United Methodist Church to split in two

[workswithseed 2122]

2 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I can only imagine how something like this would go over at my church. We just had a rather contentious vote on whether members who were divorced could be deacons.

Apparently years ago, ours split cause of a kitchen.

Also are you a deacon now?

Edited January 3, 2020 by workswithseed

[Guest Lobo]

To be fair, that backsplash was a ceramic abortion. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Christianity is declining 

[workswithseed 2122]

10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Christianity is declining 

I bet that's what you said during the Protestant Reformation.

[Neonmoon 38130]

It really is

https://www.newsweek.com/christianity-decline-americans-religion-unaffiliated-pew-study-1466035

Who knows why though 

[BrickHorn 18293]

It’s too bad the church has to split over this disagreement.  But I guess it’s not as if the Methodists could get a definitive answer one way or the other on this issue by, I don’t know, consulting some kind of all-knowing being. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by BrickHorn

[Newdoc 3457]

The Methodist Church is dying. And overall it is full of the olds. I know some of you will use anecdotal evidence of your young hip Methodist church but the denomination is archaic and marrying and affirming homosexuality is not going to fix it.

Of course, many people under 30 are not adopting the faith of previous generations regardless of denomination.

And where are the “your fairytale stories” troll posters we have around here? Two page in and no frothing of the keyboard yet.

 

[Guest Lobo]

Well, most Christian denominations in the "West" are dying.  I don't think this was recruiting tool by the UMC, rather just them trying to do what's right.  All the missionary and conversion work in the world isn't going to save all the major monotheisms from the harsh truth---people learned to read and we don't need you anymore.  But as institutions go, this was a nice move...better than face fucking children on Sunday nights.  

[Stella Link 534]

28 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

It’s really not. 

What is HPUMC doing?  This is my church, adjacent to SMU campus. I should know but don’t. Because we’ve been pretty active on social issues, but apolitical, if that makes sense, I’d wager that we are part of the more progressive “new UMC”. I’d like to think so. There’s no place in my ideal church in being exclusive. There’s also no place in church for political grandstanding, but I strongly suspect that most gays that attend church, like a good family friend of mine in Houston, are Christian and want to learn how to be more Christlike, period, just like the rest of us.

I don’t like the idea that we are on the wrong side of societal progress here, like past churches with slavery, integration, female preachers, etc. I’m saddened I don’t know this about my own fucking church. 

Never been to HPUMC, but driven past it many times.  What a beautiful church!!  Need to attend a service next time I'm in Dallas.  There are some neighborhoods and churches that are strong for business networking, as well.  See and be seen type of thing.  I have a few gay and lesbian friends who are politically, spiritually and religiously conservative who attend church every week and active in their church.  They pretty much ignore the fire and brimstone aspect of traditional bible teachings against gays.

[formermav43 4606]

42 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It really is

https://www.newsweek.com/christianity-decline-americans-religion-unaffiliated-pew-study-1466035

Who knows why though 

Do you know the period of lowest church membership in the US? The late 18th century, in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution. Then the 2nd Great Awakening happened.
 

Religiosity, like most aspects of the human condition, ebbs and flows throughout history rather than continuing steadily in one direction.

Beyond that, more detailed research suggests that the decline in numbers in the last few decades is primarily due to nominal Christians no longer feeling the societal pressure to claim to adhere to what they don’t believe-the number of devout Christians is relatively stable.

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by formermav43

[Rougarou 594]

I honestly didn’t realize that many denominations were so...how do you say...new age and/or woke. I thought complimantarism* was the norm. It’s an interesting debate. I took it as normal that women are not church leaders and that celebrating and endorsing the pride flag was frowned upon. This thread is eye opening for sure even for us non-UMC folk.

 

*Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership. The word "complementary" and its cognates are currently used to denote this view.

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

Do you know the period of lowest church membership in the US? The late 18th century, in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution. Then the 2nd Great Awakening happened.
 

Religiosity, like most aspects of the human condition, ebbs and flows throughout history rather than continuing steadily in one direction.

Beyond that, more detailed research suggests that the decline in numbers in the last few decades is primarily due to nominal Christians no longer feeling the societal pressure to claim to adhere to what they don’t believe-the number of devout Christians is relatively stable.

 

How does that explain the decline in British Christianity?

https://www.christianpost.com/news/only-38-brits-identify-christian-lowest-proportion-in-polls-history.html

It has from 66% to 38% in 20 years. Half were nominal Christians? Now some of Britain can be explained by high non Christian immigration and their higher birth rate, but it’d not just the US, or Britain, it’s across Europe. 

[Bookman 4644]

8 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I find this odd. Regardless of your personal beliefs, you had to know the historic, orthodox position of Christianity on this issue. If it’s what drove you to quit going to church, it’s strange that you were there in the first place.

I assume he was there in the first place for the same reason almost everyone else is there in the first place -- it's what they were taught.

I was baptized in the Methodist Church and a substantial factor in me not attending service any longer is the church's bigotry.

[DaysOff 7978]

My faith and beliefs have evolved. The gay marriage discussion in this country began as a secular legal issue that wasn't widely discussed in the church until the last decade or so. What is marriage anyway? A contract with the state or the church? Ive been married 26 years and I don't know. Regardless, it's a human rights issue. If you're going to deny gays human rights; I'm out of your club. My wife and I have probably 20 gay friends recently introduced to us through a family member, so this has become a more personal issue for us.

[TwiceHorn 31624]

 

2 hours ago, Stella Link said:

Never been to HPUMC, but driven past it many times.  What a beautiful church!!  Need to attend a service next time I'm in Dallas.  There are some neighborhoods and churches that are strong for business networking, as well.  See and be seen type of thing.  I have a few gay and lesbian friends who are politically, spiritually and religiously conservative who attend church every week and active in their church.  They pretty much ignore the fire and brimstone aspect of traditional bible teachings against gays.

Both HPUMC and HP Presbyterian Church were designed by Mark Lemmon, of Lemmon Avenue family fame.  A Longhorn geology grad and MIT architect, he also designed the Cotton Bowl, several early SMU buildings, Woodrow Wilson and Sunset High Schools, as well as high schools across the state.

They're beautiful and similar buildings.

Oddly enough, the carillon at HPUMC was donated by a wealthy homosexual man and long-time beloved member of the church.  His homosexuality was well-known, but it was a very don't ask, don't tell thing.

I don't know what HPUMC is going to do.  It was an older church when I was a kid, but has had a resurgence in the last 20-25 years.  It founded other Methodist churches in Dallas, including Lovers Lane, which is now pretty mainstream/conservative, and also the aforementioned Northaven Church.  Both churches were designed to serve Dallas as it grew north, but also, to an extent, to provide more progressive churches for more progressive Methodists.  That was a long time ago.

Edited January 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

8 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

We attend a large UMC church in RR. It's the kind of place that's grown up with the community it serves. From a 1 room building in the 60s and 70s to a large campus with multiple buildings, and we continue to purchase neighborhood real estate as it becomes available. Our church actually trends younger than average, largely because the area is growing with young families and because the preschool is highly regarded. 

I am sorry to hear that. Is there lead in the water in RR?

[TwiceHorn 31624]

35 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I assume he was there in the first place for the same reason almost everyone else is there in the first place -- it's what they were taught.

I was baptized in the Methodist Church and a substantial factor in me not attending service any longer is the church's bigotry.

Not sure what church you attended, but I have not seen much bigotry in the UMC.  Indeed, the recent vote reflects a lack of bigotry in the American church and I think that's been brewing for at least a couple of decades.  At the very worst, the issue of gay marriage and clergy has been don't ask don't tell because everyone knows it was in violation of the Discipline, but hardly anyone was in favor of enforcing the Discipline, and no one wanted to flaunt it too openly either, to avoid the recent vote and this schism, that were somewhat inevitable.

[F250 28829]

10 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I find this odd. Regardless of your personal beliefs, you had to know the historic, orthodox position of Christianity on this issue. If it’s what drove you to quit going to church, it’s strange that you were there in the first place.

You must be a Methodist but we have something called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the historical orthodox position is not necessarily the end all be all.

 

[Armybrat 40940]

15 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

No!  Faith can never evolve!  Personally, that's why I am planning to go full-Abraham and climb a mountain to sacrifice my son.  Human sacrifice -- it's in the Bible! You can look it up!

The baptists who send their daughters to Baylor still do that.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Armybrat

[SydneyCarton 48222]

16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

St Johns?  FANTASTIC church, and their pastor is AMAZING. Seriously, she's brilliant.  And she's also one of my wife's dearest and best friends.  And also, I have a little bit of a crush on her, that everyone knows about.  I admire smart and capable women.

As an elder statesman of this board, I’m sure the lack of pics is just a technology hiccup or maybe a spouse hovering nearby over your shoulder. We understand, but surly remembers. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13529]

10 hours ago, DaysOff said:

My faith and beliefs have evolved. The gay marriage discussion in this country began as a secular legal issue that wasn't widely discussed in the church until the last decade or so. What is marriage anyway? A contract with the state or the church? Ive been married 26 years and I don't know. Regardless, it's a human rights issue. If you're going to deny gays human rights; I'm out of your club. My wife and I have probably 20 gay friends recently introduced to us through a family member, so this has become a more personal issue for us.

The argument over gay marriage seems silly now. Hasn’t it been legal for the country now for about 5 year, and fire and brimstone hasn’t been sent by God to demolish us.  I don’t even believe any serious, conservative politician even raises the subject anymore.

Obviously individuals and some churches still strongly oppose it but you have to figure they will slowly fade away.

[Gil Bang 26058]

The baptists who send their daughters to Baylor still do that.

Kendal was under the impression that they were to be sacrificed to the football team

[Gil Bang 26058]

Nm

[GreenspointTexas 9689]

Gonna be fucking pathetic and hilarious when people look back at this time and wonder, “what the fuck? They didnt allow two people to get married back then?”

 

to me, its the same issue at interracial marriage. If two humans love each other, let em love each other

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31624]

26 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Gonna be fucking pathetic and hilarious when people look back at this time and wonder, “what the fuck? They didnt allow two people to get married back then?”

 

to me, its the same issue at interracial marriage. If two humans love each other, let em love each other

 

 

I mean, it's not strictly a cultural or social issue.  While religion may evolve, it also has to remain anchored to some core principles.  You don't get to change a religion just because it's politically expedient.  You can't treat the whole thing as a nose of wax to bend and shape as the current secular thinking seems to require.

Thankfully, the scriptures and doctrines against homosexuality are vague at best and inconsistent with the broad teachings of the New Testament.  And even religious doctrines are unavoidably affected by predominant secular cultural, social, scientific, and moral thinking.  So doctrines can be wrong, not due to some errant divine thought, but simply viewing scripture and doctrine through current thinking.

There are a lot of people in a lot of churches, to include clergy, that are personally very uncomfortable with their church's treatment of homosexuals, but their church doctrine seems to require it and they are also uncomfortable with leaving a denomination or religion entirely because of it.  You can condemn these people as bigots, but I think that's facile.  In fact, those people are necessary if change in doctrine is going to be effected.

By the same token, there are bigots who fall back on religion or a denominational doctrine to justify their bigotry.  Call them bigots all you want.

Edited January 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The argument over gay marriage seems silly now. Hasn’t it been legal for the country now for about 5 year, and fire and brimstone hasn’t been sent by God to demolish us.  I don’t even believe any serious, conservative politician even raises the subject anymore.

Obviously individuals and some churches still strongly oppose it but you have to figure they will slowly fade away.

I fully support gay marriage by the government.

I do not support my church performing gay marriages or preaching that homosexual sex is not a sin.

[naija 2869]

It seems many people want Christianity a la carte

[Gatorubet 30325]

I fully support gay marriage by the government.
I do not support my church performing gay marriages or preaching that homosexual sex is not a sin.

9 out of 10 homophobic fucktard fake christians hypocrites agree.

And they have a right to their stupid opinion.

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, naija said:

It seems many people want Christianity a la carte

Yeah, I guess people could decide to adhere to every single part of the bible but I don't know if you noticed---slavery and stoning women isn't really considered "sacred" anymore.  

[Brisketexan 105465]

It seems many people want Christianity a la carte

They do. Mostly, they want it to be utterly unyielding on a principle that is at best scripturally vague (homosexuality), but super-duper flexible/at odds with clear teaching on care for the poor, the stranger, and the immigrant.

And even better, when it’s pointed out that the law is at odds with scripture on those points, they say the law wins with a lazy “render unto Caesar” quote...but when pointed out that the same law of the same country allows gay marriage, Caesar sucks.

[formermav43 4606]

26 minutes ago, naija said:

It seems many people want Christianity a la carte

Of course, that’s what each side of this issue thinks about those on the other side.

[Guest Lobo]

32 minutes ago, naija said:

It seems many people want Christianity a la carte

It's just that the mere act of acceptance of homosexuality never led to anyone dying, ever.  

And the misinterpretation of the Bible has literally led to the death of tens of millions of people throughout history.  

Faith, Hope, and Love and the strongest of these is love.  

Point to where in the bible, Jesus said, "If you guys remember nothing else, forget all that shit about love and helping people...totally focus on my dad's hatred for Gays.  Totally the big message here.  I know we've spent many years together, preached a bit here and there, had a few laughs, cared for the less fortunate.  But whatever you take away after I'm dead and gone (wink, wink)...is no love for the Gays.  When this conference wraps up and we're all checked out of the Inns and back on our camels for the four points of the known world, and all the networking and talking points have faded from memory...please remember to keep your address up to date with the Apostles, and totally condemn homosexuality.  Thank you, and we'll see you next year and 'Totally Missing the Point of Christ's Ministry' Symposium & Expo! 

[ruitxn 298]

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I don’t care if my church performs gay marriages. However, I do care if the attendance of my church dwindles.

And the moment a pastor actively brings up homosexuality in a sermon in a good or bad way is the day I simply walk out of that church, revoke my membership and cease giving it money. 

Bye

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

58 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, I guess people could decide to adhere to every single part of the bible but I don't know if you noticed---slavery and stoning women isn't really considered "sacred" anymore.  

Well, I mean, say what you will about slavery and the use of human pain and suffering to build societies, but it gets shit done. 

Also, with regard the stoning of women, maybe we should give it another chance. 

On the whole I think it’s a mountain/mole hill thing in this day. There are plenty of places and houses of worship that will allow/perform gay marriages. Generally, I think most Christians are in the “ I’m fine with it being legal, but don’t believe it jibes with our interpretation of the Bible” boat. 

[naija 2869]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

This is totally obvious and I’m not sure how this is some revelation, new thing, or even controversial. 

It isn't new and because it is obvious does not mean that people do not get apoplectic by the suggestion.

witness Lobo 

[Guest Lobo]

Your anti-semitism is getting almost palpable.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

9 out of 10 homophobic fucktard fake christians hypocrites agree.

And they have a right to their stupid opinion.

You have free will to ignore the New Testament.  I won’t do that.  

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't get to change a religion just because it's politically expedient.  You can't treat the whole thing as a nose of wax to bend and shape as the current secular thinking seems to require.

[troph 24915]

Yep. That was the one. We had a good experience, but It's been quite a while since we lived in that part of town. Never officially became members. Cool to hear.
 
Which makes me think, what would a place like that do if there wasn't a split? Ignore the new rules?

St Johns is the church I go to when we go. Very cool church.

[troph 24915]

2 hours ago, naija said:

It seems many people want Christianity a la carte

The proper way to read the Bible is contextual if you don’t do that you yield ridiculous results. I’m talking about quarantining women who are “bleeding” and stoning women who are divorced and the list goes on and on.  Anti-Gay scriptures have similar issues with literalism.  It’s the literalists that’s want it a la carte if we are being intellectually honest. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by troph

[ruitxn 298]

37 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You have free will to ignore the New Testament.  I won’t do that.  

Gosh Johnny I didn’t know you were such an adherent to New Testament teaching.  You being a big land owner it is refreshing to know you believe in the teachings of Acts.

“The group of believers were united in their hearts and spirit. All those in the group acted as though their private property belonged to everyone in the group. In fact, they shared everything.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:32‬ ‭NCV‬‬
“There were no needy people among them. From time to time those who owned fields or houses sold them, brought the money, and gave it to the apostles. Then the money was given to anyone who needed it.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:34-35‬ ‭NCV‬‬
“Joseph owned a field, sold it, brought the money, and gave it to the apostles.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:37‬ ‭NCV‬‬

[troph 24915]

Gosh Johnny I didn’t know you were such an adherent to New Testament teaching.  You being a big land owner it is refreshing to know you believe in the teachings of Acts.
“The group of believers were united in their hearts and spirit. All those in the group acted as though their private property belonged to everyone in the group. In fact, they shared everything.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:32‬ ‭NCV‬‬
“There were no needy people among them. From time to time those who owned fields or houses sold them, brought the money, and gave it to the apostles. Then the money was given to anyone who needed it.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:34-35‬ ‭NCV‬‬
“Joseph owned a field, sold it, brought the money, and gave it to the apostles.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:37‬ ‭NCV‬‬

A la carte American literalism at its finest.

[Guest Lobo]

Since many of you have the benefits of a classical education at a top-flight university, let me encourage you to spend some meaningful time in the Ransom Center for the Humanities at UT.  In particular with the oldest Latin and Arabic texts.  And place the same works side-by-side with their centuries later translations, adaptations, and interpretations.  You'll have the benefit of watching real-time modifications happen as you see where the authors left behind notes for the eventual scholars that would follow them down the wormhole of eternity.  You can see how modern day experts in their field struggled to figure out what the source material was trying to say hundreds of years ago.  This evidence is left in handwritten notes, papers, correspondence, diaries, and letters.  You can watch how a work held as cannon in much of the world has been modified and adapted as experts from hundreds of countries, speaking hundreds of languages, over hundreds of years lay their hands on a work even with the best of intentions.  Realize how much these works were changed by other humans who were simply wanting to bring a work into their own lands, into their own time, into their own worldview.  They were doing it with all the pressure of achieving tenure, or being published and they made that many mistakes, took that many liberties, and sculpted that many modifications.  We've fucked up barely important books with nothing on the line.  Imagine what we did to really important scriptures with everything on the line.  

imagine, somebody has a sword to your neck.  The works you cling to have been changed and translated within an inch of their lives.  These entire faiths are A La Carte.  All that's left is being kind to one another.  That notion was around before your books.  And it'll be around long after.  Your churches are not based in scripture and gospel, they hang in the balance of handwriting interpreters and rosetta stones.  

Edited January 4, 2020 by Lobo

[naija 2869]

42 minutes ago, troph said:

The proper way to read the Bible is contextual if you don’t do that you yield ridiculous results. I’m talking about quarantining women who are “bleeding” and stoning women who are divorced and the list goes on and on.  Anti-Gay scriptures have similar issues with literalism.  It’s the literalists that’s want it a la carte if we are being intellectually honest. 

Is there a proper way to apply logic to a document that is not logical? Is this "trying to eat your cake and have it" intellectualism? "I will apply my modernism and enlightenment to a scripture," and yet not draw that to the conclusion that the entire enterprise does not survive that sort of scrutiny? 

in 30 years time, when a new paradigm arises, what changes again in the interpretation? and how many such changes can a document or religion survive before it is indelibly mutated from its original intent? especially one that has as its central appeal, the Universality of its core message; in which both the slavemaster and the slave could be confidently certain they were worshipping the same God. that message had to have been true in 1620AD, as in 2020AD and in the upcoming 2050AD

devils advocate.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21983]

Jesus himself said it pretty well in Mathew 22:37-40

That’s pretty much all the theology anybody needs.

[formermav43 4606]

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Since many of you have the benefits of a classical education at a top-flight university, let me encourage you to spend some meaningful time in the Ransom Center for the Humanities at UT.  In particular with the oldest Latin and Arabic texts.  And place the same works side-by-side with their centuries later translations, adaptations, and interpretations.  You'll have the benefit of watching real-time modifications happen as you see where the authors left behind notes for the eventual scholars that would follow them down the wormhole of eternity.  You can see how modern day experts in their field struggled to figure out what the source material was trying to say hundreds of years ago.  This evidence is left in handwritten notes, papers, correspondence, diaries, and letters.  You can watch how a work held as cannon in much of the world has been modified and adapted as experts from hundreds of countries, speaking hundreds of languages, over hundreds of years lay their hands on a work even with the best of intentions.  Realize how much these works were changed by other humans who were simply wanting to bring a work into their own lands, into their own time, into their own worldview.  They were doing it with all the pressure of achieving tenure, or being published and they made that many mistakes, took that many liberties, and sculpted that many modifications.  We've fucked up barely important books with nothing on the line.  Imagine what we did to really important scriptures with everything on the line.  

imagine, somebody has a sword to your neck.  The works you cling to have been changed and translated within an inch of their lives.  These entire faiths are A La Carte.  All that's left is being kind to one another.  That notion was around before your books.  And it'll be around long after.  Your churches are not based in scripture and gospel, they hang in the balance of handwriting interpreters and rosetta stones.  

I don’t think you understand textual criticism.

[Guest Lobo]

There's actually a whole study of it at the University of Texas.  If people can lay their hands on works to steer it, with nobody looking and nothing to gain, imagine what else they'll do.  There's a fascinating path laid out at the Ransom Center that shows the more significant the work, the further we are from the source material, the more eyes on the process...the more we lie and manipulate.  I'll take those hundreds of scholars over you, thanks though.  

[formermav43 4606]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

There's actually a whole study of it at the University of Texas.  If people can lay their hands on works to steer it, with nobody looking and nothing to gain, imagine what else they'll do.  There's a fascinating path laid out at the Ransom Center that shows the more significant the work, the further we are from the source material, the more eyes on the process...the more we lie and manipulate.  I'll take those hundreds of scholars over you, thanks though.  

Wow, if only hundreds of scholars had studied the transmission of the Bible. If only we had thousands of manuscripts in our possession. If only it was the most preserved work of ancient literature. If only we had it in the original language, rather than the Latin and Arabic you referenced. If only we could somehow compare all those.

Its a pity no one has ever done any of that work.

[Guest Lobo]

I referenced Latin and Arabic when I was discussing the types of texts available at the Ransom Center.  I realize the original language of the bible wasn't one of those languages, it's just that we don't have the resources at the HRC to acquire books in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.  So I used two older languages we do have en masse.  I'd be happy to arrange a tour of the libraries for you at your leisure.  

There is a study of how historical transmission, even with the best intentions, even with diverse hindsight is plagued with a range from innocent error to unethical intent.  You can see it unfold with works that nobody gave a shit about.  You can really see it amplified the more important a work gets to history.  We worship at the altar of the world's largest game of Telephone.  Seriously, come by the library and I'll hook you up. 

[formermav43 4606]

Eclectic texts, how do they work?