United Methodist Church schism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t they just join other churches that have split? Like Episcopalian and Anglican? Do we need more denominations??

There are serious theological differences between anglicans/Episcopalians and Methodists though the way progressive Methodists approach things, one wonders why they even pretend to care about theology.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in the United Methodist church, but I haven’t been attending as much lately. In the past, I think the Methodist church was tolerant and accepting of people with different sexual orientation in the congregation but they were not permitted leadership roles in the denomination. However, there has been a movement to change from tolerating to embracing alternative lifestyles within the church that is “a bridge too far” for many United Methodists who were taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate and flaunt them as a desirable way of being.

OP here. I'm amused by the several tangents that have come out of the thread, but it's nice to see people talking nicely (mostly) to each other about religion. Religion has always been a volatile topic, but it seems to be even moreso in the current very divisive atmosphere.

Yes, the Methodist church has always been tolerant. And I think most of the reconciling ministries that are out there would be fine with continuing as things were with some churches holding a more tolerant attitude and some holding a more conservative attitude. Each church allowed to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the conservative faction pushed for the highly restrictive Traditional Plan that would require all of the churches to adhere to the very intolerant conservative practices. They are the ones that forced the issue by upsetting the compromise.
Not allowing gay parishioners to join the clergy, not allowing churches to perform gay marriages and even penalizing clergy who perform gay marriages is really the "bridge too far" practice. It's the conservatives who decided to go with the nuclear option and to have the have these restrictions codified in the Book of Discipline with very draconian penalties for violations.

So, as you say, many UMC members have been taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate or flaunt them. And yet, the Traditional Plan has essentially codified an intolerance of differences. I, myself, am not gay, but am in an interracial marriage. I have been in churches where the congregations are unwelcoming to "people like us" and I fully embrace and appreciate our church for their welcoming attitude. Neither our gay clergy member or our gay members flaunt their sexual orientation. And the only celebration we have about sexual orientation is that they are welcome to our church. As one of our clergy says, our table is open to any and everyone who wishes to share the word of the Lord and the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the attitude and behavior that I approve of and want to be a part of. I admire and respect our one gay minister as much as the rest of our ministers. I appreciate and am happy for our gay members who participate in the church and are waiting to be married this Fall (assuming that they are allowed to marry in the church). I don't make a big issue about gay rights, but I want them welcomed and accepted for who they are. I spent enough of my life as a minority who was never fully tolerated to know how much that attitude hurts and would not want anyone to feel that. I would hope that over 50 years of civil rights have taught us to treat others equally, but as far as we have come, it seems we still have oh, so far to go.

Drive by an UMC church in the District and a huge rainbow flag will be flying outside. That's celebrating the cause and taking the focus of Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would they subject their kids to such dated, slow changing, backwards institutions like a conservative organized religions? These places are lost in time.

I mean look at the Catholics...it is doctrine that females cant even hold positions of leadership. I am going to immerse my little girls in that? why?

Women and men have different roles; it doesn’t mean women’s roles are any less important. I am a woman, the breadwinner for my family, and a practicing and faithful Catholic who will raise my boys AND girls Catholic.

Luckily, you're in the minority and by the time your kids grow up, maybe they won't be catholic anymore or will have trouble finding a nearby Catholic church to indoctrinate your grandchildren

I may be in the minority in the US, but it’s a big world out there, most of which does not agree that women can have penises and all the other nonsense liberals are currently embracing.

What the Catholic Church does not seem to get is that you don't need a penis to hold positions of leadership, responsibility, power and prestige

Plus it's a penis that is allowed to be used for only one of its intended functions - urination.

And plenty can urinate just fine without a penis so what gives Catholics? It is 2020, why the continued discrimination against women as leaders of their congregations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in the United Methodist church, but I haven’t been attending as much lately. In the past, I think the Methodist church was tolerant and accepting of people with different sexual orientation in the congregation but they were not permitted leadership roles in the denomination. However, there has been a movement to change from tolerating to embracing alternative lifestyles within the church that is “a bridge too far” for many United Methodists who were taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate and flaunt them as a desirable way of being.

OP here. I'm amused by the several tangents that have come out of the thread, but it's nice to see people talking nicely (mostly) to each other about religion. Religion has always been a volatile topic, but it seems to be even moreso in the current very divisive atmosphere.

Yes, the Methodist church has always been tolerant. And I think most of the reconciling ministries that are out there would be fine with continuing as things were with some churches holding a more tolerant attitude and some holding a more conservative attitude. Each church allowed to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the conservative faction pushed for the highly restrictive Traditional Plan that would require all of the churches to adhere to the very intolerant conservative practices. They are the ones that forced the issue by upsetting the compromise.
Not allowing gay parishioners to join the clergy, not allowing churches to perform gay marriages and even penalizing clergy who perform gay marriages is really the "bridge too far" practice. It's the conservatives who decided to go with the nuclear option and to have the have these restrictions codified in the Book of Discipline with very draconian penalties for violations.

So, as you say, many UMC members have been taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate or flaunt them. And yet, the Traditional Plan has essentially codified an intolerance of differences. I, myself, am not gay, but am in an interracial marriage. I have been in churches where the congregations are unwelcoming to "people like us" and I fully embrace and appreciate our church for their welcoming attitude. Neither our gay clergy member or our gay members flaunt their sexual orientation. And the only celebration we have about sexual orientation is that they are welcome to our church. As one of our clergy says, our table is open to any and everyone who wishes to share the word of the Lord and the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the attitude and behavior that I approve of and want to be a part of. I admire and respect our one gay minister as much as the rest of our ministers. I appreciate and am happy for our gay members who participate in the church and are waiting to be married this Fall (assuming that they are allowed to marry in the church). I don't make a big issue about gay rights, but I want them welcomed and accepted for who they are. I spent enough of my life as a minority who was never fully tolerated to know how much that attitude hurts and would not want anyone to feel that. I would hope that over 50 years of civil rights have taught us to treat others equally, but as far as we have come, it seems we still have oh, so far to go.

Drive by an UMC church in the District and a huge rainbow flag will be flying outside. That's celebrating the cause and taking the focus of Christ.

If they fly other flags, like US flags that is also taking the focus off of Christ. What flags are allowed? What are the Christ flags?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in the United Methodist church, but I haven’t been attending as much lately. In the past, I think the Methodist church was tolerant and accepting of people with different sexual orientation in the congregation but they were not permitted leadership roles in the denomination. However, there has been a movement to change from tolerating to embracing alternative lifestyles within the church that is “a bridge too far” for many United Methodists who were taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate and flaunt them as a desirable way of being.

So they can be less than, second-class, marginalized citizens in your church. Charming, and so Christlike!

A "bridge too far" seems to mean being allowed to exist, but not being allowed to talk about who you are, because that is considered "flaunting" behavior

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would they subject their kids to such dated, slow changing, backwards institutions like a conservative organized religions? These places are lost in time.

I mean look at the Catholics...it is doctrine that females cant even hold positions of leadership. I am going to immerse my little girls in that? why?

Women and men have different roles; it doesn’t mean women’s roles are any less important. I am a woman, the breadwinner for my family, and a practicing and faithful Catholic who will raise my boys AND girls Catholic.

Luckily, you're in the minority and by the time your kids grow up, maybe they won't be catholic anymore or will have trouble finding a nearby Catholic church to indoctrinate your grandchildren

I may be in the minority in the US, but it’s a big world out there, most of which does not agree that women can have penises and all the other nonsense liberals are currently embracing.

What the Catholic Church does not seem to get is that you don't need a penis to hold positions of leadership, responsibility, power and prestige

Plus it's a penis that is allowed to be used for only one of its intended functions - urination.

And plenty can urinate just fine without a penis so what gives Catholics? It is 2020, why the continued discrimination against women as leaders of their congregations?

+!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in the United Methodist church, but I haven’t been attending as much lately. In the past, I think the Methodist church was tolerant and accepting of people with different sexual orientation in the congregation but they were not permitted leadership roles in the denomination. However, there has been a movement to change from tolerating to embracing alternative lifestyles within the church that is “a bridge too far” for many United Methodists who were taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate and flaunt them as a desirable way of being.

OP here. I'm amused by the several tangents that have come out of the thread, but it's nice to see people talking nicely (mostly) to each other about religion. Religion has always been a volatile topic, but it seems to be even moreso in the current very divisive atmosphere.

Yes, the Methodist church has always been tolerant. And I think most of the reconciling ministries that are out there would be fine with continuing as things were with some churches holding a more tolerant attitude and some holding a more conservative attitude. Each church allowed to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the conservative faction pushed for the highly restrictive Traditional Plan that would require all of the churches to adhere to the very intolerant conservative practices. They are the ones that forced the issue by upsetting the compromise.
Not allowing gay parishioners to join the clergy, not allowing churches to perform gay marriages and even penalizing clergy who perform gay marriages is really the "bridge too far" practice. It's the conservatives who decided to go with the nuclear option and to have the have these restrictions codified in the Book of Discipline with very draconian penalties for violations.

So, as you say, many UMC members have been taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate or flaunt them. And yet, the Traditional Plan has essentially codified an intolerance of differences. I, myself, am not gay, but am in an interracial marriage. I have been in churches where the congregations are unwelcoming to "people like us" and I fully embrace and appreciate our church for their welcoming attitude. Neither our gay clergy member or our gay members flaunt their sexual orientation. And the only celebration we have about sexual orientation is that they are welcome to our church. As one of our clergy says, our table is open to any and everyone who wishes to share the word of the Lord and the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the attitude and behavior that I approve of and want to be a part of. I admire and respect our one gay minister as much as the rest of our ministers. I appreciate and am happy for our gay members who participate in the church and are waiting to be married this Fall (assuming that they are allowed to marry in the church). I don't make a big issue about gay rights, but I want them welcomed and accepted for who they are. I spent enough of my life as a minority who was never fully tolerated to know how much that attitude hurts and would not want anyone to feel that. I would hope that over 50 years of civil rights have taught us to treat others equally, but as far as we have come, it seems we still have oh, so far to go.

Drive by an UMC church in the District and a huge rainbow flag will be flying outside. That's celebrating the cause and taking the focus of Christ.

If they fly other flags, like US flags that is also taking the focus off of Christ. What flags are allowed? What are the Christ flags?

Yes. What exactly are the Christ flags? What is that flag pole for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in the United Methodist church, but I haven’t been attending as much lately. In the past, I think the Methodist church was tolerant and accepting of people with different sexual orientation in the congregation but they were not permitted leadership roles in the denomination. However, there has been a movement to change from tolerating to embracing alternative lifestyles within the church that is “a bridge too far” for many United Methodists who were taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate and flaunt them as a desirable way of being.

OP here. I'm amused by the several tangents that have come out of the thread, but it's nice to see people talking nicely (mostly) to each other about religion. Religion has always been a volatile topic, but it seems to be even moreso in the current very divisive atmosphere.

Yes, the Methodist church has always been tolerant. And I think most of the reconciling ministries that are out there would be fine with continuing as things were with some churches holding a more tolerant attitude and some holding a more conservative attitude. Each church allowed to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the conservative faction pushed for the highly restrictive Traditional Plan that would require all of the churches to adhere to the very intolerant conservative practices. They are the ones that forced the issue by upsetting the compromise.
Not allowing gay parishioners to join the clergy, not allowing churches to perform gay marriages and even penalizing clergy who perform gay marriages is really the "bridge too far" practice. It's the conservatives who decided to go with the nuclear option and to have the have these restrictions codified in the Book of Discipline with very draconian penalties for violations.

So, as you say, many UMC members have been taught to be tolerant of differences but not celebrate or flaunt them. And yet, the Traditional Plan has essentially codified an intolerance of differences. I, myself, am not gay, but am in an interracial marriage. I have been in churches where the congregations are unwelcoming to "people like us" and I fully embrace and appreciate our church for their welcoming attitude. Neither our gay clergy member or our gay members flaunt their sexual orientation. And the only celebration we have about sexual orientation is that they are welcome to our church. As one of our clergy says, our table is open to any and everyone who wishes to share the word of the Lord and the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the attitude and behavior that I approve of and want to be a part of. I admire and respect our one gay minister as much as the rest of our ministers. I appreciate and am happy for our gay members who participate in the church and are waiting to be married this Fall (assuming that they are allowed to marry in the church). I don't make a big issue about gay rights, but I want them welcomed and accepted for who they are. I spent enough of my life as a minority who was never fully tolerated to know how much that attitude hurts and would not want anyone to feel that. I would hope that over 50 years of civil rights have taught us to treat others equally, but as far as we have come, it seems we still have oh, so far to go.

Drive by an UMC church in the District and a huge rainbow flag will be flying outside. That's celebrating the cause and taking the focus of Christ.

If they fly other flags, like US flags that is also taking the focus off of Christ. What flags are allowed? What are the Christ flags?

Yes. What exactly are the Christ flags? What is that flag pole for?

It's for the Methodist flag. https://www.united-states-flag.com/united-methodist-3x5-ft-outdoor-nylon-flag.html?utm_source=googlepepla&utm_medium=adwords&id=875449883277&gclid=Cj0KCQiA9dDwBRC9ARIsABbedBP0qOg--Fb3SEwr4XMmZLkO2DuMWi7TCO3rzxoNvzuZgNt041aWUMsaAr3zEALw_wcB

[Anonymous]

OK. IMO that flag is focused on the United Methodist Church.

[Anonymous]

Traditionalist here. I am not happy with the proposal either but it seems like the split is unavoidable. I am more curious about how many will eventually leave the UMC and join the new denomination (let’s call it NMC). Currently there are about 6.5 million UMC members in the U.S. Let’s say about 0.5 million or 10 percent leave the methodis church all together. Then we have about 6 million members left. I think at least 1.5 million or 25 percent out of 6 million will join the NMC. Note that this proposal is actually more favorable to traditionalists compared to what PCA or Anglican churches got. 1.5 million is still pretty significant and I am looking forward to the fresh start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traditionalist here. I am not happy with the proposal either but it seems like the split is unavoidable. I am more curious about how many will eventually leave the UMC and join the new denomination (let’s call it NMC). Currently there are about 6.5 million UMC members in the U.S. Let’s say about 0.5 million or 10 percent leave the methodis church all together. Then we have about 6 million members left. I think at least 1.5 million or 25 percent out of 6 million will join the NMC. Note that this proposal is actually more favorable to traditionalists compared to what PCA or Anglican churches got. 1.5 million is still pretty significant and I am looking forward to the fresh start.

Ok but still, even assuming that none of those 1.5 million are LBGTQ (seem unlikely but for arguments sake we will assume), 4 to 5 or more percent of their children will statistically be LBGTQ. If those members eventually leave, the new denomination will still slowly shrink unless you figure out a way to appeal to new converts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traditionalist here. I am not happy with the proposal either but it seems like the split is unavoidable. I am more curious about how many will eventually leave the UMC and join the new denomination (let’s call it NMC). Currently there are about 6.5 million UMC members in the U.S. Let’s say about 0.5 million or 10 percent leave the methodis church all together. Then we have about 6 million members left. I think at least 1.5 million or 25 percent out of 6 million will join the NMC. Note that this proposal is actually more favorable to traditionalists compared to what PCA or Anglican churches got. 1.5 million is still pretty significant and I am looking forward to the fresh start.

Ok but still, even assuming that none of those 1.5 million are LBGTQ (seem unlikely but for arguments sake we will assume), 4 to 5 or more percent of their children will statistically be LBGTQ. If those members eventually leave, the new denomination will still slowly shrink unless you figure out a way to appeal to new converts.

We will focus on the other 96 percent, as been done for more than two thousand years.

[Anonymous]

What would be the name of new denomination? I still like the name UMC. Maybe unified methodist church or union methodist church?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traditionalist here. I am not happy with the proposal either but it seems like the split is unavoidable. I am more curious about how many will eventually leave the UMC and join the new denomination (let’s call it NMC). Currently there are about 6.5 million UMC members in the U.S. Let’s say about 0.5 million or 10 percent leave the methodis church all together. Then we have about 6 million members left. I think at least 1.5 million or 25 percent out of 6 million will join the NMC. Note that this proposal is actually more favorable to traditionalists compared to what PCA or Anglican churches got. 1.5 million is still pretty significant and I am looking forward to the fresh start.

Ok but still, even assuming that none of those 1.5 million are LBGTQ (seem unlikely but for arguments sake we will assume), 4 to 5 or more percent of their children will statistically be LBGTQ. If those members eventually leave, the new denomination will still slowly shrink unless you figure out a way to appeal to new converts.

We will focus on the other 96 percent, as been done for more than two thousand years.

Ouch. But ok. God works in mysterious ways. 2020 years for most to evolve and longer for the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traditionalist here. I am not happy with the proposal either but it seems like the split is unavoidable. I am more curious about how many will eventually leave the UMC and join the new denomination (let’s call it NMC). Currently there are about 6.5 million UMC members in the U.S. Let’s say about 0.5 million or 10 percent leave the methodis church all together. Then we have about 6 million members left. I think at least 1.5 million or 25 percent out of 6 million will join the NMC. Note that this proposal is actually more favorable to traditionalists compared to what PCA or Anglican churches got. 1.5 million is still pretty significant and I am looking forward to the fresh start.

OP here. Yes, I think you are right. Based on the voting at the general conference, I think about 25% of the churches in the US will join the new TUMC denomination and about 75% will remain in the mainstream UMC.

While I don't like the idea of schism, I do support the concept that every church and congregation should have the right to worship the way that they feel comfortable as a community. And if the schism allows both groups to do so, then I approve (not that my approval means much).