This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

#593330
Thanks @LUminary for getting us back on track.

The discussion got away from us a bit. Let's stick to discussing the potential Methodist Church split. If there are those of you who would like to continue the theology discussion, feel free to start a separate thread on that.
#593332
thepostman wrote: January 7th, 2020, 7:36 am Thanks @LUminary for getting us back on track.

The discussion got away from us a bit. Let's stick to discussing the potential Methodist Church split. If there are those of you who would like to continue the theology discussion, feel free to start a separate thread on that.
Don’t tell me what to do! :)
ATrain liked this
#593333
I'm not sure you can discuss the Split without theology(though this conversation wasn't prudent to the topic). It's like talking about atonement without talking about predestination. They're too intertwined.

I frankly don’t understand how someone can read Scripture and believe that practicing an LGBTQ lifestyle is in accordance with the Word. But my operating word there is practicing. I absolutely believe someone can have same sex attraction and be a Christian, the same way an Alcoholic can be sober and Follow. Sin is sin. We are all fallen and tempted.

The nontraditionist UMC is seeking to perform ceremonies and allow pastors that are not repentant of a sin that I believe scripture is clear about.

Most on this board were hesitant to have HCHF be our football coach for a sin that he has made clear he repents of. I can't understand how someone believes that someone should be in a pastoral role while also actively pursuing a lifestyle founded in sin.

The objective thought is the new UMC doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin and thus everything else falls in line.

I understand a dichotomy over what constitutes a sin.
#593336
If we’re looking at just church structure and this proposed split, I think it’s crap that the progressive wing is essentially kicking out the traditional side. The progressive side will keep the majority of the money and resources which will put many churches in the predicament of standing by their convictions or risk closing their doors.
Purple Haize liked this
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593337
Class of 20Something wrote: January 7th, 2020, 9:30 am I'm not sure you can discuss the Split without theology(though this conversation wasn't prudent to the topic). It's like talking about atonement without talking about predestination. They're too intertwined.

I frankly don’t understand how someone can read Scripture and believe that practicing an LGBTQ lifestyle is in accordance with the Word. But my operating word there is practicing. I absolutely believe someone can have same sex attraction and be a Christian, the same way an Alcoholic can be sober and Follow. Sin is sin. We are all fallen and tempted.

The nontraditionist UMC is seeking to perform ceremonies and allow pastors that are not repentant of a sin that I believe scripture is clear about.

Most on this board were hesitant to have HCHF be our football coach for a sin that he has made clear he repents of. I can't understand how someone believes that someone should be in a pastoral role while also actively pursuing a lifestyle founded in sin.

The objective thought is the new UMC doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin and thus everything else falls in line.

I understand a dichotomy over what constitutes a sin.
Agree 100% with this post
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593339
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 9:49 am If we’re looking at just church structure and this proposed split, I think it’s crap that the progressive wing is essentially kicking out the traditional side. The progressive side will keep the majority of the money and resources which will put many churches in the predicament of standing by their convictions or risk closing their doors.
Agree with this post totally, although some of me would also like the denomination to stay together and eat itself, it may be too far gone, but that would not be the Christian response. Hopefully the traditional wing can have a backbone and not get bullied into this
#593340
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 9:49 am If we’re looking at just church structure and this proposed split, I think it’s crap that the progressive wing is essentially kicking out the traditional side. The progressive side will keep the majority of the money and resources which will put many churches in the predicament of standing by their convictions or risk closing their doors.
That’s why o asked the question earlier about why don’t they just leave. But the clarification made that point clear. You are right. But I still think there should be a way that those congregations etc that want to split can do so with assets etc. But that’s on paper I don’t know how it would play out in real life.
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593341
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 9:49 am If we’re looking at just church structure and this proposed split, I think it’s crap that the progressive wing is essentially kicking out the traditional side. The progressive side will keep the majority of the money and resources which will put many churches in the predicament of standing by their convictions or risk closing their doors.
And the progressive wing is tiny, the progressive Methodist Church across the alley from my house is almost dead
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593343
Also, the church accepting homosexual behavior is a huge slap in the face to those who have same sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life, can you imagine the church telling them, just kidding about sexual morals, you can do whatever you want now, you've been wasting your time following scripture. They are ushering people to hell with a pat on the back and a smile on their face
ballcoach15 liked this
By LUDad
Posts
#593344
I have not read the this thread so forgive me if I am covering old ground.

I attend a UMC back in the 60's as a kid. I was not saved at the time but to my recollection, I believe that the gospel was preached. After going forward at a L. Ford crusade in my early 30's I started going to a UMC because that was what I knew. WOW, what a change. Perhaps part of that was because I was now looking through a different lens, but I got absolutely nothing out of the service. I had a hunger they could not quench.

I believe that as the UMC seminaries got more and more infiltrated by liberal theologians, they started graduating replicas of themselves. Over time, these liberal graduates simply quit preaching the gospel. Now, even if a graduate comes out of seminary as a believer, every 4 years they end up hitting new congregation after congregation that, by and large, has been liberated from the faith. Instead of reviving the congerations, they are compromised, themselves. They simply get beat down and change or leave the demonination.

For the UMC to survive, I believe they need to get away from the four year cycle (I am assuming they still do this) so that pastors who are true believers have time to renew the churches. They also have to cleanse the seminaries. Otherwise, they are toast, except as a social organization. That's my 2 cents worth.
#593346
LUDad wrote: January 7th, 2020, 11:17 am I have not read the this thread so forgive me if I am covering old ground.

I attend a UMC back in the 60's as a kid. I was not saved at the time but to my recollection, I believe that the gospel was preached. After going forward at a L. Ford crusade in my early 30's I started going to a UMC because that was what I knew. WOW, what a change. Perhaps part of that was because I was now looking through a different lens, but I got absolutely nothing out of the service. I had a hunger they could not quench.

I believe that as the UMC seminaries got more and more infiltrated by liberal theologians, they started graduating replicas of themselves. Over time, these liberal graduates simply quit preaching the gospel. Now, even if a graduate comes out of seminary as a believer, every 4 years they end up hitting new congregation after congregation that, by and large, has been liberated from the faith. Instead of reviving the congerations, they are compromised, themselves. They simply get beat down and change or leave the demonination.

For the UMC to survive, I believe they need to get away from the four year cycle (I am assuming they still do this) so that pastors who are true believers have time to renew the churches. They also have to cleanse the seminaries. Otherwise, they are toast, except as a social organization. That's my 2 cents worth.
I think you are seeing that among a lot of the mainline Denominations. Growing up non Denominational I don’t have much experience except working at a Presbyterian College (tip of the hat to Billy Graham). I believe that’s why any and most church growth is away from Denominational oversight. Baptist’s are interesting but there are variations amongst them and I’m not sure how much growth they are seeing across the board either.
#593349
After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
ATrain liked this
#593350
I think the issue comes in allowing LGBTQ+ clergy. It's one thing for an individual church to allow same sex couples to marry or lead within volunteer roles. It's a bigger issue for the denomination to ordain a minister because in doing so, you are saying they are living a Biblically pure life and endorsing same-sex marriage from a corporate level.
#593352
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:20 pm I think the issue comes in allowing LGBTQ+ clergy. It's one thing for an individual church to allow same sex couples to marry or lead within volunteer roles. It's a bigger issue for the denomination to ordain a minister because in doing so, you are saying they are living a Biblically pure life and endorsing same-sex marriage from a corporate level.
This makes a lot of sense. In this way, it’s impossible to not take a position. Either they ordain or they don’t. And if it’s true that the leadership assigns ministers, it would open up to a majority non-affirming church being potentially assigned a gay minister, which would be problematic.
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593354
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
Calling sin not sin IS a salvation issue, and an honest question who decides what are "essentials" and what are "non essentials"? My denomination the ECC basically has the same mantra and I believe it is what has lead the churches into this problem, people can claim anything isn't essential, it comes down to man's opinion is authority over God's written word. I'm not attacking you, just raising the question
#593359
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:11 pm When I drive by a Methodist Church the verse about better to have a millstone around their neck comes to mind.
You're not wrong.... Sad situation all around. God's unchanging truth and his church will always prevail, however.
By rtb72
Posts
#593360
LUminary wrote: January 7th, 2020, 4:50 am IMO, an accurate take on this most recent proposal regarding schism in the UMC:

https://timothytennent.com/2020/01/05/ ... eparation/
This appears to be very accurate and a reflection of where the denomination is. My family and I fall in with the more traditional side of the debate, as would many in the AME. I think we on the traditional side are just waiting to see how it plays out at the general conference.
#593361
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:08 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
Calling sin not sin IS a salvation issue, and an honest question who decides what are "essentials" and what are "non essentials"? My denomination the ECC basically has the same mantra and I believe it is what has lead the churches into this problem, people can claim anything isn't essential, it comes down to man's opinion is authority over God's written word. I'm not attacking you, just raising the question
The most basic view of essentials is to just use the early creeds.

But the thing you’re still evading is our interpretive responsibility. I’m pretty sure everyone in this conversation believes the Bible is God’s inspired word. Yet, I’m sure no two people here agree on every point of doctrine. I’m sure we would all have different lists of what qualifies as sin. It’s not because some take the Bible more seriously than others, it’s because the Bible requires us to do interpretive work that may land us in different places, and that’s ok. God is big enough and His grace is big enough.
thepostman, Purple Haize, rtb72 and 1 others liked this
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#593364
Purple Haize wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:39 pm
Cider Jim wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:10 pm I just "foed " my second person, and it feels so good. :pbjtime
Now we wanna know who the first was. And will I be the 3rd. Ha
You could do what I did and just ask him who the first was. As for your chances of being the third, they are slim to none if he hasn't done it by now.

That said, I've seen individual churches split over the colors of the carpets and a host of other petty issues . A denomination splitting over theological differences isn't anything new, and the UMC isn't the first denomination to split over this topic. I doubt it'll be the last.
Purple Haize liked this
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593365
chris leedlelee wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:24 pm
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:11 pm When I drive by a Methodist Church the verse about better to have a millstone around their neck comes to mind.
You're not wrong.... Sad situation all around. God's unchanging truth and his church will always prevail, however.
It also should not surprise us to see believers fall away, the Bible tells us this is going to happen. Apostasy, it's happened in my own extended family over this issue.
chris leedlelee liked this
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
NCAA Realignment Megathread

Does Gonzaga and St Mary have D1 football ? When[…]

LaTech

We are halfway through the season, yet we are stil[…]

Dondi Costin - LU President

HEB is alright, but honestly Trader Joe's is my […]

JMU for 6 games

The fact of the matter is, JMU and Liberty could n[…]