I've been a Methodist for my entire life, and A&M United Methodist Church on Northgate is literally the perfect church, but I wonder how the upcoming Methodist split will affect it. The church is splitting over political lines, one branch will remain "The United Methodist Church" and the other will be named "The Global Methodist Church". The GMC is going to be the more conservative church, and the UMC will be the more liberal church. I wonder which branch A&M UMC will head towards. I think the church splitting is a good thing, it will allow more freedom for both parties to pursue their faith in the way they want to. What do y'all think?

Quote:

---

it will allow more freedom for both parties to pursue their faith in the way they want to. What do y'all think?

---

If it's like any other denomination, liberals will eventually infect the conservative half and you'll split again in 20-30 years.

You're not wrong, but for arguably the most obnoxiously liberal church in America, I'll take baby steps instead of nothing at all

This is going to devolve into another liberal and UMC bashing thread. People are always out to blame their ideological opponents. It doesn't seem like that's the kind of thread you want, but some people can't help themselves.

My guess is that A&M UMC will go GMC and that most churches will follow the majority of churches in their conference and won't split by politics or ideology. Most churches didn't want the split, but it's happening to them anyway. They'll do what's best for their local church's big concerns, which unsurprisingly, isn't about gay people getting married and ordained. Most people don't care.

As a guy who is really bitter towards the UMC, I'd advise trying your best for you and your church to be charitable towards the opposition and try to keep some kind of connection in some capacity, even if it's just through prayer. Good luck!

I'll tell you what, I think A&M UMC will go GMC because the most political I've EVER seen Preston (the Pastor) been is "oh yeah uh I think voting is today go vote if you want"

I think I remember last time Methodist splitting was a thing the big point was that UMC owned the land and the buildings, not the local church. So it probably depends more on how they split up property than the local church

Quad Dog said:

---

I think I remember last time Methodist splitting was a thing the big point was that UMC owned the land and the buildings, not the local church. So it probably depends more on how they split up property than the local church

---

The conferences actually own local church property. It's a terrible feature of Methodist polity, like guaranteeing employment for clergy. Both incentivize an entrenched clerical bureaucracy which denies lay persons a say in church affairs. Thus, the more theologically and socially conservative laity, who hold real world jobs, are expected to pay for 1.) the massive church bureaucracy; 2.) the capital, maintenance and upgrade costs of local churches and .3) overcompensated clergy who cannot be fired: they can only be reassigned by the bishop.

Overall, very bad policies.

I think they both should return to the original faith of the Jewish Apostles and Jewish Mashiak, and turn away from the pagan influenced gentile church origins that developed centuries later.

I am in the Rio Texas Conference. Crossroads District. This district is very rural. Most rural churches will vote to be in the "Traditional" or as you say Global Methodist Church. Districts that are more urban (San Antonio, Austin, Corpus) will vote liberal and remain in the United Methodist Church with LGBTQ.

The part that vexes me is this: For many years the issue of LGBTQ continued to come up at the world wide conference. At each conference there was another vote to allow gay marriages within the church and to allow gay pastors to serve the local church. Each time the vote was against.

What is different this time is that there is a core group of Bishops, Pastors, and Laity that have worded a much different vote. This group is not just from Texas but from different parts of the nation. They have worded the vote to let the TRADITIONAL Methodists leave the United Methodist Church. We are not the ones who should leave. We are the churches that have remained loyal to the United Methodist Church.

If the LGBTQ want to have gay/lesbian marriages in the church & gay/lesbian pastors serving the local church it seems that the liberal movement would be the churches to leave and start the new denomination. The vote was supposed to have taken place in 2020 but no worldwide conference because of Covid. No worldwide conference this year yet either.

It is very sad for me to see what is happening to this once proud Methodist movement. It is particularly sad for me to watch the effect it has on my Dad (Class of '59). He is a retired Methodist pastor. He served for 45 years in the old Southwest Conference then in the Rio Texas. From the time I was in Kindergarden until I graduated from TAMU we moved 8 times all over South Texas. After I graduated he moved 3 more times. He did his job, He served the Lord, and the local church. I take it very personal when I see this "Woke", "Liberal" LGBTQ movement rip the guts out of the Methodist church that he served so faithfully.

aggieband 83 said:

---

I am in the Rio Texas Conference. Crossroads District. This district is very rural. Most rural churches will vote to be in the "Traditional" or as you say Global Methodist Church. Districts that are more urban (San Antonio, Austin, Corpus) will vote liberal and remain in the United Methodist Church with LGBTQ.

The part that vexes me is this: For many years the issue of LGBTQ continued to come up at the world wide conference. At each conference there was another vote to allow gay marriages within the church and to allow gay pastors to serve the local church. Each time the vote was against.

What is different this time is that there is a core group of Bishops, Pastors, and Laity that have worded a much different vote. This group is not just from Texas but from different parts of the nation. They have worded the vote to let the TRADITIONAL Methodists leave the United Methodist Church. We are not the ones who should leave. We are the churches that have remained loyal to the United Methodist Church.

If the LGBTQ want to have gay/lesbian marriages in the church & gay/lesbian pastors serving the local church it seems that the liberal movement would be the churches to leave and start the new denomination. The vote was supposed to have taken place in 2020 but no worldwide conference because of Covid. No worldwide conference this year yet either.

It is very sad for me to see what is happening to this once proud Methodist movement. It is particularly sad for me to watch the effect it has on my Dad (Class of '59). He is a retired Methodist pastor. He served for 45 years in the old Southwest Conference then in the Rio Texas. From the time I was in Kindergarden until I graduated from TAMU we moved 8 times all over South Texas. After I graduated he moved 3 more times. He did his job, He served the Lord, and the local church. I take it very personal when I see this "Woke", "Liberal" LGBTQ movement rip the guts out of the Methodist church that he served so faithfully.

---

I think what this should serve to illustrate is that those ambitious enough to seek leadership will ignore those they lead once they achieve control. Churches don't have to be democracies, but when you are making a change in doctrine, I would think you would tread very carefully if a large portion of the faithful disagreed with you. Schisms for political reasons are more understandable than schisms over doctrine that should hold to some sound theology that doesn't change with secular mores.

BQ2017 said:

---

I've been a Methodist for my entire life, and A&M United Methodist Church on Northgate is literally the perfect church, but I wonder how the upcoming Methodist split will affect it. The church is splitting over political lines, one branch will remain "The United Methodist Church" and the other will be named "The Global Methodist Church". The GMC is going to be the more conservative church, and the UMC will be the more liberal church. I wonder which branch A&M UMC will head towards. I think the church splitting is a good thing, it will allow more freedom for both parties to pursue their faith in the way they want to. What do y'all think?

---

Extensive division is inevitable for all Protestant churches. This has been witnessed from the beginning of the reformation. Whichever group you choose will absolutely split again down the road. This is due to secular culture influencing your church (on both sides).

I recommend Reformations by Carlos Eire. Very long book and the audible is like 30 hours but totally worth it. Seeing an extensive analysis of the origins of the reformation will be give you a better idea on where your churches are heading and what lays at the foundation of your belief.

Win At Life said:

---

I think they both should return to the original faith of the Jewish Apostles and Jewish Mashiak, and turn away from the pagan influenced gentile church origins that developed centuries later.

---

Gentile churches were not pagan haha. Muslims and modern Jews make the same argument because they don't believe in Christ. If somebody wants to return to the original faith then just visit your local Orthodox parish.

I've been wanting to go speak to an Orthodox priest and ask him everything about that denomination because I literally have no idea what it's about.

BQ2017 said:

---

I've been wanting to go speak to an Orthodox priest and ask him everything about that denomination because I literally have no idea what it's about.

---

Nice! Definitely check it out. More than likely it will look very odd and you will have no idea what's going on in the liturgy but definitely have a chat with the priest. The majority of my parish in Austin are converts from various Protestant churches. Honestly if you listen to podcasts check out Lord of Spirits. Two awesome orthodox priests that talk about a lot of interesting topics. Read or listen to "The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century. Incredible book. I think Amazon is sold out of the physical version but they have audible. Ancient faith might have the physical book in stock. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B097FBNQHV/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Here's another great book from an Orthodox priest, one of the co hosts of Lord of Spirits and one last book that gives a great overview of the Protestant reformation and what they actions and beliefs were.

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heterodoxy-Complicated-Religious-Landscape/dp/1944967176/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=orthodoxy+and+heterodoxy&qid=1628003301&sprefix=hetero&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Sand-Appraisal-Protestant-Reformers/dp/1939028507/ref=pd_aw_sim_1/140-0069973-8510165?pd_rd_w=uoVdp&pf_rd_p=ae696832-042c-467e-bd6c-9650de43ef82&pf_rd_r=FV22342SW868WQCJBGSW&pd_rd_r=e24ea0ed-7ed4-4324-81d7-d29c76857a6d&pd_rd_wg=GLdCb&pd_rd_i=1939028507&psc=1

Orthodox Texan said:

---

BQ2017 said:

---

I've been wanting to go speak to an Orthodox priest and ask him everything about that denomination because I literally have no idea what it's about.

---

Nice! Definitely check it out. More than likely it will look very odd and you will have no idea what's going on in the liturgy but definitely have a chat with the priest. The majority of my parish in Austin are converts from various Protestant churches. Honestly if you listen to podcasts check out Lord of Spirits. Two awesome orthodox priests that talk about a lot of interesting topics. Read or listen to "The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century. Incredible book. I think Amazon is sold out of the physical version but they have audible. Ancient faith might have the physical book in stock. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B097FBNQHV/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

---

The podcast will be painful to listen to if you can't handle excessive giggling or extensive nerd references. If you're good with both and constantly referencing a 1970s philosophy paper about being a bat then by all means take this advice.

Quote:

---

Extensive division is inevitable for all Protestant churches. This has been witnessed from the beginning of the reformation. Whichever group you choose will absolutely split again down the road. This is due to secular culture influencing your church (on both sides).

---

I agree, but I'm not sure the Orthodox are the people who should be casting stones here. Trying to navigate the different Orthodox churches, their branches, who they are in communion with, and who they are not is headache-inducing. Case in point is the lack of Ecumenical Councils in the last 1000 years. The Orthodox haven't been able to get all their patriarchs to agree to meet and discuss anything for a millenium. The only Christian Church without division is the Roman Catholic Church, and that sort thing comes with it's own host of problems

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Extensive division is inevitable for all Protestant churches. This has been witnessed from the beginning of the reformation. Whichever group you choose will absolutely split again down the road. This is due to secular culture influencing your church (on both sides).

---

I agree, but I'm not sure the Orthodox are the people who should be casting stones here. Trying to navigate the different Orthodox churches, their branches, who they are in communion with, and who they are not is headache-inducing. Case in point is the lack of Ecumenical Councils in the last 1000 years. The Orthodox haven't been able to get all their patriarchs to agree to meet and discuss anything for a millenium. The only Christian Church without division is the Roman Catholic Church, and that sort thing comes with it's own host of problems

---

The conservatives left in the reformation. Or rather, were kicked out. The liberals stayed. I guess that's not division though.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Extensive division is inevitable for all Protestant churches. This has been witnessed from the beginning of the reformation. Whichever group you choose will absolutely split again down the road. This is due to secular culture influencing your church (on both sides).

---

I agree, but I'm not sure the Orthodox are the people who should be casting stones here. Trying to navigate the different Orthodox churches, their branches, who they are in communion with, and who they are not is headache-inducing. Case in point is the lack of Ecumenical Councils in the last 1000 years. The Orthodox haven't been able to get all their patriarchs to agree to meet and discuss anything for a millenium. The only Christian Church without division is the Roman Catholic Church, and that sort thing comes with it's own host of problems

---

The conservatives left in the reformation. Or rather, were kicked out. The liberals stayed. I guess that's not division though.

---

How is the Orthodox Church liberal? Truly curious.

And for that matter, until Francis how is the Catholic Church liberal?

All the "liberal" Christians are in Protestant churches which came from the Reformation.

craigernaught said:

---

This is going to devolve into another liberal and UMC bashing thread. People are always out to blame their ideological opponents. It doesn't seem like that's the kind of thread you want, but some people can't help themselves.

My guess is that A&M UMC will go GMC and that most churches will follow the majority of churches in their conference and won't split by politics or ideology. Most churches didn't want the split, but it's happening to them anyway. They'll do what's best for their local church's big concerns, which unsurprisingly, isn't about gay people getting married and ordained. Most people don't care.

As a guy who is really bitter towards the UMC, I'd advise trying your best for you and your church to be charitable towards the opposition and try to keep some kind of connection in some capacity, even if it's just through prayer. Good luck!

---

Well, successive General conferences have rejected change in policy toward LGBTQ and the last go around, the bishops refused to allow the GC election to stand to appease progressives. What should conservatives do? Stand by while their churches are systematically destroyed by progressive initiatives? Their only option is to leave to preserve their churches since the progressive wing is rapidly losing members.

Point of order. Ecumenical councils aren't like state of the unions or anything that have ever happened with any consistency. They've always been held in response to heresy. I think the lack of ecumenical councils has more to do with the lack of an emperor than anything else. If the great schism or the reformation had happened under a unified Christian emperor, neither would have resulted in fracture.

There are local councils every year as a matter of canon.

I'm not sure I understand the comment about navigating various branches, communion state, etc. can you clarify that?

Lucky there's been no major heresies in the last 1000 years.

As an example, the Russian Orthodox just broke communion with Constantinople a few years ago. Most the Orthodox churches in the US are spun off the Russian Church, and they were granted "independence" by Russia a hundred years ago (now the OCA). But Constantinople never recognized this "independence". So if your local Orthodox church is OCA, then you are in communion with Russia. You may think you are in communion with Constantinople, but Constantinople doesn't think so, because they still consider the OCA as part of the Russian church. But the OCA considers themselves independent and never broke communion with Constantinople. So whether a OCA church on one side of town and a branch of the Greek Orthodox church in the other side of town are in communion is very confusing. That doesn't even figure in the dozens of other independent Orthodox churches that have branches in the US that may or may not be in communion with each other, Russia and Constantinople. A spreadsheet with all the different independent Orthodox churches and their shared or broken communions would be helpful

There really haven't been. I mean, no new ones. And again, I think the ability of the east to deal with anything other than survive under Islam and Communism has been limited.

Most Orthodox Christians in the US are Greek, not Russian. The Greek church is about four times the size of the OCA. The OCA is about the same size as the Antiochian. The other churches, generally, are smaller.

Picking the issue of the OCA is kind of a low blow, because it's a direct product of the destruction of the church in Russia by the godless communists, the subsequent "walling off" and formation of the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia (ROCOR) and the extreme distrust in Moscow due to the corrupting influence of the KGB and Soviet atheism over many decades. The OCA was not "independent" a hundred years ago, but 1970. Union between ROCOR and Moscow happened only in 2007.

The question of communion is a theoretical one, but the rubber meets the road at the bishops. Clergy from every Orthodox church in Houston concelebrated at the Sunday of Orthodoxy this year, and there's not a single thing that is confusing about that.

If anything, the current dispute over the Ukraine is nothing more than a continuation of the struggle of the Russian church under the political yoke of Russian government.

And the situation in the US is a mess, but is basically a result of every church here beginning as isolated immigrant churches in a foreign land. It will be resolved, and God willing there will be one church with no overlapping jurisdiction eventually. In history these things have always taken time.

I think this you have an outsider's perspective that more or less is not an accurate picture.

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Extensive division is inevitable for all Protestant churches. This has been witnessed from the beginning of the reformation. Whichever group you choose will absolutely split again down the road. This is due to secular culture influencing your church (on both sides).

---

I agree, but I'm not sure the Orthodox are the people who should be casting stones here. Trying to navigate the different Orthodox churches, their branches, who they are in communion with, and who they are not is headache-inducing. Case in point is the lack of Ecumenical Councils in the last 1000 years. The Orthodox haven't been able to get all their patriarchs to agree to meet and discuss anything for a millenium. The only Christian Church without division is the Roman Catholic Church, and that sort thing comes with it's own host of problems

---

The conservatives left in the reformation. Or rather, were kicked out. The liberals stayed. I guess that's not division though.

---

How is the Orthodox Church liberal? Truly curious.

And for that matter, until Francis how is the Catholic Church liberal?

All the "liberal" Christians are in Protestant churches which came from the Reformation.

---

I was talking about the Catholic Church. Do you think Luther was liberal or conservative? That is the key to my post.

BQ2017 said:

---

I've been wanting to go speak to an Orthodox priest and ask him everything about that denomination because I literally have no idea what it's about.

---

Come out to St. Silouan off of hwy 30! Divine Liturgy starts @ 10 am on Sundays. As previously stated, you will be out of your element, but be patient and open. There aren't welcoming committees to usher you in. Everyone will be venerating and signing the cross and you'll have no clue what to do. Watch. Soak it in. Learn as you go.

After the Liturgy stay around and meet the parishioners. Its great community of caring people.

Start a thread with questions, there are several orthodox posters on here. Glad to talk about it.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Extensive division is inevitable for all Protestant churches. This has been witnessed from the beginning of the reformation. Whichever group you choose will absolutely split again down the road. This is due to secular culture influencing your church (on both sides).

---

I agree, but I'm not sure the Orthodox are the people who should be casting stones here. Trying to navigate the different Orthodox churches, their branches, who they are in communion with, and who they are not is headache-inducing. Case in point is the lack of Ecumenical Councils in the last 1000 years. The Orthodox haven't been able to get all their patriarchs to agree to meet and discuss anything for a millenium. The only Christian Church without division is the Roman Catholic Church, and that sort thing comes with it's own host of problems

---

The conservatives left in the reformation. Or rather, were kicked out. The liberals stayed. I guess that's not division though.

---

How is the Orthodox Church liberal? Truly curious.

And for that matter, until Francis how is the Catholic Church liberal?

All the "liberal" Christians are in Protestant churches which came from the Reformation.

---

I was talking about the Catholic Church. Do you think Luther was liberal or conservative? That is the key to my post.

---

Interesting question as I think Luther and the Reformers have been misunderstood throughout history.

I think their goal was to get rid of corruption in the Catholic Church, not to separate from it.

Now whether that is "liberal" or "conservative" I think depends on your present day viewpoint.

If you are Reformed, you probably think it is conservative as it establishes the five Solas which are the backbone of Reformed theology.

If you are Catholic or Orthodox, you probably think it is liberal as it goes against Church tradition established for centuries and Apostolic succession.

Great post, I agree.

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Extensive division is inevitable for all Protestant churches. This has been witnessed from the beginning of the reformation. Whichever group you choose will absolutely split again down the road. This is due to secular culture influencing your church (on both sides).

---

I agree, but I'm not sure the Orthodox are the people who should be casting stones here. Trying to navigate the different Orthodox churches, their branches, who they are in communion with, and who they are not is headache-inducing. Case in point is the lack of Ecumenical Councils in the last 1000 years. The Orthodox haven't been able to get all their patriarchs to agree to meet and discuss anything for a millenium. The only Christian Church without division is the Roman Catholic Church, and that sort thing comes with it's own host of problems

---

The conservatives left in the reformation. Or rather, were kicked out. The liberals stayed. I guess that's not division though.

---

How is the Orthodox Church liberal? Truly curious.

And for that matter, until Francis how is the Catholic Church liberal?

All the "liberal" Christians are in Protestant churches which came from the Reformation.

---

I was talking about the Catholic Church. Do you think Luther was liberal or conservative? That is the key to my post.

---

Interesting question as I think Luther and the Reformers have been misunderstood throughout history.

I think their goal was to get rid of corruption in the Catholic Church, not to separate from it.

Now whether that is "liberal" or "conservative" I think depends on your present day viewpoint.

If you are Reformed, you probably think it is conservative as it establishes the five Solas which are the backbone of Reformed theology.

If you are Catholic or Orthodox, you probably think it is liberal as it goes against Church tradition established for centuries and Apostolic succession.

---

It wasn't just indulgences though because purgatory was also being criticized. You won't find the solas in his theses, nor a discussion of apostolic succession. The framing of that to view it is a wrong way to look at it. He advocated getting back to a scriptural view of repentance and life and even thought the pope would be horrified if he knew what the priests were teaching about indulgences. It was a conservative view of the church at the time.

I am curious to how you define a scriptural view of repentance?

And I agree indulgences are not repentance but that was the corruption Luther was trying to clean up.

The classic theology of repentance consisting of turning from sin was taught the same until the advent of indulgences if I am not mistaken.

And did the Orthodox Church ever have indulgences?

As much as the modern Reformed and Protestant churches deny it, the entire Western Church, Catholic and Protestant are based on Augustine theology.

Now you can argue over grace alone or grace and works and whether works are partly due to the person or not, but those things are not salvific imho.

Romans 10:13

dermdoc said:

---

I am curious to how you define a scriptural view of repentance?

---

Why mine? He put his own thoughts on that in the theses.

Well, I do not believe you are Lutheran so I am unsure how you describe repentance.

dermdoc said:

---

Well, I do not believe you are Lutheran so I am unsure how you describe repentance.

---

Yes we're crossed because I don't frame luther's call for repentance as my view, as what I agree with. I frame it as him saying it and him thinking about it that way. Which I think is clear reading the theses, that his idea is going back to the Bible and I'm just using a modern term of 'scripture' to describe it.

Edit: yes your repentance and indulgence post is right on. The distinction I make is simply calling him a conservative in his time because he believed those things. That's all I'm doing.

I don't think imposing the dichotomy works. In some ways he was conservative. In others he was radically progressive - for example, his views on ecclesiology, tradition, conciliar authority, monastic vows, etc.

Zobel said:

---

I don't think imposing the dichotomy works. In some ways he was conservative. In others he was radically progressive - for example, his views on ecclesiology, tradition, conciliar authority, monastic vows, etc.

---

Yes that is entirely valid as a criticism and my focus could be quite small and reductionist, much like reducing the Church of England to just divorce. It's taking contemporary terms and applying them to a different context. He might not have thought of himself as such at all.

Some of the theological views codified afterwards by the Catholic Church would likely have been tempered had he stayed, much like his views would have as well.