

The references to homosexuality itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words: arsenokoits (), malakos (), and porneia () and its cognates.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#cite_note-Berlinerblau-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#cite_note-2][2][/url] While it is not disputed that the three Greek words apply to sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars have presented counter arguments.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#cite_note-deyoung-3][3][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#cite_note-malick-4][4][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#cite_note-calvin-5][5][/url] The historical context of the passages has also been a subject of debate.

---

Hi everyone. I don't want to hijack this thread but am struggling with a question please. Jesus himself said that divorced people commit adultery if they remarry (in many circumstances). Yet to my knowledge He never said anything specific about homosexuality. I'm wondering what people who are so confident on their views about church tradition think about the church's changing policy on the remarriage. Do you think they are committing adultery? Is it possible for church policy to change with time?

I'm very interested in learning more about this.

Quote:

---

I'm wondering what people who are so confident on their views about church tradition think about the church's changing policy on the remarriage. Do you think they are committing adultery?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Is it possible for church policy to change with time?

---

Can you define how you think of church policy? Is that like, don't take too much food on the first pass at coffee hour potluck?

Roger Metzger said:

---

Hi everyone. I don't want to hijack this thread but am struggling with a question please. Jesus himself said that divorced people commit adultery if they remarry (in many circumstances). Do you think they are committing adultery?

---

Yes.

Yes. Except in cases of adultery, spousal abuse, and abandonment causing the divorce. If those are the reasons then I do not think it is adultery to remarry.

That is a very good question.

Quad Dog said:

---

So then my next logical question is: If people getting remmaried is adultery (a sin), but many churches these days allow that remarriage and therefore allow that sin of afultery, why is the sin of homosexual marriage so much worse that it is not allowed? What decides which sins are allowed/forgiven and which aren't?

---

I may be speaking out of turn, but I would guess that most here who believe that homosexual relationships are a sin will say they also believe the allowing of the remarriage you speak of is also wrong and would equally be against a church allowing this remarriage and allowing homosexual marriage.

Agree

Thank you. Just as follow ups

Derm Doc: what do you see as the Biblical justification for divorce based on spousal abuse? I understand the other two as that was stated by Jesus.

K2: I know you were being humorous but by church policy I mean either the Methodist covenant or the official RCC teachings. Serious stuff like that.

Thanks

Historically, wasn't marriage primarily about creating and raising a functional healthy family? That is, having babies and turning them into decent people? The byproducts of that kind of marriage done right (fidelity, loyalty, support, dependability, etc.) have been mistaken for the principal aim.

Look around the modern West (and probably elsewhere); marriage is no more than a binding relationship contract that is unilaterally cancelable for violation of any number or variety of agreed upon terms on penalty of half your stuff. I'm not sure why that appeals to anybody.

All that to say, wrt to the UMC doctrinal split or redefinition of marriage in general, that ship already sailed. In the last three generations, too few have seen the benefit of the former assumptions and the culture moved on. Can the formerly universally accepted exclusive ideas of marriage ever flourish in a culture that sees it as weird and/or oppressive? I don't know, the proof is in the pudding, but it seems plain to me that people don't see committed life-long marriages for the creation and raising of health families as yielding sufficient fruit compared to the alternatives.

Roger Metzger said:

---

Thank you. Just as follow ups

Derm Doc: what do you see as the Biblical justification for divorce based on spousal abuse? I understand the other two as that was stated by Jesus.

K2: I know you were being humorous but by church policy I mean either the Methodist covenant or the official RCC teachings. Serious stuff like that.

Thanks

---

You are correct. I am interpreting what I think makes sense with Christ's teachings. I am no theologian.

Quad Dog said:

---

Fair enough, and that's a consistent, respectable position. But it does expose the hypocrisy of a church that allows one but not the other.

---

Agree.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear on the Sacrament of Matrimony

1648 It can seem difficult, even impossible, to bind oneself for life to another human being. This makes it all the more important to proclaim the Good News that God loves us with a definitive and irrevocable love, that married couples share in this love, that it supports and sustains them, and that by their own faithfulness they can be witnesses to God's faithful love. Spouses who with God's grace give this witness, often in very difficult conditions, deserve the gratitude and support of the ecclesial community. 158
1649 Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble. 159
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" 160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. 161

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

So then my next logical question is: If people getting remmaried is adultery (a sin), but many churches these days allow that remarriage and therefore allow that sin of afultery, why is the sin of homosexual marriage so much worse that it is not allowed? What decides which sins are allowed/forgiven and which aren't?

---

I may be speaking out of turn, but I would guess that most here who believe that homosexual relationships are a sin will say they also believe the allowing of the remarriage you speak of is also wrong and would equally be against a church allowing this remarriage and allowing homosexual marriage.

---

I think it's more subtle. Let's use another example. Two couples walk into a church and one wife has visible bruises and burns while the other has none. For this example both women are being abused. It's obvious that sin (abuse) is present in the life of one but not the other. In order to say the church permits abuse in the case of no visible signs, you have to assume a great deal about how involved in the congregation the couple is and how much people know about them, including elders and the pastor. That's what makes this argument a bit dishonest, it assumes and attributes much to any church that permits remarriage.

It's obvious that a homosexual couple is sinning and there's no way to redeem the relationship (Jesus clearly defines marriage by quoting Genesis), so it is always sin. But how does one tell with any random heterosexual couple? Abuse takes many forms, including neglect and abandonment. To litigate whether we permit remarriage we must know the extent of the abuse, the attempts at reconciliation (if possible), and a lot about the individual situation that is simply unknowable for the majority of the congregation. To assume you know enough to conclude hypocrisy by virtue of knowing a remarried couple in the church is to be intimately familiar with all the facts.

My parents divorced when I was very young and I still don't understand it. The closest I get is that my dad may have just quit on us, made no effort to get a job after he lost his, sat around watching tv all day, and spent a lot of time fighting with my mom who worked to pay all the bills. Is that abandonment? I don't know. Neglect? Maybe, but is it bad enough? Is it sin for my mom to remarry? No idea, though I'd love to know for sure so that I work through my feelings eventually. My dad hasn't remarried and thinks it would be for him to remarry. These questions are all much harder to answer than something that is pretty clearly stated.

Edit: let's not forget that work on the sabbath was parsed to asking God about the intent of the man building a fire because they couldn't decide. Some rules are quite clear while others are harder and require insight we'll never have. One may cry unfair all day long, but ultimately submission to scripture, tradition, and the Word is important or church is just a social club.