J.B.Katz said:

---

JL said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Nobody is saying a person with same-sex attraction shouldn't be able to go to church. That's not why churches are leaving the UMC and you know it.

You always come on this board and change the subject to virtue signal. For the love of God, please stop.

---

Churches joining the "global" side won't recognize or condone gay marriage or ordain gay ministers.

Being allowed to attend a church where, if you are gay and out of the closet, you're considered a sinner unless you're celibate, isn't much of an accommodation. That recognition is at the root of the split. Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members. That's how the UMC has operated for the past 30 years.

Christ calls people to live in community. Telling gay people the only way they can live in community without being egregious sinners is to be celibate isn't living in community.

---

As a United Methodist pastor, I think that you speak well of the gay community and the church as a community that Jesus intended

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Well said.

---

What other sins do you think your church should be more accepting of, and why? And by what authority do you declare them no longer sin?

---

Well, my church tradition has said that Catholicism, abolitionism, integration, and interracial marriage were all sins.

So, I guess by the same process I determined that my church tradition was wrong.

---

To clarify, I was asking what sins (according to scripture not man-made church tradition) you thought were no longer sins and by what authority you declare them as such?

Thanks.

---

The sins I listed were based on scripture. Those who preached against them felt their views came from God, not man-made tradition. And they were every bit as convicted as you are that their positions came from the scriptures.

When I was a kid, my pastor proclaimed from the pulpit that integration was sinful, and he waved his Bible when he did it. He even quoted passages. The same for interracial marriage.

W.A. Criswell, pastor of FBC Dallas, once said, "Anyone who supports integration is an infidel, dead from the neck up." And there was no greater Biblicist than old Wally Amos.

I've also read literature that Catholicism was sinful and the antiChrist of Revelation was the Pope. Those guys had scripture to back them up as well. About 100 years ago, this view was universally held among that Bible-believing bunch called Southern Baptist. B. H. Carroll of BU fame held it and promoted it.

So, sometimes Christ followers and churches get it wrong.

Osodecentx said:

---

A Messy Methodist Church Schism
Hundreds of local congregations have left over teachings on sex.
Theological schisms are never pretty. The United Methodist ChurchAmerica's third-largest religious body, with over 6.2 million membersis in the thick of its own over its teachings on sexuality. Hundreds of congregations have voted to leave the denomination, which had 13 million members world-wide as of 2020, and thousands more likely will. On Aug. 7, United Methodism's second- and seventh-largest churches by attendance, both in the Houston area, voted to quit the denomination.
What brought United Methodism to this divide was its decision-making body's 2019 "Traditional Plan"a document that affirmed its ban on same-sex marriage and mandated that all clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married. That sets the church apart from nearly every other mainline Protestant denomination. The traditionalists won thanks to votes from conservative African delegates, whose churches have grown by millions even as the U.S. has declined by nearly the same magnitude.
When liberal-leaning U.S. bishops and clergy chafed at complying with the plan, a compromise was born. In early 2020 conservative and liberal church leaders announced a "Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation." The protocol allowed each congregation to vote its preference between a more traditional or more liberal denominationand was expected to be approved at the General Conference's quadrennial assembly in Minneapolis that year. But then Covid arrived, and the convention was postponed three times, to 2024. The decision left many traditionalists feeling betrayed and exasperated. In May of this year, those who couldn't wait any longer launched the Global Methodist Churcha traditionally conservative denomination, led by the Rev. Keith Boyette.
Now some congregations are weighing whether to join this Global Methodist Church. Local church properties are owned by the denomination through state-level conferences. The 2019 General Conference approved a temporary policy allowing congregations to leave with property by paying two years' worth of "apportionments" to the national church, plus clergy pension liabilities. Those exits must happen by December 2023.
Between 2019 and 2021, 167 congregations exited. When the 53 local annual conferences met this spring, they ratified 305 additional exits from 24 conferences. At least 11 conferences will host special sessions later this year to ratify reportedly 1,000 more. Additional thousands are expected next year as congregations scramble to meet the 2023 deadline. (There are about 30,000 United Methodist churches nationwide.) Complicating the process are more firmly liberal conferences that are adding extra payments to churches' exits. Some conferences with more sympathetic conservative leadership have reduced payments by applying millions of dollars in their reserves toward the exit fees.
The messiest departure so far has been in the Florida conference, where 106 congregations (roughly 20% of the state's membership) are jointly suing the bishop for charging exorbitant exit fees. They believe they're being held for "ransom." Their litigation also alleges that their bishop isn't upholding denominational law about sexuality. One Florida minister, the congregations point out, has openly conducted six same-sex weddings. The bishop himself attempted to ratify two openly gay clergy in June but failed to achieve the 75% threshold needed from Florida clergy. This litigation complains of wider defiance of church law, citing the 2016 election of an openly lesbian bishop in the church's western jurisdiction and a drag queen candidate for ordination in Illinois.
Meanwhile, United Methodist leaders in Africa remain committed to the church's conservative teachings. They are waiting for the General Conference's convention in 2024, which they hope will ratify the church's protocol for separating the denomination into liberal and conservative branches. It's unlikely many of them would stay in a denomination that liberalizes on sex. While most of Africa's Methodists will likely join the Global Methodist Church, some may be tempted by autonomy.
That temptation could apply to many congregations in the U.S. fed up with denominational bureaucracy. Congregationalism defies Methodism's more connectional tradition, which has typically featured bishops' appointing pastors to churches.
Challenging both United Methodism and the Global Methodist Church are declining denominational interests among American Christians. While most historical denominations are declining, nondenominational churches in the U.S. are growing.
Working against this drift are 60 traditionalist theologians who met in Alexandria, Va., in January to craft a 25,000-word articulation of "classic" Methodist doctrine. Rooted in the teachings of 18th-century founder John Wesley, their statement ("The Faith Once Delivered") is broken into six sections and addresses the nature of God, creation, revelation, salvation, the church and eschatology.
Promoting a specific Protestant tradition over generic nondenominational evangelicalism in America will be difficult. United Methodism has lost five million members in the U.S. since 1968 and will lose millions more. Mainline Protestantism has been sidelinedand it will take years for United Methodism's schism to resolve.
The hope of traditional American Methodists is that once freed from denominational bureaucracy, they'll be able to grow anewas their peers in Africa are doing, and as America's early Methodists did. Americans hoping for revived spirituality and civil society ought to wish them well.
Mr. Tooley, a United Methodist member, is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-messy-methodist-schism-united-global-church-sex-general-conference-florida-africa-2024-tradition-11660855107?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

---

I am a United Methodist pastor and will remain one. I heard Mark Tooley speak at Baylor University about 5 years. Mark Tooley has misrepresented the United Methodist Church for 30 years. He joined forces with the traditionalist Good News Movement and Wesleyan Covenant Association i(WCA) in our denomination to disrupt dialogue with lies, innuendos, and straw men.
Good News and the WCA evolved into the Global Methodist Church. For 10 - 15 years WCA bishops have been appointing pastors to churches who actively denigrated the UMC and misled their congregations. These pastors regularly took every chance possible to put down the UMC hierarchy and our General Conference. The central issue is the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in church life including ordaining gays and letting pastors marry gay couples.
but the GMC moved the goal posts to issues like
1) our trust clause -- our local churches are held in trust for their Annual Conferences, meaning the local church does not own the property or buildings. In actuality the trust clause is part of a covenant between the Annual Conference . The AC, for its part, covenants to send the local church a pastor and financial help if a church threatens to go belly up.
2. "Progressive" pastors who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Blood Atonement, or a Satan who rules over a hell of endless torment. Progressives do indeed, including me, believe in all those doctrines just not their interpretations of the doctrines
3. "Progressives" do not believe in the Authority of the Scriptures which is a lie. Progressives do believe in the authority of the scriptures for faith and life but our interpretations are indeed different.
4. and the GMC propagates the lie that Annual Conferences will force pastors to marry gay couples or force a gay pastor on a local. No one "forces" me to do a wedding because I full authority as to who I will perform weddings for. A local church, also, reserves the right as to who uses their building for a wedding.
No one will "force" a gay pastor on a church, but historically the church has always moved slowly when appointing a pastor outside the local church's biases such as African Americans or women.
Good friends have heard these lies and had no one who made the case for the UMC.
I thought I was dealing people and pastors who were rational about this decision but I am disappointed to hear that they never heard the other side (UMC). I, personally, know of the lies because they are directed at me and people prejudged me from the start.
I was and am still committed to the UMC in which we are big tent that includes the traditionalists in our denomination. I say, "Traditionalist preach and teach your interpretations and I will teach and preach mine and let the hearer go where they may go."

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

A Messy Methodist Church Schism
Hundreds of local congregations have left over teachings on sex.
Theological schisms are never pretty. The United Methodist ChurchAmerica's third-largest religious body, with over 6.2 million membersis in the thick of its own over its teachings on sexuality. Hundreds of congregations have voted to leave the denomination, which had 13 million members world-wide as of 2020, and thousands more likely will. On Aug. 7, United Methodism's second- and seventh-largest churches by attendance, both in the Houston area, voted to quit the denomination.
What brought United Methodism to this divide was its decision-making body's 2019 "Traditional Plan"a document that affirmed its ban on same-sex marriage and mandated that all clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married. That sets the church apart from nearly every other mainline Protestant denomination. The traditionalists won thanks to votes from conservative African delegates, whose churches have grown by millions even as the U.S. has declined by nearly the same magnitude.
When liberal-leaning U.S. bishops and clergy chafed at complying with the plan, a compromise was born. In early 2020 conservative and liberal church leaders announced a "Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation." The protocol allowed each congregation to vote its preference between a more traditional or more liberal denominationand was expected to be approved at the General Conference's quadrennial assembly in Minneapolis that year. But then Covid arrived, and the convention was postponed three times, to 2024. The decision left many traditionalists feeling betrayed and exasperated. In May of this year, those who couldn't wait any longer launched the Global Methodist Churcha traditionally conservative denomination, led by the Rev. Keith Boyette.
Now some congregations are weighing whether to join this Global Methodist Church. Local church properties are owned by the denomination through state-level conferences. The 2019 General Conference approved a temporary policy allowing congregations to leave with property by paying two years' worth of "apportionments" to the national church, plus clergy pension liabilities. Those exits must happen by December 2023.
Between 2019 and 2021, 167 congregations exited. When the 53 local annual conferences met this spring, they ratified 305 additional exits from 24 conferences. At least 11 conferences will host special sessions later this year to ratify reportedly 1,000 more. Additional thousands are expected next year as congregations scramble to meet the 2023 deadline. (There are about 30,000 United Methodist churches nationwide.) Complicating the process are more firmly liberal conferences that are adding extra payments to churches' exits. Some conferences with more sympathetic conservative leadership have reduced payments by applying millions of dollars in their reserves toward the exit fees.
The messiest departure so far has been in the Florida conference, where 106 congregations (roughly 20% of the state's membership) are jointly suing the bishop for charging exorbitant exit fees. They believe they're being held for "ransom." Their litigation also alleges that their bishop isn't upholding denominational law about sexuality. One Florida minister, the congregations point out, has openly conducted six same-sex weddings. The bishop himself attempted to ratify two openly gay clergy in June but failed to achieve the 75% threshold needed from Florida clergy. This litigation complains of wider defiance of church law, citing the 2016 election of an openly lesbian bishop in the church's western jurisdiction and a drag queen candidate for ordination in Illinois.
Meanwhile, United Methodist leaders in Africa remain committed to the church's conservative teachings. They are waiting for the General Conference's convention in 2024, which they hope will ratify the church's protocol for separating the denomination into liberal and conservative branches. It's unlikely many of them would stay in a denomination that liberalizes on sex. While most of Africa's Methodists will likely join the Global Methodist Church, some may be tempted by autonomy.
That temptation could apply to many congregations in the U.S. fed up with denominational bureaucracy. Congregationalism defies Methodism's more connectional tradition, which has typically featured bishops' appointing pastors to churches.
Challenging both United Methodism and the Global Methodist Church are declining denominational interests among American Christians. While most historical denominations are declining, nondenominational churches in the U.S. are growing.
Working against this drift are 60 traditionalist theologians who met in Alexandria, Va., in January to craft a 25,000-word articulation of "classic" Methodist doctrine. Rooted in the teachings of 18th-century founder John Wesley, their statement ("The Faith Once Delivered") is broken into six sections and addresses the nature of God, creation, revelation, salvation, the church and eschatology.
Promoting a specific Protestant tradition over generic nondenominational evangelicalism in America will be difficult. United Methodism has lost five million members in the U.S. since 1968 and will lose millions more. Mainline Protestantism has been sidelinedand it will take years for United Methodism's schism to resolve.
The hope of traditional American Methodists is that once freed from denominational bureaucracy, they'll be able to grow anewas their peers in Africa are doing, and as America's early Methodists did. Americans hoping for revived spirituality and civil society ought to wish them well.
Mr. Tooley, a United Methodist member, is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-messy-methodist-schism-united-global-church-sex-general-conference-florida-africa-2024-tradition-11660855107?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

---

I am a United Methodist pastor and will remain one. I heard Mark Tooley speak at Baylor University about 5 years. Mark Tooley has misrepresented the United Methodist Church for 30 years. He joined forces with the traditionalist Good News Movement and Wesleyan Covenant Association i(WCA) in our denomination to disrupt dialogue with lies, innuendos, and straw men.
Good News and the WCA evolved into the Global Methodist Church. For 10 - 15 years WCA bishops have been appointing pastors to churches who actively denigrated the UMC and misled their congregations. These pastors regularly took every chance possible to put down the UMC hierarchy and our General Conference. The central issue is the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in church life including ordaining gays and letting pastors marry gay couples.
but the GMC moved the goal posts to issues like
1) our trust clause -- our local churches are held in trust for their Annual Conferences, meaning the local church does not own the property or buildings. In actuality the trust clause is part of a covenant between the Annual Conference . The AC, for its part, covenants to send the local church a pastor and financial help if a church threatens to go belly up.
2. "Progressive" pastors who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Blood Atonement, or a Satan who rules over a hell of endless torment. Progressives do indeed, including me, believe in all those doctrines just not their interpretations of the doctrines
3. "Progressives" do not believe in the Authority of the Scriptures which is a lie. Progressives do believe in the authority of the scriptures for faith and life but our interpretations are indeed different.
4. and the GMC propagates the lie that Annual Conferences will force pastors to marry gay couples or force a gay pastor on a local. No one "forces" me to do a wedding because I full authority as to who I will perform weddings for. A local church, also, reserves the right as to who uses their building for a wedding.
No one will "force" a gay pastor on a church, but historically the church has always moved slowly when appointing a pastor outside the local church's biases such as African Americans or women.
Good friends have heard these lies and had no one who made the case for the UMC.
I thought I was dealing people and pastors who were rational about this decision but I am disappointed to hear that they never heard the other side (UMC). I, personally, know of the lies because they are directed at me and people prejudged me from the start.
I was and am still committed to the UMC in which we are big tent that includes the traditionalists in our denomination. I say, "Traditionalist preach and teach your interpretations and I will teach and preach mine and let the hearer go where they may go."

---

Hate to see a once great denomination of believers going through a schism

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Well said.

---

What other sins do you think your church should be more accepting of, and why? And by what authority do you declare them no longer sin?

---

Well, my church tradition has said that Catholicism, abolitionism, integration, and interracial marriage were all sins.

So, I guess by the same process I determined that my church tradition was wrong.

---

To clarify, I was asking what sins (according to scripture not man-made church tradition) you thought were no longer sins and by what authority you declare them as such?

Thanks.

---

The sins I listed were based on scripture. Those who preached against them felt their views came from God, not man-made tradition. And they were every bit as convicted as you are that their positions came from the scriptures.

When I was a kid, my pastor proclaimed from the pulpit that integration was sinful, and he waved his Bible when he did it. He even quoted passages. The same for interracial marriage.

W.A. Criswell, pastor of FBC Dallas, once said, "Anyone who supports integration is an infidel, dead from the neck up." And there was no greater Biblicist than old Wally Amos.

I've also read literature that Catholicism was sinful and the antiChrist of Revelation was the Pope. Those guys had scripture to back them up as well. About 100 years ago, this view was universally held among that Bible-believing bunch called Southern Baptist. B. H. Carroll of BU fame held it and promoted it.

So, sometimes Christ followers and churches get it wrong.

---

I am curious what verses your church and the pastors you referenced used to support the idea that 1) drinking is sinful; 2) integration is sinful, and 3) mixed marriages are sinful. Man, throughout history, has twisted scripture to support his beliefs/agenda dating back to biblical times, and I suspect the actions you describe above are no different. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to make the argument that any of the above are sinful based on the plain language of scripture. Not so for sexual sin, of course, which is very clearly denounced in scripture.

In either regard, I don't think I am clearly conveying my question. I am asking what you believe, and not what your church or WA Criswell's used to believe. And if you like, we can confine it to NT scripture - what sins described in NT scripture do you believe are not sin and upon what authority is your position based?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members

---

Again, please refrain from saying what you think the Catholic churches or their congregations do.

If you were lumping the Catholics into faiths that may do this, then this is false too. The Catholic church does not (and many other faiths represented here do not) condemn those with same-sex attraction.

The Church and other faiths will condemn the misuse of their sexual organs and deny the validity of so-called same-sex marriages.

If I encourage the power hungry to listen to and acknowledge God and others, does that mean I hate the power hungry?

If I encourage a hoarder to try and resist keeping things in their house that breeds rats, does that mean I hate the hoarder?

If I encourage an agnostic to give God more thought and respect, does that mean I hate the agnostic?

If I encourage a recluse to come and be a part of the church family in some way, does that mean I hate the recluse?

If I encourage a busy woman to spend some time with their parents in assisted living, does that mean I hate the daughter?

If I encourage a murderer to resist the urge to wantonly kill, does that mean I hate the murderer?

If I encourage the serial philanderer to be faithful to his wife, does that mean I hate the philanderer?

If I encourage a person with kleptomania to refrain from stealing things, does that mean I hate the kleptomaniac?

If I encourage the gossiper to quit spreading false stories about others, does that mean I hate the gossiper?

If I encourage the status seeker to reign in their desire to get what others have, do I hate the status seeker?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

If I encourage the power hungry to listen to and acknowledge God and others, does that mean I hate the power hungry?

If I encourage a hoarder to try and resist keeping things in their house that breeds rats, does that mean I hate the hoarder?

If I encourage an agnostic to give God more thought and respect, does that mean I hate the agnostic?

If I encourage a recluse to come and be a part of the church family in some way, does that mean I hate the recluse?

If I encourage a busy woman to spend some time with their parents in assisted living, does that mean I hate the daughter?

If I encourage a murderer to resist the urge to wantonly kill, does that mean I hate the murderer?

If I encourage the serial philanderer to be faithful to his wife, does that mean I hate the philanderer?

If I encourage a person with kleptomania to refrain from stealing things, does that mean I hate the kleptomaniac?

If I encourage the gossiper to quit spreading false stories about others, does that mean I hate the gossiper?

If I encourage the status seeker to reign in their desire to get what others have, do I hate the status seeker?

---

At least one poster on this board would say, "Most likely."

One bit of perspective that I have not seen on this thread:

One glaring difference between the Episcopal situation and the United Methodist situation is that the Methodist Book of Discipline never has allowed for openly gay ministers and never allowed UM ministers to perform gay marriages, even if those ceremonies took place outside a UM church.

There was a case a few years ago in a UM church court where a Methodist minister had performed a same-sex wedding. His gay son had asked him to officiate at his wedding, and given the choice, he felt like he had to say yes to his son. As a consequence, he was removed from the ministry.

There are liberal congregations in the UMC who felt just as aggrieved as the conservatives about the denomination's stance. They were pushing for the church to allow same-sex weddings and openly gay pastors.

What the leaders of the denomination tried to do was NOT change the Book of Discipline but find some acceptable compromise to keep all sides within the larger fold.

The conservatives were suspicious that EVENTUALLY there would be gay ministers and same-sex weddings. Maybe that's true, but impossible to say for sure. What is true today is that the denomination was NOT trying to force conservatives to accept these things.

When you get down to it, a lot of the ones who left simply didn't like the idea of being what some of the liberal churches called "reconciling congregations" that openly welcomed LGBT people.

Coke Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members

---

Again, please refrain from saying what you think the Catholic churches or their congregations do.

If you were lumping the Catholics into faiths that may do this, then this is false too. The Catholic church does not (and many other faiths represented here do not) condemn those with same-sex attraction.

The Church and other faiths will condemn the misuse of their sexual organs and deny the validity of so-called same-sex marriages.

---

"Misuse of their sexual organs"?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members

---

Again, please refrain from saying what you think the Catholic churches or their congregations do.

If you were lumping the Catholics into faiths that may do this, then this is false too. The Catholic church does not (and many other faiths represented here do not) condemn those with same-sex attraction.

The Church and other faiths will condemn the misuse of their sexual organs and deny the validity of so-called same-sex marriages.

---

"Misuse of their sexual organs"?

---

The gas pump is supposed to go in the tank, not the exhaust pipe.

J.B.Katz said:

---

One bit of perspective that I have not seen on this thread:

One glaring difference between the Episcopal situation and the United Methodist situation is that the Methodist Book of Discipline never has allowed for openly gay ministers and never allowed UM ministers to perform gay marriages, even if those ceremonies took place outside a UM church.

There was a case a few years ago in a UM church court where a Methodist minister had performed a same-sex wedding. His gay son had asked him to officiate at his wedding, and given the choice, he felt like he had to say yes to his son. As a consequence, he was removed from the ministry.

There are liberal congregations in the UMC who felt just as aggrieved as the conservatives about the denomination's stance. They were pushing for the church to allow same-sex weddings and openly gay pastors.

What the leaders of the denomination tried to do was NOT change the Book of Discipline but find some acceptable compromise to keep all sides within the larger fold.

The conservatives were suspicious that EVENTUALLY there would be gay ministers and same-sex weddings. Maybe that's true, but impossible to say for sure. What is true today is that the denomination was NOT trying to force conservatives to accept these things.

When you get down to it, a lot of the ones who left simply didn't like the idea of being what some of the liberal churches called "reconciling congregations" that openly welcomed LGBT people.

---

This is not accurate. The issue of ordination and marriage of LGBTQ United Methodists has been around for years. In 2019, a cross section of Methodist bishops met to come up with a plan to move forward and decide what do about the issue. They came up with the Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation, which would allow traditionalist congregations and conferences to leave the United Methodist Church, taking with them their properties and $25 million to form a new Methodist denomination. The post-separation United Methodist Church would then meet later to repeal language barring LGBTQ United Methodists from ordination and marriage. What happened after that is the traditionalists, knowing the writing was on the wall, decided to go ahead and form their own denomination which followed scripture on homosexuality, among other issues. But the cogent point is the decision to split the denomination and for UNM to then accept the ordination and marriage of homosexuals had for all intents and purposes already been made, and it was not the conservatives who made that decision.

The truth is most Christian churches, like my non-denominational church, openly welcome people who are sinners, including LGBT people. The difference between those churches and the new UNM church is that they recognize what the bible calls sin, and like Christ did, encourage their congregants to repent from same in order to live a live devoted to Christ as opposed to embracing the sin which causes separation from God.

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

A Messy Methodist Church Schism
Hundreds of local congregations have left over teachings on sex.
Theological schisms are never pretty. The United Methodist ChurchAmerica's third-largest religious body, with over 6.2 million membersis in the thick of its own over its teachings on sexuality. Hundreds of congregations have voted to leave the denomination, which had 13 million members world-wide as of 2020, and thousands more likely will. On Aug. 7, United Methodism's second- and seventh-largest churches by attendance, both in the Houston area, voted to quit the denomination.
What brought United Methodism to this divide was its decision-making body's 2019 "Traditional Plan"a document that affirmed its ban on same-sex marriage and mandated that all clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married. That sets the church apart from nearly every other mainline Protestant denomination. The traditionalists won thanks to votes from conservative African delegates, whose churches have grown by millions even as the U.S. has declined by nearly the same magnitude.
When liberal-leaning U.S. bishops and clergy chafed at complying with the plan, a compromise was born. In early 2020 conservative and liberal church leaders announced a "Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation." The protocol allowed each congregation to vote its preference between a more traditional or more liberal denominationand was expected to be approved at the General Conference's quadrennial assembly in Minneapolis that year. But then Covid arrived, and the convention was postponed three times, to 2024. The decision left many traditionalists feeling betrayed and exasperated. In May of this year, those who couldn't wait any longer launched the Global Methodist Churcha traditionally conservative denomination, led by the Rev. Keith Boyette.
Now some congregations are weighing whether to join this Global Methodist Church. Local church properties are owned by the denomination through state-level conferences. The 2019 General Conference approved a temporary policy allowing congregations to leave with property by paying two years' worth of "apportionments" to the national church, plus clergy pension liabilities. Those exits must happen by December 2023.
Between 2019 and 2021, 167 congregations exited. When the 53 local annual conferences met this spring, they ratified 305 additional exits from 24 conferences. At least 11 conferences will host special sessions later this year to ratify reportedly 1,000 more. Additional thousands are expected next year as congregations scramble to meet the 2023 deadline. (There are about 30,000 United Methodist churches nationwide.) Complicating the process are more firmly liberal conferences that are adding extra payments to churches' exits. Some conferences with more sympathetic conservative leadership have reduced payments by applying millions of dollars in their reserves toward the exit fees.
The messiest departure so far has been in the Florida conference, where 106 congregations (roughly 20% of the state's membership) are jointly suing the bishop for charging exorbitant exit fees. They believe they're being held for "ransom." Their litigation also alleges that their bishop isn't upholding denominational law about sexuality. One Florida minister, the congregations point out, has openly conducted six same-sex weddings. The bishop himself attempted to ratify two openly gay clergy in June but failed to achieve the 75% threshold needed from Florida clergy. This litigation complains of wider defiance of church law, citing the 2016 election of an openly lesbian bishop in the church's western jurisdiction and a drag queen candidate for ordination in Illinois.
Meanwhile, United Methodist leaders in Africa remain committed to the church's conservative teachings. They are waiting for the General Conference's convention in 2024, which they hope will ratify the church's protocol for separating the denomination into liberal and conservative branches. It's unlikely many of them would stay in a denomination that liberalizes on sex. While most of Africa's Methodists will likely join the Global Methodist Church, some may be tempted by autonomy.
That temptation could apply to many congregations in the U.S. fed up with denominational bureaucracy. Congregationalism defies Methodism's more connectional tradition, which has typically featured bishops' appointing pastors to churches.
Challenging both United Methodism and the Global Methodist Church are declining denominational interests among American Christians. While most historical denominations are declining, nondenominational churches in the U.S. are growing.
Working against this drift are 60 traditionalist theologians who met in Alexandria, Va., in January to craft a 25,000-word articulation of "classic" Methodist doctrine. Rooted in the teachings of 18th-century founder John Wesley, their statement ("The Faith Once Delivered") is broken into six sections and addresses the nature of God, creation, revelation, salvation, the church and eschatology.
Promoting a specific Protestant tradition over generic nondenominational evangelicalism in America will be difficult. United Methodism has lost five million members in the U.S. since 1968 and will lose millions more. Mainline Protestantism has been sidelinedand it will take years for United Methodism's schism to resolve.
The hope of traditional American Methodists is that once freed from denominational bureaucracy, they'll be able to grow anewas their peers in Africa are doing, and as America's early Methodists did. Americans hoping for revived spirituality and civil society ought to wish them well.
Mr. Tooley, a United Methodist member, is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-messy-methodist-schism-united-global-church-sex-general-conference-florida-africa-2024-tradition-11660855107?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

---

I am a United Methodist pastor and will remain one. I heard Mark Tooley speak at Baylor University about 5 years. Mark Tooley has misrepresented the United Methodist Church for 30 years. He joined forces with the traditionalist Good News Movement and Wesleyan Covenant Association i(WCA) in our denomination to disrupt dialogue with lies, innuendos, and straw men.
Good News and the WCA evolved into the Global Methodist Church. For 10 - 15 years WCA bishops have been appointing pastors to churches who actively denigrated the UMC and misled their congregations. These pastors regularly took every chance possible to put down the UMC hierarchy and our General Conference. The central issue is the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in church life including ordaining gays and letting pastors marry gay couples.
but the GMC moved the goal posts to issues like
1) our trust clause -- our local churches are held in trust for their Annual Conferences, meaning the local church does not own the property or buildings. In actuality the trust clause is part of a covenant between the Annual Conference . The AC, for its part, covenants to send the local church a pastor and financial help if a church threatens to go belly up.
2. "Progressive" pastors who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Blood Atonement, or a Satan who rules over a hell of endless torment. Progressives do indeed, including me, believe in all those doctrines just not their interpretations of the doctrines
3. "Progressives" do not believe in the Authority of the Scriptures which is a lie. Progressives do believe in the authority of the scriptures for faith and life but our interpretations are indeed different.
4. and the GMC propagates the lie that Annual Conferences will force pastors to marry gay couples or force a gay pastor on a local. No one "forces" me to do a wedding because I full authority as to who I will perform weddings for. A local church, also, reserves the right as to who uses their building for a wedding.
No one will "force" a gay pastor on a church, but historically the church has always moved slowly when appointing a pastor outside the local church's biases such as African Americans or women.
Good friends have heard these lies and had no one who made the case for the UMC.
I thought I was dealing people and pastors who were rational about this decision but I am disappointed to hear that they never heard the other side (UMC). I, personally, know of the lies because they are directed at me and people prejudged me from the start.
I was and am still committed to the UMC in which we are big tent that includes the traditionalists in our denomination. I say, "Traditionalist preach and teach your interpretations and I will teach and preach mine and let the hearer go where they may go."

---

Hate to see a once great denomination of believers going through a schism

---

It breaks my heart. I learned so much from traditionalists. They were my pastors and youth leaders with whom I grew up at youth group, youth camp, local church.
I have friends going Global and that saddens me. They are full of swarmy love for gays but ultimately they believe that are headed for eternal torment.

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

One bit of perspective that I have not seen on this thread:

One glaring difference between the Episcopal situation and the United Methodist situation is that the Methodist Book of Discipline never has allowed for openly gay ministers and never allowed UM ministers to perform gay marriages, even if those ceremonies took place outside a UM church.

There was a case a few years ago in a UM church court where a Methodist minister had performed a same-sex wedding. His gay son had asked him to officiate at his wedding, and given the choice, he felt like he had to say yes to his son. As a consequence, he was removed from the ministry.

There are liberal congregations in the UMC who felt just as aggrieved as the conservatives about the denomination's stance. They were pushing for the church to allow same-sex weddings and openly gay pastors.

What the leaders of the denomination tried to do was NOT change the Book of Discipline but find some acceptable compromise to keep all sides within the larger fold.

The conservatives were suspicious that EVENTUALLY there would be gay ministers and same-sex weddings. Maybe that's true, but impossible to say for sure. What is true today is that the denomination was NOT trying to force conservatives to accept these things.

When you get down to it, a lot of the ones who left simply didn't like the idea of being what some of the liberal churches called "reconciling congregations" that openly welcomed LGBT people.

---

The truth is most Christian churches, like my non-denominational church, openly welcome people who are sinners, including LGBT people. The difference between those churches and the new UNM church is that they recognize what the bible calls sin, and like Christ did, encourage their congregants to repent from same in order to live a live devoted to Christ as opposed to embracing the sin which causes separation from God.

---

This has been my observation as well. My church welcomes adulterers and prostitutes, but teaches abstinence

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Well said.

---

What other sins do you think your church should be more accepting of, and why? And by what authority do you declare them no longer sin?

---

Well, my church tradition has said that Catholicism, abolitionism, integration, and interracial marriage were all sins.

So, I guess by the same process I determined that my church tradition was wrong.

---

To clarify, I was asking what sins (according to scripture not man-made church tradition) you thought were no longer sins and by what authority you declare them as such?

Thanks.

---

The sins I listed were based on scripture. Those who preached against them felt their views came from God, not man-made tradition. And they were every bit as convicted as you are that their positions came from the scriptures.

When I was a kid, my pastor proclaimed from the pulpit that integration was sinful, and he waved his Bible when he did it. He even quoted passages. The same for interracial marriage.

W.A. Criswell, pastor of FBC Dallas, once said, "Anyone who supports integration is an infidel, dead from the neck up." And there was no greater Biblicist than old Wally Amos.

I've also read literature that Catholicism was sinful and the antiChrist of Revelation was the Pope. Those guys had scripture to back them up as well. About 100 years ago, this view was universally held among that Bible-believing bunch called Southern Baptist. B. H. Carroll of BU fame held it and promoted it.

So, sometimes Christ followers and churches get it wrong.

---

I am curious what verses your church and the pastors you referenced used to support the idea that 1) drinking is sinful; 2) integration is sinful, and 3) mixed marriages are sinful. Man, throughout history, has twisted scripture to support his beliefs/agenda dating back to biblical times, and I suspect the actions you describe above are no different. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to make the argument that any of the above are sinful based on the plain language of scripture. Not so for sexual sin, of course, which is very clearly denounced in scripture.

In either regard, I don't think I am clearly conveying my question. I am asking what you believe, and not what your church or WA Criswell's used to believe. And if you like, we can confine it to NT scripture - what sins described in NT scripture do you believe are not sin and upon what authority is your position based?

---

Don't have time to run down specific passages, but here's a summary.

1) Drinking is sinful. They used multiple verses about drunkenness. They also argued that priests were not to drink while in duty. Christians are constantly priests, therefore should not drink. They also assert that Jesus drank grape juice, not real wine. George Truett called alcohol "black water," deadly poison. Recently, I was in a meeting in which the pastor of a large church proclaimed, "My Jesus would not drink alcohol."

2) Integration. Basically used passages that called the Israelites not to intermarry with non-Israelites. Also used passages that outlined divisions among people, arguing that God set racial boundaries between people. Also threw in the curses of Genesis related to viewing Noah's nakedness.

3) Interracial marriage: Again, the injunctions to the Israelites not to intermarry with other nations. Views that blacks weren't fully human, based on the interpretation that God cursed Cain by making him black. Along with the idea of the sons of Ham being destined to be servants.

This is the area of argument most salient to the gay marriage debate. Southerners in particular felt that a white marrying a black was like a human marrying an ape. It wasn't just interracial marriage. It was interspecies marriage.

(Interestingly, in his concurring opinion on Dobbs, Clarence Thomas cited various cases that used the same reasonings as Roe, but somehow overlooked the first such case: Loving vs. Virginia)

As for my position, there are things I know and things I'm persuaded are true. Things I know: That people in the ancient context in which the scriptures were produced had no notion of the idea of heterosexuality or homosexuality. It was all about dominance, submission, and the pleasure found in each. The handful of passages that condemn homosexuality have that context in mind.

I believe God inspired the scriptures and I believe in the authority of the scriptures. But I also believe that God gave the scriptures through human beings in particular contexts. I also believe that even if God dictated the scriptures, we are flawed interpreters of it. And there's no escaping interpretation.

What we know now and they didn't know then was that we're born on a scale between homo and heterosexuality. Thus, some people are born homosexual. This is something I'm persuaded is true. This fits both science and my own observation of gay friends.

Does that mean gays are free to have sex according to their born orientation? That's a question open to debate, and that gay Christians do indeed debate. Gay Christians can either be celibate or get married to other gays. On the surface, we could say they should be celibate. But the apostle Paul says celibacy is a special gift.

So this debate isn't a matter of who believes the scriptures and who doesn't. It's a matter of scriptural interpretation.

I throw in the examples of interracial marriage, etc., to remind myself that common interpretations of the scripture can turn out to be wrong. As I said earlier, in my home church, they never dreamed their interpretations in relation to race were wrong. But they were.

At the end of the day, you may be right, and I may be wrong. But our differences are matters of scriptural interpretation, not matters of love for the scriptures or respect for church tradition. I honestly do respect your interpretation, but also say that it isn't the only one possible.

J.B.Katz said:

---

One bit of perspective that I have not seen on this thread:

One glaring difference between the Episcopal situation and the United Methodist situation is that the Methodist Book of Discipline never has allowed for openly gay ministers and never allowed UM ministers to perform gay marriages, even if those ceremonies took place outside a UM church.

There was a case a few years ago in a UM church court where a Methodist minister had performed a same-sex wedding. His gay son had asked him to officiate at his wedding, and given the choice, he felt like he had to say yes to his son. As a consequence, he was removed from the ministry.

There are liberal congregations in the UMC who felt just as aggrieved as the conservatives about the denomination's stance. They were pushing for the church to allow same-sex weddings and openly gay pastors.

What the leaders of the denomination tried to do was NOT change the Book of Discipline but find some acceptable compromise to keep all sides within the larger fold.

The conservatives were suspicious that EVENTUALLY there would be gay ministers and same-sex weddings. Maybe that's true, but impossible to say for sure. What is true today is that the denomination was NOT trying to force conservatives to accept these things.

When you get down to it, a lot of the ones who left simply didn't like the idea of being what some of the liberal churches called "reconciling congregations" that openly welcomed LGBT people.

---

This is a great example of selective storytelling.

There are openly gay bishops in the UMC and there have been many same sex marriages performed by UMC pastors that have resulted in no removal from UM ministry. This is due to the progressive bishops being the majority in the council and choosing not to take action. This even after the annual conference continues to vote to keep the traditional UM stance on sexuality and marriage. The next annual conference would have been the same with likely no change in the UMC leadership to enforce the Book of Discipline particularly among the Bishops.
The ability of some Bishops to not fully abide by the agreement of separation without reprimand is another issue that has arisen. Bishops of the progressive side now have little accountability. Traditionalist bishops are being pushed out.
The schism is about more than the sexuality issues as well. Theological issues relating to scripture and the nature of God are part of the struggle.

As churches leave the UMC, the progressive UMC bishops will have full hold of the denomination and traditional beliefs will be pushed aside as the annual conference will no longer have enough traditionalist votes to keep the present Book of Discipline.

In my opinion, the increased power of the bishops will become the destruction of the UMC as has happened in so many other human organizations. Abuse will happen of all kinds where there is little accountability.

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Well said.

---

What other sins do you think your church should be more accepting of, and why? And by what authority do you declare them no longer sin?

---

Well, my church tradition has said that Catholicism, abolitionism, integration, and interracial marriage were all sins.

So, I guess by the same process I determined that my church tradition was wrong.

---

To clarify, I was asking what sins (according to scripture not man-made church tradition) you thought were no longer sins and by what authority you declare them as such?

Thanks.

---

The sins I listed were based on scripture. Those who preached against them felt their views came from God, not man-made tradition. And they were every bit as convicted as you are that their positions came from the scriptures.

When I was a kid, my pastor proclaimed from the pulpit that integration was sinful, and he waved his Bible when he did it. He even quoted passages. The same for interracial marriage.

W.A. Criswell, pastor of FBC Dallas, once said, "Anyone who supports integration is an infidel, dead from the neck up." And there was no greater Biblicist than old Wally Amos.

I've also read literature that Catholicism was sinful and the antiChrist of Revelation was the Pope. Those guys had scripture to back them up as well. About 100 years ago, this view was universally held among that Bible-believing bunch called Southern Baptist. B. H. Carroll of BU fame held it and promoted it.

So, sometimes Christ followers and churches get it wrong.

---

I am curious what verses your church and the pastors you referenced used to support the idea that 1) drinking is sinful; 2) integration is sinful, and 3) mixed marriages are sinful. Man, throughout history, has twisted scripture to support his beliefs/agenda dating back to biblical times, and I suspect the actions you describe above are no different. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to make the argument that any of the above are sinful based on the plain language of scripture. Not so for sexual sin, of course, which is very clearly denounced in scripture.

In either regard, I don't think I am clearly conveying my question. I am asking what you believe, and not what your church or WA Criswell's used to believe. And if you like, we can confine it to NT scripture - what sins described in NT scripture do you believe are not sin and upon what authority is your position based?

---

You have to always entertain the idea that he is just making it all up.

Liberal Christians have a bad habit of doing that.

I was in an argument with a liberal young girl my age once who said she heard her pastor at her Church (Houston Metro area) while growing up defend slavery and segregation.

She grew up in the 90s like me, so I knew there was almost a 100% chance that was Bull ****.

After about 20 minutes she admitted it was a lie but said "I know people in the conservative congregation felt that way so its the same as if the Pastor believed it and said it"

Lying for "social justice" is just something that is apparently acceptable among liberals.

whitetrash said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members

---

Again, please refrain from saying what you think the Catholic churches or their congregations do.

If you were lumping the Catholics into faiths that may do this, then this is false too. The Catholic church does not (and many other faiths represented here do not) condemn those with same-sex attraction.

The Church and other faiths will condemn the misuse of their sexual organs and deny the validity of so-called same-sex marriages.

---

"Misuse of their sexual organs"?

---

The gas pump is supposed to go in the tank, not the exhaust pipe.

---

It's not good salesmanship these days for the Catholic Church to be talking about misuse of your sexual organs. Their denial, obfuscation, hiding behind canon law, buy-off settlements, intimidation & evading the consequences of covering up abuse of children and women made pregnant by priests for years makes Donald Trump & his odyssey with classified docunents look like a piker.

And the SBC doesn't have a great record of holding a select group of sinners (men in church leadership) accountable for their sins, either--a trait it shares with other denominations.

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Well said.

---

What other sins do you think your church should be more accepting of, and why? And by what authority do you declare them no longer sin?

---

Well, my church tradition has said that Catholicism, abolitionism, integration, and interracial marriage were all sins.

So, I guess by the same process I determined that my church tradition was wrong.

---

To clarify, I was asking what sins (according to scripture not man-made church tradition) you thought were no longer sins and by what authority you declare them as such?

Thanks.

---

The sins I listed were based on scripture. Those who preached against them felt their views came from God, not man-made tradition. And they were every bit as convicted as you are that their positions came from the scriptures.

When I was a kid, my pastor proclaimed from the pulpit that integration was sinful, and he waved his Bible when he did it. He even quoted passages. The same for interracial marriage.

W.A. Criswell, pastor of FBC Dallas, once said, "Anyone who supports integration is an infidel, dead from the neck up." And there was no greater Biblicist than old Wally Amos.

I've also read literature that Catholicism was sinful and the antiChrist of Revelation was the Pope. Those guys had scripture to back them up as well. About 100 years ago, this view was universally held among that Bible-believing bunch called Southern Baptist. B. H. Carroll of BU fame held it and promoted it.

So, sometimes Christ followers and churches get it wrong.

---

I am curious what verses your church and the pastors you referenced used to support the idea that 1) drinking is sinful; 2) integration is sinful, and 3) mixed marriages are sinful. Man, throughout history, has twisted scripture to support his beliefs/agenda dating back to biblical times, and I suspect the actions you describe above are no different. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to make the argument that any of the above are sinful based on the plain language of scripture. Not so for sexual sin, of course, which is very clearly denounced in scripture.

In either regard, I don't think I am clearly conveying my question. I am asking what you believe, and not what your church or WA Criswell's used to believe. And if you like, we can confine it to NT scripture - what sins described in NT scripture do you believe are not sin and upon what authority is your position based?

---

Don't have time to run down specific passages, but here's a summary.

1) Drinking is sinful. They used multiple verses about drunkenness. They also argued that priests were not to drink while in duty. Christians are constantly priests, therefore should not drink. They also assert that Jesus drank grape juice, not real wine. George Truett called alcohol "black water," deadly poison. Recently, I was in a meeting in which the pastor of a large church proclaimed, "My Jesus would not drink alcohol."

2) Integration. Basically used passages that called the Israelites not to intermarry with non-Israelites. Also used passages that outlined divisions among people, arguing that God set racial boundaries between people. Also threw in the curses of Genesis related to viewing Noah's nakedness.

3) Interracial marriage: Again, the injunctions to the Israelites not to intermarry with other nations. Views that blacks weren't fully human, based on the interpretation that God cursed Cain by making him black. Along with the idea of the sons of Ham being destined to be servants.

This is the area of argument most salient to the gay marriage debate. Southerners in particular felt that a white marrying a black was like a human marrying an ape. It wasn't just interracial marriage. It was interspecies marriage.

(Interestingly, in his concurring opinion on Dobbs, Clarence Thomas cited various cases that used the same reasonings as Roe, but somehow overlooked the first such case: Loving vs. Virginia)

As for my position, there are things I know and things I'm persuaded are true. Things I know: That people in the ancient context in which the scriptures were produced had no notion of the idea of heterosexuality or homosexuality. It was all about dominance, submission, and the pleasure found in each. The handful of passages that condemn homosexuality have that context in mind.

I believe God inspired the scriptures and I believe in the authority of the scriptures. But I also believe that God gave the scriptures through human beings in particular contexts. I also believe that even if God dictated the scriptures, we are flawed interpreters of it. And there's no escaping interpretation.

What we know now and they didn't know then was that we're born on a scale between homo and heterosexuality. Thus, some people are born homosexual. This is something I'm persuaded is true. This fits both science and my own observation of gay friends.

Does that mean gays are free to have sex according to their born orientation? That's a question open to debate, and that gay Christians do indeed debate. Gay Christians can either be celibate or get married to other gays. On the surface, we could say they should be celibate. But the apostle Paul says celibacy is a special gift.

So this debate isn't a matter of who believes the scriptures and who doesn't. It's a matter of scriptural interpretation.

I throw in the examples of interracial marriage, etc., to remind myself that common interpretations of the scripture can turn out to be wrong. As I said earlier, in my home church, they never dreamed their interpretations in relation to race were wrong. But they were.

At the end of the day, you may be right, and I may be wrong. But our differences are matters of scriptural interpretation, not matters of love for the scriptures or respect for church tradition. I honestly do respect your interpretation, but also say that it isn't the only one possible.

---

I appreciate the thoughtful response. But here is the problem with your position. Respectfully, the reason you "don't have time" to point out the verses that support 1) drinking being sinful; 2) interracial marriage being sinful; and 3) integration being sinful is because, as we both know, those verses don't exist. The plain language of scripture simply does not support any of those positions.

And that is why your use of those examples to support your current position on homosexuality is, again respectfully, not intellectually honest. It is not an apples to apples comparison. Instead, it is using instances in which purported Christians mischaracterized scripture to support positions that - if they were honest with themselves - simply do not support any one of those positions, as I referenced in my prior posts.

The same cannot be said of homosexuality and other sexual sins which the plain-language of scripture unequivocally condemns. It takes a bit of a mental contortion to try and explain away those verses and re-frame them to come to the conclusion that God wants homosexuals to marry or serve in the church, even if we can buy the idea that Paul and the other authors of scripture were referring to subjugated relationships (which, BTW, homosexuality in Roman culture did NOT always fit that pattern, but was often times consensual). Of course, that is the excuse du jour proffered by liberal denominations who have substituted their own beliefs for God's expressed in scripture.

As I suggested above, the problem when we start trying to explain away verses we don't like or even agree with is that we substitute our will for God's, and that is what the modern Christian church has done in many instances (and, IMO, why traditional denominations like the Methodists and Episcopalians have seen a massive decline in numbers). Churches which subscribe to heresy generally haven't performed well throughout history. They typically die a slow death, but death always comes, as we are seeing in the current split of UNM.

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

A Messy Methodist Church Schism
Hundreds of local congregations have left over teachings on sex.
Theological schisms are never pretty. The United Methodist ChurchAmerica's third-largest religious body, with over 6.2 million membersis in the thick of its own over its teachings on sexuality. Hundreds of congregations have voted to leave the denomination, which had 13 million members world-wide as of 2020, and thousands more likely will. On Aug. 7, United Methodism's second- and seventh-largest churches by attendance, both in the Houston area, voted to quit the denomination.
What brought United Methodism to this divide was its decision-making body's 2019 "Traditional Plan"a document that affirmed its ban on same-sex marriage and mandated that all clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married. That sets the church apart from nearly every other mainline Protestant denomination. The traditionalists won thanks to votes from conservative African delegates, whose churches have grown by millions even as the U.S. has declined by nearly the same magnitude.
When liberal-leaning U.S. bishops and clergy chafed at complying with the plan, a compromise was born. In early 2020 conservative and liberal church leaders announced a "Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation." The protocol allowed each congregation to vote its preference between a more traditional or more liberal denominationand was expected to be approved at the General Conference's quadrennial assembly in Minneapolis that year. But then Covid arrived, and the convention was postponed three times, to 2024. The decision left many traditionalists feeling betrayed and exasperated. In May of this year, those who couldn't wait any longer launched the Global Methodist Churcha traditionally conservative denomination, led by the Rev. Keith Boyette.
Now some congregations are weighing whether to join this Global Methodist Church. Local church properties are owned by the denomination through state-level conferences. The 2019 General Conference approved a temporary policy allowing congregations to leave with property by paying two years' worth of "apportionments" to the national church, plus clergy pension liabilities. Those exits must happen by December 2023.
Between 2019 and 2021, 167 congregations exited. When the 53 local annual conferences met this spring, they ratified 305 additional exits from 24 conferences. At least 11 conferences will host special sessions later this year to ratify reportedly 1,000 more. Additional thousands are expected next year as congregations scramble to meet the 2023 deadline. (There are about 30,000 United Methodist churches nationwide.) Complicating the process are more firmly liberal conferences that are adding extra payments to churches' exits. Some conferences with more sympathetic conservative leadership have reduced payments by applying millions of dollars in their reserves toward the exit fees.
The messiest departure so far has been in the Florida conference, where 106 congregations (roughly 20% of the state's membership) are jointly suing the bishop for charging exorbitant exit fees. They believe they're being held for "ransom." Their litigation also alleges that their bishop isn't upholding denominational law about sexuality. One Florida minister, the congregations point out, has openly conducted six same-sex weddings. The bishop himself attempted to ratify two openly gay clergy in June but failed to achieve the 75% threshold needed from Florida clergy. This litigation complains of wider defiance of church law, citing the 2016 election of an openly lesbian bishop in the church's western jurisdiction and a drag queen candidate for ordination in Illinois.
Meanwhile, United Methodist leaders in Africa remain committed to the church's conservative teachings. They are waiting for the General Conference's convention in 2024, which they hope will ratify the church's protocol for separating the denomination into liberal and conservative branches. It's unlikely many of them would stay in a denomination that liberalizes on sex. While most of Africa's Methodists will likely join the Global Methodist Church, some may be tempted by autonomy.
That temptation could apply to many congregations in the U.S. fed up with denominational bureaucracy. Congregationalism defies Methodism's more connectional tradition, which has typically featured bishops' appointing pastors to churches.
Challenging both United Methodism and the Global Methodist Church are declining denominational interests among American Christians. While most historical denominations are declining, nondenominational churches in the U.S. are growing.
Working against this drift are 60 traditionalist theologians who met in Alexandria, Va., in January to craft a 25,000-word articulation of "classic" Methodist doctrine. Rooted in the teachings of 18th-century founder John Wesley, their statement ("The Faith Once Delivered") is broken into six sections and addresses the nature of God, creation, revelation, salvation, the church and eschatology.
Promoting a specific Protestant tradition over generic nondenominational evangelicalism in America will be difficult. United Methodism has lost five million members in the U.S. since 1968 and will lose millions more. Mainline Protestantism has been sidelinedand it will take years for United Methodism's schism to resolve.
The hope of traditional American Methodists is that once freed from denominational bureaucracy, they'll be able to grow anewas their peers in Africa are doing, and as America's early Methodists did. Americans hoping for revived spirituality and civil society ought to wish them well.
Mr. Tooley, a United Methodist member, is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-messy-methodist-schism-united-global-church-sex-general-conference-florida-africa-2024-tradition-11660855107?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

---

I am a United Methodist pastor and will remain one. I heard Mark Tooley speak at Baylor University about 5 years. Mark Tooley has misrepresented the United Methodist Church for 30 years. He joined forces with the traditionalist Good News Movement and Wesleyan Covenant Association i(WCA) in our denomination to disrupt dialogue with lies, innuendos, and straw men.
Good News and the WCA evolved into the Global Methodist Church. For 10 - 15 years WCA bishops have been appointing pastors to churches who actively denigrated the UMC and misled their congregations. These pastors regularly took every chance possible to put down the UMC hierarchy and our General Conference. The central issue is the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in church life including ordaining gays and letting pastors marry gay couples.
but the GMC moved the goal posts to issues like
1) our trust clause -- our local churches are held in trust for their Annual Conferences, meaning the local church does not own the property or buildings. In actuality the trust clause is part of a covenant between the Annual Conference . The AC, for its part, covenants to send the local church a pastor and financial help if a church threatens to go belly up.
2. "Progressive" pastors who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Blood Atonement, or a Satan who rules over a hell of endless torment. Progressives do indeed, including me, believe in all those doctrines just not their interpretations of the doctrines
3. "Progressives" do not believe in the Authority of the Scriptures which is a lie. Progressives do believe in the authority of the scriptures for faith and life but our interpretations are indeed different.
4. and the GMC propagates the lie that Annual Conferences will force pastors to marry gay couples or force a gay pastor on a local. No one "forces" me to do a wedding because I full authority as to who I will perform weddings for. A local church, also, reserves the right as to who uses their building for a wedding.
No one will "force" a gay pastor on a church, but historically the church has always moved slowly when appointing a pastor outside the local church's biases such as African Americans or women.
Good friends have heard these lies and had no one who made the case for the UMC.
I thought I was dealing people and pastors who were rational about this decision but I am disappointed to hear that they never heard the other side (UMC). I, personally, know of the lies because they are directed at me and people prejudged me from the start.
I was and am still committed to the UMC in which we are big tent that includes the traditionalists in our denomination. I say, "Traditionalist preach and teach your interpretations and I will teach and preach mine and let the hearer go where they may go."

---

Hate to see a once great denomination of believers going through a schism

---

It breaks my heart. I learned so much from traditionalists. They were my pastors and youth leaders with whom I grew up at youth group, youth camp, local church.
I have friends going Global and that saddens me. They are full of swarmy love for gays but ultimately they believe that are headed for eternal torment.

---

Did Christ love sinners that were headed for eternal torment? I don't seem to recall him hating any of the people he encountered, even those who falsely accused him and beat him.

Would it have been more loving of him to say, "go and continue sinning" while allowing them to head down a path toward destruction, or to tell them about their sin, repentance, and the saving grace that only he can provide?

whitetrash said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members

---

Again, please refrain from saying what you think the Catholic churches or their congregations do.

If you were lumping the Catholics into faiths that may do this, then this is false too. The Catholic church does not (and many other faiths represented here do not) condemn those with same-sex attraction.

The Church and other faiths will condemn the misuse of their sexual organs and deny the validity of so-called same-sex marriages.

---

"Misuse of their sexual organs"?

---

The gas pump is supposed to go in the tank, not the exhaust pipe.

---

A longstanding policy that the sexual sins of some--pastors, priests and male church leaders--should be treated with compassion and forgiveness while those of others- gay people, women who get pregnant out of wedlock--are loudly and visibly condemned = one reason younger people are leaving the church traditions in which they were raised.

Because it's clear that the sexual sins of some will be quietly tolerated, excused, forgiven and covered up while those of others (and let's be clear, not everyone agrees that same-sex relationship are inherently sinful with the important caveat that they involve consenting adults) will be loudly and visibly called out. A church schism over because some members think living openly as gay and having relationships is sinful will inevitably drive people away, and not just those who are gay.

J.B.Katz said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members

---

Again, please refrain from saying what you think the Catholic churches or their congregations do.

If you were lumping the Catholics into faiths that may do this, then this is false too. The Catholic church does not (and many other faiths represented here do not) condemn those with same-sex attraction.

The Church and other faiths will condemn the misuse of their sexual organs and deny the validity of so-called same-sex marriages.

---

"Misuse of their sexual organs"?

---

The gas pump is supposed to go in the tank, not the exhaust pipe.

---

A longstanding policy that the sexual sins of some--pastors, priests and male church leaders--should be treated with compassion and forgiveness while those of others- gay people, women who get pregnant out of wedlock--are loudly and visibly condemned = one reason younger people are leaving the church traditions in which they were raised.

Because it's clear that the sexual sins of some will be quietly tolerated, excused, forgiven and covered up while those of others (and let's be clear, not everyone agrees that same-sex relationship are inherently sinful with the important caveat that they involve consenting adults) will be loudly and visibly called out. A church schism over because some members think living openly as gay and having relationships is sinful will inevitably drive people away, and not just those who are gay.

---

Members of the church have been hypocritical throughout history, not just in this area, but in pretty much every conceivable area. While such behavior is as repugnant as it is predictable (we are, afterall, sinners), it has no bearing whatsoever on what is right or wrong, biblical and heretical. It has no bearing on whether the church is called to teach sound doctrine, and not merely that which tickles man's ear.

A church schism regarding what constitutes sound doctrine is unfortunate, but necessary.

J.B.Katz said:

---

It's not good salesmanship these days for the Catholic Church to be talking about misuse of your sexual organs. Their denial, obfuscation, hiding behind canon law, buy-off settlements, intimidation & evading the consequences of covering up abuse of children and women made pregnant by priests for years makes Donald Trump & his odyssey with classified docunents look like a piker.

And the SBC doesn't have a great record of holding a select group of sinners (men in church leadership) accountable for their sins, either--a trait it shares with other denominations.

---

LOL!

I love this post! It truly typifies your standard "Red Herring" response.

When you can't argue the topic on hand, you predictably use the same, tired attacks on the Church and other denominations. It screams, "I'm wrong, but look at all this bad stuff they did!"

The best two things about your post:

It was only two short paragraphs long (because it was devoid of a "shocking" person story of someone you know) and no one here is falling for your trolling comments.

Coke Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

It's not good salesmanship these days for the Catholic Church to be talking about misuse of your sexual organs. Their denial, obfuscation, hiding behind canon law, buy-off settlements, intimidation & evading the consequences of covering up abuse of children and women made pregnant by priests for years makes Donald Trump & his odyssey with classified docunents look like a piker.

And the SBC doesn't have a great record of holding a select group of sinners (men in church leadership) accountable for their sins, either--a trait it shares with other denominations.

---

LOL!

I love this post! It truly typifies your standard "Red Herring" response.

When you can't argue the topic on hand, you predictably use the same, tired attacks on the Church and other denominations. It screams, "I'm wrong, but look at all this bad stuff they did!"

The best two things about your post:

It was only two short paragraphs long (because it was devoid of a "shocking" person story of someone you know) and no one here is falling for your trolling comments.

---

Do you really find the Catholic Church's history of covering up abuse of children and women by priests funny?

My point, which you obviously don't want to get, is that churches that hold sinners (in this case, openly gay people, according to one faction of the Methodist church) accountable need to set an example of accountability themselves.

The reports just keep coming. Note that 80% of the victims revealed by a French investigation were boys.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043302348/france-catholic-church-sexual-abuse-report-children

For forgiveness to have real healing power, the offender has to be sincere in acknowledging his sin before he asked for forgiveness and "truly and earnestly repent.". The Catholic Church's acknowledgement of its complicity in decades of abusive behavior by priests has been "slow and faltering."

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043302348/france-catholic-church-sexual-abuse-report-children

J.B.Katz said:

---

[Do you really find the Catholic Church's history of covering up abuse of children and women by priests funny?

My point, which you obviously don't want to get, is that churches that hold sinners (in this case, openly gay people, according to one faction of the Methodist church) accountable need to set an example of accountability themselves.

The reports just keep coming. Note that 80% of the victims revealed by a French investigation were boys.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043302348/france-catholic-church-sexual-abuse-report-children

For forgiveness to have real healing power, the offender has to be sincere in acknowledging his sin before he asked for forgiveness and "truly and earnestly repent.". The Catholic Church's acknowledgement of its complicity in decades of abusive behavior by priests has been "slow and faltering."

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043302348/france-catholic-church-sexual-abuse-report-children

---

Same trolling post - more paragraphs with links.

Not biting.

The original point you made was that the Church and other denominations condemn "the gays." They do not.

All you really needed to say in a reply was, "My bad. The post that I made was not well-thought out nor was it correct."

Yet you doubled-down on the same, tired rhetoric.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

If I encourage the power hungry to listen to and acknowledge God and others, does that mean I hate the power hungry?

If I encourage a hoarder to try and resist keeping things in their house that breeds rats, does that mean I hate the hoarder?

If I encourage an agnostic to give God more thought and respect, does that mean I hate the agnostic?

If I encourage a recluse to come and be a part of the church family in some way, does that mean I hate the recluse?

If I encourage a busy woman to spend some time with their parents in assisted living, does that mean I hate the daughter?

If I encourage a murderer to resist the urge to wantonly kill, does that mean I hate the murderer?

If I encourage the serial philanderer to be faithful to his wife, does that mean I hate the philanderer?

If I encourage a person with kleptomania to refrain from stealing things, does that mean I hate the kleptomaniac?

If I encourage the gossiper to quit spreading false stories about others, does that mean I hate the gossiper?

If I encourage the status seeker to reign in their desire to get what others have, do I hate the status seeker?

---

Your argument hinges on "is homosexual behavior a sin?" Homosexual behavior within the context of marriage is not a sin. I, too, am begging the question "does the Bible forbid gay marriage?" Again, the answer is no. The most quoted passage on marriage as between a man and woman is Mark 10 but in that passage Jesus is asked about divorce and its consequences not about the nature of marriage being man and woman.

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

A Messy Methodist Church Schism
Hundreds of local congregations have left over teachings on sex.
Theological schisms are never pretty. The United Methodist ChurchAmerica's third-largest religious body, with over 6.2 million membersis in the thick of its own over its teachings on sexuality. Hundreds of congregations have voted to leave the denomination, which had 13 million members world-wide as of 2020, and thousands more likely will. On Aug. 7, United Methodism's second- and seventh-largest churches by attendance, both in the Houston area, voted to quit the denomination.
What brought United Methodism to this divide was its decision-making body's 2019 "Traditional Plan"a document that affirmed its ban on same-sex marriage and mandated that all clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married. That sets the church apart from nearly every other mainline Protestant denomination. The traditionalists won thanks to votes from conservative African delegates, whose churches have grown by millions even as the U.S. has declined by nearly the same magnitude.
When liberal-leaning U.S. bishops and clergy chafed at complying with the plan, a compromise was born. In early 2020 conservative and liberal church leaders announced a "Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation." The protocol allowed each congregation to vote its preference between a more traditional or more liberal denominationand was expected to be approved at the General Conference's quadrennial assembly in Minneapolis that year. But then Covid arrived, and the convention was postponed three times, to 2024. The decision left many traditionalists feeling betrayed and exasperated. In May of this year, those who couldn't wait any longer launched the Global Methodist Churcha traditionally conservative denomination, led by the Rev. Keith Boyette.
Now some congregations are weighing whether to join this Global Methodist Church. Local church properties are owned by the denomination through state-level conferences. The 2019 General Conference approved a temporary policy allowing congregations to leave with property by paying two years' worth of "apportionments" to the national church, plus clergy pension liabilities. Those exits must happen by December 2023.
Between 2019 and 2021, 167 congregations exited. When the 53 local annual conferences met this spring, they ratified 305 additional exits from 24 conferences. At least 11 conferences will host special sessions later this year to ratify reportedly 1,000 more. Additional thousands are expected next year as congregations scramble to meet the 2023 deadline. (There are about 30,000 United Methodist churches nationwide.) Complicating the process are more firmly liberal conferences that are adding extra payments to churches' exits. Some conferences with more sympathetic conservative leadership have reduced payments by applying millions of dollars in their reserves toward the exit fees.
The messiest departure so far has been in the Florida conference, where 106 congregations (roughly 20% of the state's membership) are jointly suing the bishop for charging exorbitant exit fees. They believe they're being held for "ransom." Their litigation also alleges that their bishop isn't upholding denominational law about sexuality. One Florida minister, the congregations point out, has openly conducted six same-sex weddings. The bishop himself attempted to ratify two openly gay clergy in June but failed to achieve the 75% threshold needed from Florida clergy. This litigation complains of wider defiance of church law, citing the 2016 election of an openly lesbian bishop in the church's western jurisdiction and a drag queen candidate for ordination in Illinois.
Meanwhile, United Methodist leaders in Africa remain committed to the church's conservative teachings. They are waiting for the General Conference's convention in 2024, which they hope will ratify the church's protocol for separating the denomination into liberal and conservative branches. It's unlikely many of them would stay in a denomination that liberalizes on sex. While most of Africa's Methodists will likely join the Global Methodist Church, some may be tempted by autonomy.
That temptation could apply to many congregations in the U.S. fed up with denominational bureaucracy. Congregationalism defies Methodism's more connectional tradition, which has typically featured bishops' appointing pastors to churches.
Challenging both United Methodism and the Global Methodist Church are declining denominational interests among American Christians. While most historical denominations are declining, nondenominational churches in the U.S. are growing.
Working against this drift are 60 traditionalist theologians who met in Alexandria, Va., in January to craft a 25,000-word articulation of "classic" Methodist doctrine. Rooted in the teachings of 18th-century founder John Wesley, their statement ("The Faith Once Delivered") is broken into six sections and addresses the nature of God, creation, revelation, salvation, the church and eschatology.
Promoting a specific Protestant tradition over generic nondenominational evangelicalism in America will be difficult. United Methodism has lost five million members in the U.S. since 1968 and will lose millions more. Mainline Protestantism has been sidelinedand it will take years for United Methodism's schism to resolve.
The hope of traditional American Methodists is that once freed from denominational bureaucracy, they'll be able to grow anewas their peers in Africa are doing, and as America's early Methodists did. Americans hoping for revived spirituality and civil society ought to wish them well.
Mr. Tooley, a United Methodist member, is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-messy-methodist-schism-united-global-church-sex-general-conference-florida-africa-2024-tradition-11660855107?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

---

I am a United Methodist pastor and will remain one. I heard Mark Tooley speak at Baylor University about 5 years. Mark Tooley has misrepresented the United Methodist Church for 30 years. He joined forces with the traditionalist Good News Movement and Wesleyan Covenant Association i(WCA) in our denomination to disrupt dialogue with lies, innuendos, and straw men.
Good News and the WCA evolved into the Global Methodist Church. For 10 - 15 years WCA bishops have been appointing pastors to churches who actively denigrated the UMC and misled their congregations. These pastors regularly took every chance possible to put down the UMC hierarchy and our General Conference. The central issue is the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in church life including ordaining gays and letting pastors marry gay couples.
but the GMC moved the goal posts to issues like
1) our trust clause -- our local churches are held in trust for their Annual Conferences, meaning the local church does not own the property or buildings. In actuality the trust clause is part of a covenant between the Annual Conference . The AC, for its part, covenants to send the local church a pastor and financial help if a church threatens to go belly up.
2. "Progressive" pastors who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Blood Atonement, or a Satan who rules over a hell of endless torment. Progressives do indeed, including me, believe in all those doctrines just not their interpretations of the doctrines
3. "Progressives" do not believe in the Authority of the Scriptures which is a lie. Progressives do believe in the authority of the scriptures for faith and life but our interpretations are indeed different.
4. and the GMC propagates the lie that Annual Conferences will force pastors to marry gay couples or force a gay pastor on a local. No one "forces" me to do a wedding because I full authority as to who I will perform weddings for. A local church, also, reserves the right as to who uses their building for a wedding.
No one will "force" a gay pastor on a church, but historically the church has always moved slowly when appointing a pastor outside the local church's biases such as African Americans or women.
Good friends have heard these lies and had no one who made the case for the UMC.
I thought I was dealing people and pastors who were rational about this decision but I am disappointed to hear that they never heard the other side (UMC). I, personally, know of the lies because they are directed at me and people prejudged me from the start.
I was and am still committed to the UMC in which we are big tent that includes the traditionalists in our denomination. I say, "Traditionalist preach and teach your interpretations and I will teach and preach mine and let the hearer go where they may go."

---

Hate to see a once great denomination of believers going through a schism

---

It breaks my heart. I learned so much from traditionalists. They were my pastors and youth leaders with whom I grew up at youth group, youth camp, local church.
I have friends going Global and that saddens me. They are full of swarmy love for gays but ultimately they believe that are headed for eternal torment.

---

Did Christ love sinners that were headed for eternal torment? I don't seem to recall him hating any of the people he encountered, even those who falsely accused him and beat him.

Would it have been more loving of him to say, "go and continue sinning" while allowing them to head down a path toward destruction, or to tell them about their sin, repentance, and the saving grace that only he can provide?

---

There no "going and sinning no more" with regards to homosexual behavior within marriage because in that context it is not a sin.

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

A Messy Methodist Church Schism
Hundreds of local congregations have left over teachings on sex.
Theological schisms are never pretty. The United Methodist ChurchAmerica's third-largest religious body, with over 6.2 million membersis in the thick of its own over its teachings on sexuality. Hundreds of congregations have voted to leave the denomination, which had 13 million members world-wide as of 2020, and thousands more likely will. On Aug. 7, United Methodism's second- and seventh-largest churches by attendance, both in the Houston area, voted to quit the denomination.
What brought United Methodism to this divide was its decision-making body's 2019 "Traditional Plan"a document that affirmed its ban on same-sex marriage and mandated that all clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married. That sets the church apart from nearly every other mainline Protestant denomination. The traditionalists won thanks to votes from conservative African delegates, whose churches have grown by millions even as the U.S. has declined by nearly the same magnitude.
When liberal-leaning U.S. bishops and clergy chafed at complying with the plan, a compromise was born. In early 2020 conservative and liberal church leaders announced a "Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation." The protocol allowed each congregation to vote its preference between a more traditional or more liberal denominationand was expected to be approved at the General Conference's quadrennial assembly in Minneapolis that year. But then Covid arrived, and the convention was postponed three times, to 2024. The decision left many traditionalists feeling betrayed and exasperated. In May of this year, those who couldn't wait any longer launched the Global Methodist Churcha traditionally conservative denomination, led by the Rev. Keith Boyette.
Now some congregations are weighing whether to join this Global Methodist Church. Local church properties are owned by the denomination through state-level conferences. The 2019 General Conference approved a temporary policy allowing congregations to leave with property by paying two years' worth of "apportionments" to the national church, plus clergy pension liabilities. Those exits must happen by December 2023.
Between 2019 and 2021, 167 congregations exited. When the 53 local annual conferences met this spring, they ratified 305 additional exits from 24 conferences. At least 11 conferences will host special sessions later this year to ratify reportedly 1,000 more. Additional thousands are expected next year as congregations scramble to meet the 2023 deadline. (There are about 30,000 United Methodist churches nationwide.) Complicating the process are more firmly liberal conferences that are adding extra payments to churches' exits. Some conferences with more sympathetic conservative leadership have reduced payments by applying millions of dollars in their reserves toward the exit fees.
The messiest departure so far has been in the Florida conference, where 106 congregations (roughly 20% of the state's membership) are jointly suing the bishop for charging exorbitant exit fees. They believe they're being held for "ransom." Their litigation also alleges that their bishop isn't upholding denominational law about sexuality. One Florida minister, the congregations point out, has openly conducted six same-sex weddings. The bishop himself attempted to ratify two openly gay clergy in June but failed to achieve the 75% threshold needed from Florida clergy. This litigation complains of wider defiance of church law, citing the 2016 election of an openly lesbian bishop in the church's western jurisdiction and a drag queen candidate for ordination in Illinois.
Meanwhile, United Methodist leaders in Africa remain committed to the church's conservative teachings. They are waiting for the General Conference's convention in 2024, which they hope will ratify the church's protocol for separating the denomination into liberal and conservative branches. It's unlikely many of them would stay in a denomination that liberalizes on sex. While most of Africa's Methodists will likely join the Global Methodist Church, some may be tempted by autonomy.
That temptation could apply to many congregations in the U.S. fed up with denominational bureaucracy. Congregationalism defies Methodism's more connectional tradition, which has typically featured bishops' appointing pastors to churches.
Challenging both United Methodism and the Global Methodist Church are declining denominational interests among American Christians. While most historical denominations are declining, nondenominational churches in the U.S. are growing.
Working against this drift are 60 traditionalist theologians who met in Alexandria, Va., in January to craft a 25,000-word articulation of "classic" Methodist doctrine. Rooted in the teachings of 18th-century founder John Wesley, their statement ("The Faith Once Delivered") is broken into six sections and addresses the nature of God, creation, revelation, salvation, the church and eschatology.
Promoting a specific Protestant tradition over generic nondenominational evangelicalism in America will be difficult. United Methodism has lost five million members in the U.S. since 1968 and will lose millions more. Mainline Protestantism has been sidelinedand it will take years for United Methodism's schism to resolve.
The hope of traditional American Methodists is that once freed from denominational bureaucracy, they'll be able to grow anewas their peers in Africa are doing, and as America's early Methodists did. Americans hoping for revived spirituality and civil society ought to wish them well.
Mr. Tooley, a United Methodist member, is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-messy-methodist-schism-united-global-church-sex-general-conference-florida-africa-2024-tradition-11660855107?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

---

I am a United Methodist pastor and will remain one. I heard Mark Tooley speak at Baylor University about 5 years. Mark Tooley has misrepresented the United Methodist Church for 30 years. He joined forces with the traditionalist Good News Movement and Wesleyan Covenant Association i(WCA) in our denomination to disrupt dialogue with lies, innuendos, and straw men.
Good News and the WCA evolved into the Global Methodist Church. For 10 - 15 years WCA bishops have been appointing pastors to churches who actively denigrated the UMC and misled their congregations. These pastors regularly took every chance possible to put down the UMC hierarchy and our General Conference. The central issue is the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in church life including ordaining gays and letting pastors marry gay couples.
but the GMC moved the goal posts to issues like
1) our trust clause -- our local churches are held in trust for their Annual Conferences, meaning the local church does not own the property or buildings. In actuality the trust clause is part of a covenant between the Annual Conference . The AC, for its part, covenants to send the local church a pastor and financial help if a church threatens to go belly up.
2. "Progressive" pastors who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Blood Atonement, or a Satan who rules over a hell of endless torment. Progressives do indeed, including me, believe in all those doctrines just not their interpretations of the doctrines
3. "Progressives" do not believe in the Authority of the Scriptures which is a lie. Progressives do believe in the authority of the scriptures for faith and life but our interpretations are indeed different.
4. and the GMC propagates the lie that Annual Conferences will force pastors to marry gay couples or force a gay pastor on a local. No one "forces" me to do a wedding because I full authority as to who I will perform weddings for. A local church, also, reserves the right as to who uses their building for a wedding.
No one will "force" a gay pastor on a church, but historically the church has always moved slowly when appointing a pastor outside the local church's biases such as African Americans or women.
Good friends have heard these lies and had no one who made the case for the UMC.
I thought I was dealing people and pastors who were rational about this decision but I am disappointed to hear that they never heard the other side (UMC). I, personally, know of the lies because they are directed at me and people prejudged me from the start.
I was and am still committed to the UMC in which we are big tent that includes the traditionalists in our denomination. I say, "Traditionalist preach and teach your interpretations and I will teach and preach mine and let the hearer go where they may go."

---

Hate to see a once great denomination of believers going through a schism

---

It breaks my heart. I learned so much from traditionalists. They were my pastors and youth leaders with whom I grew up at youth group, youth camp, local church.
I have friends going Global and that saddens me. They are full of swarmy love for gays but ultimately they believe that are headed for eternal torment.

---

Did Christ love sinners that were headed for eternal torment? I don't seem to recall him hating any of the people he encountered, even those who falsely accused him and beat him.

Would it have been more loving of him to say, "go and continue sinning" while allowing them to head down a path toward destruction, or to tell them about their sin, repentance, and the saving grace that only he can provide?

---

There no "going and sinning no more" with regards to homosexual behavior within marriage because in that context it is not a sin.

---

So it was reclassified as "not a sin" not by God, not by Jesus, not by a council of bishops, but by 3 Jews, a Puerto Rican and an Irishman outvoting 2 Italians, an Irishman and a Black guy in 2015.

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

If I encourage the power hungry to listen to and acknowledge God and others, does that mean I hate the power hungry?

If I encourage a hoarder to try and resist keeping things in their house that breeds rats, does that mean I hate the hoarder?

If I encourage an agnostic to give God more thought and respect, does that mean I hate the agnostic?

If I encourage a recluse to come and be a part of the church family in some way, does that mean I hate the recluse?

If I encourage a busy woman to spend some time with their parents in assisted living, does that mean I hate the daughter?

If I encourage a murderer to resist the urge to wantonly kill, does that mean I hate the murderer?

If I encourage the serial philanderer to be faithful to his wife, does that mean I hate the philanderer?

If I encourage a person with kleptomania to refrain from stealing things, does that mean I hate the kleptomaniac?

If I encourage the gossiper to quit spreading false stories about others, does that mean I hate the gossiper?

If I encourage the status seeker to reign in their desire to get what others have, do I hate the status seeker?

---

Your argument hinges on "is homosexual behavior a sin?" Homosexual behavior within the context of marriage is not a sin. I, too, am begging the question "does the Bible forbid gay marriage?" Again, the answer is no. The most quoted passage on marriage as between a man and woman is Mark 10 but in that passage Jesus is asked about divorce and its consequences not about the nature of marriage being man and woman.

---

The entire point of marriage is for procreation and it is meant for a man and a woman. God did not intend for men to marry each other and to do perverted sexual deviant acts on each other. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp bc it's been understood for all of history.

JBK said "Does that mean gays are free to have sex according to their born orientation? That's a question open to debate, and that gay Christians do indeed debate. Gay Christians can either be celibate or get married to other gays. On the surface, we could say they should be celibate. But the apostle Paul says celibacy is a special gift.
The Global church takes the stance of "it's ok to be gay just don't act on it and don't get married."
In my view God calls us to express our sexuality in the context of relationship. I am not sure gays debate much about expressing their sexuality in committed relationships.
Straight Singles who fornicate (an old fashioned word), also, do not debate much about expressing their sexuality in committed relationships.


So this debate isn't a matter of who believes the scriptures and who doesn't. It's a matter of scriptural interpretation.

Progressive Christians place themselves under the authority of the scripture for faith and life but, as you rightly point out, this issue of homosexuality is a matter of Biblical interpretation

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

If I encourage the power hungry to listen to and acknowledge God and others, does that mean I hate the power hungry?

If I encourage a hoarder to try and resist keeping things in their house that breeds rats, does that mean I hate the hoarder?

If I encourage an agnostic to give God more thought and respect, does that mean I hate the agnostic?

If I encourage a recluse to come and be a part of the church family in some way, does that mean I hate the recluse?

If I encourage a busy woman to spend some time with their parents in assisted living, does that mean I hate the daughter?

If I encourage a murderer to resist the urge to wantonly kill, does that mean I hate the murderer?

If I encourage the serial philanderer to be faithful to his wife, does that mean I hate the philanderer?

If I encourage a person with kleptomania to refrain from stealing things, does that mean I hate the kleptomaniac?

If I encourage the gossiper to quit spreading false stories about others, does that mean I hate the gossiper?

If I encourage the status seeker to reign in their desire to get what others have, do I hate the status seeker?

---

Your argument hinges on "is homosexual behavior a sin?" Homosexual behavior within the context of marriage is not a sin. I, too, am begging the question "does the Bible forbid gay marriage?" Again, the answer is no. The most quoted passage on marriage as between a man and woman is Mark 10 but in that passage Jesus is asked about divorce and its consequences not about the nature of marriage being man and woman.

---

The entire point of marriage is for procreation and it is meant for a man and a woman. God did not intend for men to marry each other and to do perverted sexual deviant acts on each other. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp bc it's been understood for all of history.

---

I don't know about you, but I got married to have a good, smart, kind, reliable life partner. We weren't sure we would have children when we got married, but we were sure we wanted to spend our lives together. 41 years and counting.

The only people for whom the sole purpose of marriage = procreation used to be royalty. Henry VIII is a case study in how well that works.

And lots of people these days get married never intending to have children. Do you consider that sinful?

As an argument against gay marriage, this one's bogus. I'd also love to see your wife's face if you told her that the entire point of your marriage to her was procreation.

muddybrazos said:

---

Stranger said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

My church just went through this with the Episcopal church and we had to leave our property as of today. It's a 300 year old church. Our diocese became Anglican and there has been a 10 year ongoing lawsuit over which churches get to keep what property. I dont think the Episcopalians have a congregation to use our church property but we cant meet there anymore. There also is an elementary school as part of the church but it gets to operate for another year.

---

Where is this church?

---

Christ Church Anglican in Mount Pleasant, SC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church_(Mount_Pleasant,_South_Carolina)

---

This is happening all over the country.

The liberal, non-Biblical, wing of the Episcopal Church has taken over the leadership. They are attempting to use property as a tool to keep people from leaving. If they leave, then they must start all over again... even if the buildings sit empty. In a few cases, the Episcopal leadership has agreed to sell the property to the congregation, or to real estate developers.

It's very sad, but this is what happens when you turn your back on God and the Bible.

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Well said.

---

What other sins do you think your church should be more accepting of, and why? And by what authority do you declare them no longer sin?

---

Well, my church tradition has said that Catholicism, abolitionism, integration, and interracial marriage were all sins.

So, I guess by the same process I determined that my church tradition was wrong.

---

and not surprising that you missed the entire point of his question.

"What sins do you think your church should be more accepting of, and why?"

The assumption was that you are Christian enough to know the truth. Sin is not defined by what your church says, but by what God says in the Bible. The fact that a church has said integration or some other nonsense is a sin... is actually enforcing the point of the question. Your church does NOT have the authority to declare sin... that authority is reserved for God and His Word.

If you were an actual Christian, you would not need this explanation. The fact that you need it... says a lot.

Waco1947 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

JL said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Since July 2019 a group of United Methodist leaders, representing the wide range of theological positions within the denomination, have been negotiating to find a way through the United Methodist Church's impasse on the issue of human sexuality.

In early 2020, the negotiations, aided by mediator Kenneth Feinburg (special mediator for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund), culminated in an agreement-in-principle that was unanimously endorsed by all participants.

It provides for the retention of the United Methodist Church as we know it, but also provides pathways for some United Methodists, on both the right and left sides of the theological spectrum, to form new denominations that will endorse different doctrinal standards on sexuality.

The media refers to this negatively as a "split." However, many believe that a thoughtful, mediated plan for amicable separation can be a good thing.

Matthew 6:34 says 'Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'

Christ's invitation is not a denial about a challenging road ahead. It's a clarion call to remain confident in your faith and purpose.

(Email from my United Methodist pastor copied above)

---

Puts it well, but some of that agreement has fallen apart.

I understand that one of the issues is that for a church to take its property with them, they have to join an organized denomination.

A good, but lengthy article:

https://baptistnews.com/article/events-turn-against-disaffected-forces-wanting-to-leave-the-umc/#.Yw174y2B2X0

---

Divorces often start out with both parties' intending it to be amicable and don't end up that way. I fear the property disputes will be contentious.

Our United Methodist minister participated in the conference where the original agreement was hammered out. He would prefer a big tent and an ongoing debate to this agreement, but that ship has sailed.

I find it discouraging that so many Christians devote so much time and energy (and mean-spirited vitriol) to rejecting congregants who share their faith because they are openly gay and want to marry a same-sex partner. The often childless gay members of our church have always served the congregation in myriad ways, including visiting elderly and disabled shut-ins--important work members with children who also worked fulltime didn't have time to do. They are just as deserving of the love of God as anyone else, and in many cases moreso.

---

Nobody is saying a person with same-sex attraction shouldn't be able to go to church. That's not why churches are leaving the UMC and you know it.

You always come on this board and change the subject to virtue signal. For the love of God, please stop.

---

Churches joining the "global" side won't recognize or condone gay marriage or ordain gay ministers.

Being allowed to attend a church where, if you are gay and out of the closet, you're considered a sinner unless you're celibate, isn't much of an accommodation. That recognition is at the root of the split. Churches like the Catholics, where there hasn't been a split, have some tolerant congregations, but the church dogma condemns those congregations along with their gay members. That's how the UMC has operated for the past 30 years.

Christ calls people to live in community. Telling gay people the only way they can live in community without being egregious sinners is to be celibate isn't living in community.

---

As a United Methodist pastor, I think that you speak well of the gay community and the church as a community that Jesus intended

---

"The kiss of death" = an endorsement from Waco47

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

One bit of perspective that I have not seen on this thread:

One glaring difference between the Episcopal situation and the United Methodist situation is that the Methodist Book of Discipline never has allowed for openly gay ministers and never allowed UM ministers to perform gay marriages, even if those ceremonies took place outside a UM church.

There was a case a few years ago in a UM church court where a Methodist minister had performed a same-sex wedding. His gay son had asked him to officiate at his wedding, and given the choice, he felt like he had to say yes to his son. As a consequence, he was removed from the ministry.

There are liberal congregations in the UMC who felt just as aggrieved as the conservatives about the denomination's stance. They were pushing for the church to allow same-sex weddings and openly gay pastors.

What the leaders of the denomination tried to do was NOT change the Book of Discipline but find some acceptable compromise to keep all sides within the larger fold.

The conservatives were suspicious that EVENTUALLY there would be gay ministers and same-sex weddings. Maybe that's true, but impossible to say for sure. What is true today is that the denomination was NOT trying to force conservatives to accept these things.

When you get down to it, a lot of the ones who left simply didn't like the idea of being what some of the liberal churches called "reconciling congregations" that openly welcomed LGBT people.

---

The truth is most Christian churches, like my non-denominational church, openly welcome people who are sinners, including LGBT people. The difference between those churches and the new UNM church is that they recognize what the bible calls sin, and like Christ did, encourage their congregants to repent from same in order to live a live devoted to Christ as opposed to embracing the sin which causes separation from God.

---

This has been my observation as well. My church welcomes adulterers and prostitutes, but teaches abstinence

---

My church welcomes drunks and addicts, but teaches sobriety and freedom from sin through Christ.
We don't hand out long necks and needles... we offer support and counseling to overcome sin.

If someone is attracted to the opposite sex, they need support and counseling to overcome those sinful desires. The same is true for every sin. It is not sinful to have a desire towards sin, but it is sinful to act on that desire.