United Methodist Church to split in two

[Brisketexan 105190]

Eclectic texts, how do they work?

Not as well as eclectic sexts.

[Guest Lobo]

I’ll tell you what works...the 45 watt soft glow of electric sex 

happy holidays.  My bad, I got into a discussion of religion 4 days Into the new year with the guy at the party who studied “comparative theology”

Edited January 5, 2020 by Lobo

[txhorns 2413]

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

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

That’s pretty much all the theology anybody needs.

That has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21913]

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self seems pretty inclusive to me. Jesus put that second only to thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy mind.

[softlynow 1816]

12 minutes ago, txhorns said:

That has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Είστε τόσο σίγουροι?

[Guest Lobo]

Now, we're discussing the Ten Commandments as indicators as to how God felt about Homosexuals?  Considering he spends the first 40% of his time demanding praise and adoration, that has a lot in common with.........

[formermav43 4606]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Now, we're discussing the Ten Commandments as indicators as to how God felt about Homosexuals?  Considering he spends the first 40% of his time demanding praise and adoration, that has a lot in common with.........

You?

[troph 24901]

Now, we're discussing the Ten Commandments as indicators as to how God felt about Homosexuals?  Considering he spends the first 40% of his time demanding praise and adoration, that has a lot in common with.........

Wearing a feathered boa and holding a clack fan... he says to God: YASSSS QUEEN!! YOU LOOK FAAAAABULOUS!!!

[austingirl 2191]

On 1/3/2020 at 3:44 PM, 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.

Do they have two female pastors right now? One of my good friends is one and was recently fully ordained (or whatever the term is). We met many years ago when we both worked at a large tech company in Austin. She is indeed amazing. I'm not religious but if I had to go to church I'd go to hers.

[austingirl 2191]

26 minutes ago, austingirl said:

Do they have two female pastors right now? One of my good friends is one and was recently fully ordained (or whatever the term is). We met many years ago when we both worked at a large tech company in Austin. She is indeed amazing. I'm not religious but if I had to go to church I'd go to hers.

Actually I just checked and I'm 99% we're talking about the same person. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by austingirl

[Gil Bang 25986]

9 hours 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

 

 

THE BIBLE SAYS ADAM AND EVE, NOT DE'ANDRE AND EVE !!!!

[Rougarou 594]

I don’t think there is any conflict in loving your neighbor and serving your neighbor and also believing in and engaging in a biblical marriage. People can be married according to laws and that’s great if that’s what they desire, but hypothetically a biblical marriage under God’s laws and blessings (what God has joined together, let no man separate, etc.) is a whole different ball of wax and can be true for the two even if a state doesn’t recognize it or you don’t receive the tax implications of marriage. 

[Rougarou 594]

Also, my opinion is who cares what a church’s official stance on anything is? A church isn’t an authority (isn’t it said a church is technically when a couple or Christians get together to praise and worship?) and should just be teaching people how to best get into the Bible and read it and apply it?

[TwiceHorn 31516]

 

14 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Also, my opinion is who cares what a church’s official stance on anything is? A church isn’t an authority (isn’t it said a church is technically when a couple or Christians get together to praise and worship?) and should just be teaching people how to best get into the Bible and read it and apply it?

Totally true and the average churchgoer doesn't need to get into church doctrine, or, for that matter, the sexuality of their fellow parishioners, to have a fulfilling church/religious life.

On the other hand, a fair number of people get into the technical aspects of theology and church doctrine.  Sometimes they don't like what they find.  And sometimes people just pick fights with church doctrines that are rarely enforced, either to foment change or just to be rabble-rousers.

And, if you happen to be friends, or worse, church friends, with a gay person who wants a biblical-style committed marriage and can't get one in your church, or a beloved clergy member comes out of the closet and is stripped of their position, well those are shitty, shitty situations.

[Celery Man 20982]

On 1/3/2020 at 11:48 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

Kinda disingenuous to keep United in the name, but I guess what remains is united. 

wait till you hear what "catholic" means

Edited January 6, 2020 by Celery Man

[Nice Guy Eddie 13516]

100% I’m not a religious expert by I laugh whenever any Protestant talks about traditional religion and adhering to the word of God from the Bible. Their entire faith was started by reinterpretation of the Bible and rejection of 1500 years of tradition.  Which then continued time and time again to have an uncountable number of sub-religions 500 years later.

whos to say when that reinterpretation is/was correct or isn’t still continuing? Or that God isn’t reshaping the message even today. 

[Armybrat 40861]

I think it is ludicrous for a government official to refuse to issue a same sex marriage license or perform a same sex marriage on the grounds that it violates their personal religious beliefs. If that is the case, then they should resign or be terminated for failure to adhere to their official job requirements.

On the other hand, officials of a duly recognized mainstream church should not be forced to comply with government rules that violate their religious freedoms. And as in the original topic, it is up to the congregation’s vote to determine their course of policy action.

The current Pope is apparently nudging the Roman Catholic Church in that direction.

[BigDHornfan 6549]

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. 

Pretty sure HPUMC will be doing what they’ve done forever. Whatever they want to do. They have been able to do that for the last 30 years or so due to the amount of money they have. They probably fund a quarter of the NT conference.
I worked there from 2007-2012 and they had more than one gay minister on staff.
Everyone knew, but just didn’t say anything. One was there for 40+ years until he was caught propositioning a cop at a movie theater. Then he just “retired.”
Pretty sure none of the congregation knew anything about it.
Overall, HPUMC is a great church and does many great things to help a ton of people.
Wonderful serving congregation.

[CHIEF 5094]

I hate to kick the fire ant mound, but here is the actual passage in Romans that causes the rift:

Romans 1:24-32 New International Version (NIV)

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

If you follow the literal interpretation, it is easy to see why churches are reluctant to perform gay marriages, and condone a gay lifestyle. It goes against Biblical teachings. So are Christians narrow-minded? I have no problems with gays getting married, but they can have the service performed in any number of places besides a church. So there is a precedence.

CHIEF

[HouTex 1888]

I think it is ludicrous for a government official to refuse to issue a same sex marriage license or perform a same sex marriage on the grounds that it violates their personal religious beliefs. If that is the case, then they should resign or be terminated for failure to adhere to their official job requirements.
On the other hand, officials of a duly recognized mainstream church should not be forced to comply with government rules that violate their religious freedoms. And as in the original topic, it is up to the congregation’s vote to determine their course of policy action.
The current Pope is apparently nudging the Roman Catholic Church in that direction.

On issues like same sex marriage? Many things he says are taken out of context or just misreported. Allowing same-sex marriage would require 180 degree changes to the catechism. Nothing like that is in the works. If you have a source I’d like to read it.

[gsoda3 3277]

Their entire faith was started by reinterpretation of the Bible ...

Actually it's the opposite. Protestantism was borne out of the discipline of going back to Biblical teaching. Your 1500 years of tradition was more like 500 years of abuse in a direction trending away from the first 1000 years of tradition. Protestantism brought everything back to the roots of the faith.

[BigDHornfan 6549]

Well frankly I agree with the way my church handled everything above. Have gay ministers, just don’t emphasize it as it is not relevant. Don’t make a big deal out of that indiscretion. 
In what capacity did you work there?  Did any of their handlings of the above cause you to leave? Thanks for the information - pos rep. 

Pm sent

[HouTex 1888]

2 hours ago, CHIEF said:

I hate to kick the fire ant mound, but here is the actual passage in Romans that causes the rift:

Romans 1:24-32 New International Version (NIV)

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

If you follow the literal interpretation, it is easy to see why churches are reluctant to perform gay marriages, and condone a gay lifestyle. It goes against Biblical teachings. So are Christians narrow-minded? I have no problems with gays getting married, but they can have the service performed in any number of places besides a church. So there is a precedence.

CHIEF

There's also 1 Corinthians chapter 6 and 1 Timothy chapter 1.  

[troph 24901]

There's also 1 Corinthians chapter 6 and 1 Timothy chapter 1.  

Metric ton of Christians using the civil legal system are in deep trouble.

[Beau Vine 54339]

2x

Edited January 5, 2020 by Beau Vine

[Beau Vine 54339]

On 1/3/2020 at 12:24 PM, 'stache said:

I thought the "traditionalists" were the majority vote world-wide. Why are they the ones "splitting off." Seems it would be the other way around.

One of my best friends is up for bishop next year, so she's heavily involved in this.  If left to US churches voting, the pro-LGBT policies would pass easily.  But the UMC has a huge presence in Africa, and those churches vote virtually unanimously along the traditionalist path.  

[Beau Vine 54339]

On 1/3/2020 at 2:50 PM, 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!

If I were you, I'd just tie him to the top of the spiral staircase and let the coyotes have their way with him.

[Beau Vine 54339]

On 1/3/2020 at 3:46 PM, skittlebrau said:

Which makes me think, what would a place like that do if there wasn't a split? Ignore the new rules?

I have attended a gay wedding at Wimberley UMC.

[Beau Vine 54339]

On 1/4/2020 at 10:14 AM, Dr. Beeper said:

It has founded literally dozens of churches. The resurgence over the last 20-25 years is directly attributable to the leadership of Mark Craig and Paul Rasmussen. Thank you for your informative post. Pos rep. 

Paul Ragamuffin was one of my best friends my freshman year in college, because we were both obsessed with basketball.  He was a manager for the SMU basketball team.  After his freshman year, Dave Bliss left to take the job at UNM, and Paul went with him.  Paul was hellbent on being a basketball coach, and I think he spent a few years as an assistant at Centenary (he grew up in Shreveport).  I was absolutely stunned to see that he was the senior pastor at HPUMC, but he is absolutely one of the likeable people I've ever met.  

[TwiceHorn 31516]

8 hours ago, BigDHornfan said:

Pretty sure HPUMC will be doing what they’ve done forever. Whatever they want to do. They have been able to do that for the last 30 years or so due to the amount of money they have. They probably fund a quarter of the NT conference.
I worked there from 2007-2012 and they had more than one gay minister on staff.
Everyone knew, but just didn’t say anything. One was there for 40+ years until he was caught propositioning a cop at a movie theater. Then he just “retired.”
Pretty sure none of the congregation knew anything about it.
Overall, HPUMC is a great church and does many great things to help a ton of people.
Wonderful serving congregation.

He is/was a wonderful pastoral care minister.  He was very important to me and my family over the years.

I never knew or cared whether he might be gay.  It saddens me that he was forced underground.

[BigDHornfan 6549]

He was always the nicest person on staff while I was there.
It saddened me as well when it happened.

[Beau Vine 54339]

2 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Didn’t know the backstory on Bliss - not a good look but he was what, 19, and Bliss was extremely charismatic and a good coach. I know he’d spent some time at Centenary and was basketball obsessed. He’s SMU’s team chaplain now. Good guy. His best friend growing up in Shreveport manages some of our money. 

Bliss didn't lose his mind until he went to Baylor.  Are you talking about Quintin?

[jkates 316]

This Twitter thread is worth considering....

 

 

[HRSchenker 2271]

This will be all for nothing when a progressive state decides to prohibit discrimination among those licensed to sign marriage certificates and it gets upheld by a conservative Supreme Court thanks to Scalia's opinion in Employment Division v Smith. 

[Beau Vine 54339]

15 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Bliss had that in his character all along. I wouldn’t expect it to manifest itself without some serious adversity and wouldn’t most people much less a college kid manager to pick up on it. 
 

Yes. QH. 

I know QH, too -- good guy.  I can't remember what his dad did, but his family is filthy rich.  So QH could have easily been one of those entitled, lazy rich assholes, but he was the exact opposite.

[troph 24901]

This will be all for nothing when a progressive state decides to prohibit discrimination among those licensed to sign marriage certificates and it gets upheld by a conservative Supreme Court thanks to Scalia's opinion in Employment Division v Smith. 

No way they apply that holding to churches. That was a ruling that said the state could deny unemployment benefits for unlawful activity even if the activity was done under religious motives (smoke peyote). First you’d have to strike down state laws protecting clergy from having to perform same sex weddings and force them to do so, that’s not a neutral law of general applicability like in the smith case so the free exercise of religion clause should carry the day for clergy. Second you’re not denying clergy something here you’re asking them to affirmatively perform an act in violation of their religion. Smith can smoke peyote all he wants he just might not get unemployment benefits when his employer fired him for getting baked. Here you’re asking for what essentially is an injunction against the clergy forcing them to do something that’s contrary to their religious beliefs. That’s another distinction. Then we have post-Hobby Lobby world where religious freedom laws have more persuasive power than they did before. Bottom line there will never in our lifetimes come a time when the SCOTUS will require clergy to perform same sex weddings.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

15 hours ago, jkates said:

This Twitter thread is worth considering....

 

 

That's a bizarre take on the whole thing.

Quote

The progressives leading the charge at the UMC are enacting a fundamentally racist policy change.

 

Guy''s crazy as a shithouse rat.  The UMC is a fundamentally American church.  Because of it's successful mission work, it has a strong presence in Africa and other parts of the world, but it remains, in membership, churches, and representation, a majority American church.

Edited January 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[jkates 316]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The UMC is a fundamentally American church.  Because of it's successful mission work, it has a strong presence in Africa and other parts of the world, but it remains, in membership, churches, and representation, a majority American church.

And they want to keep it that way, it seems.

[Samson's Wig 3194]

Meh.  Africa has been home base for Christianity since just about the beginning.  Ethiopians laugh at westerners and all their crazy interpretations that have diverged from the true faith.

[troph 24901]

I was listening to the debate on a sat radio channel....  did you know the Bible authorizes beating your slaves so long as they don’t die with in 24 hours? women cannot teach men either.

Talk about the south will rise again and holy crap how are we going to convince the men to take over the teaching profession? Our economy will be turned upside down!! 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

The Old Testament authorizes that, and you underestimate how mouthy Jewish slaves got back in 2,000 BC. I’m on Moses’ side on this one. 

The Jewish people were mouthing off to Moses and the Lord while God’s presence was visibly in their camp or or before them every day, and Moses’ face was still glowing from having conversed with the Almighty according to the Old Testament. 

I’m sure they were being real dicks to the average jackwagon let alone the God that was in their presence and sending plagues upon them or having the ground swallow them up for a ticket straight to Hell when they continually rebelled about their situation.  

[relapse98 634]

On 1/3/2020 at 12:43 PM, NeverMarryAStripper said:

That seems like a pretty fucked deal for the traditionalists. It’s not really a split, they’re just being tossed out on their asses. Not that I give a shit, but it would seem like each congregation should vote and the winner gets the church.

The problem being - the deeds live with the denomination, not the individual church, even though the church may have paid for the buildings.

[relapse98 634]

On 1/3/2020 at 1:30 PM, 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.

The problem being - UMC really only became anti LGBT in 1972 when the Book of Discipline was changed to include the words "we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." Before then, the BoD was silent on homosexuality. That sentence then became the battering ram used against LGBT and their allies.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Hey bro, you try wandering the desert for 40 years. Not having endured cicadas being attracted to my swamp ass, I’m gonna cut the old Jews some slack. The Almighty and Moses were being politically expedient. 

Well, they got 40 years added to their journey for being dicks too if memory serves. 

I’m a pretty simple creature. I’d probably go ahead and do what the deity living among me said.

Thats rule one. Rule two involves what to do when trapped on a high rise and asked if you’re a god by an extra-dimensional being.  

[formermav43 4606]

10 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

The problem being - UMC really only became anti LGBT in 1972 when the Book of Discipline was changed to include the words "we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." Before then, the BoD was silent on homosexuality. That sentence then became the battering ram used against LGBT and their allies.

Of course, there’s nearly 2,000 years of church history predating that statement. 

[workswithseed 2109]

10 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Well, they got 40 years added to their journey for being dicks too if memory serves. 

I’m a pretty simple creature. I’d probably go ahead and do what the deity living among me said.

Thats rule one. Rule two involves what to do when trapped on a high rise and asked if you’re a god by an extra-dimensional being.  

The nice thing is if the being asks why they don't listen, just show him the Bible and tell him how you have been dealing with thier disrespectful asses for all of time.

[relapse98 634]

1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

Of course, there’s nearly 2,000 years of church history predating that statement. 

Again, it wasn't a big deal in the United Methodist Church until 1972. As in, was not really spoken of... homosexuals were being ordained etc. Then the fateful General Conference and suddenly, it became a problem and was used as a hammer. So the church history leading up to that point (in the UMC) - no problem with homosexuals. What other denominations etc. did, who knows.

[formermav43 4606]

31 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Again, it wasn't a big deal in the United Methodist Church until 1972. As in, was not really spoken of... homosexuals were being ordained etc. Then the fateful General Conference and suddenly, it became a problem and was used as a hammer. So the church history leading up to that point (in the UMC) - no problem with homosexuals. What other denominations etc. did, who knows.

I don’t claim to be an expert on Methodist history by any means, but this article indicates it’s not quite that simple. The catalyst for that clause was the case of an individual who had been forced out of his parish responsibilities nearly a decade earlier over the issue.

http://archives.gcah.org/bitstream/handle/10516/9938/Methodist-History-2017-04-Sledge.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The United Methodist Church doesn’t exist in a historical vacuum uninformed by the broad sweep of church history, as if they had no position on this prior to 1972. If we want to define things that narrowly, it didn’t even exist until 1968; since this case emerged in 1971 (and had been brewing before that), you could just as reasonably argue that it has been troubled by this question since it’s beginning.

[ZB'Tejas 593]

2 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Well, they got 40 years added to their journey for being dicks too if memory serves. 

I’m a pretty simple creature. I’d probably go ahead and do what the deity living among me said.

Thats rule one. Rule two involves what to do when trapped on a high rise and asked if you’re a god by an extra-dimensional being.  

Right, the extra 40 years of wandering was to let all the mouthy ones die off and have their progeny get to the promised land.

[F250 28806]

On 1/5/2020 at 12:47 PM, gsoda3 said:

 

 

Actually it's the opposite. Protestantism was borne out of the discipline of going back to Biblical teaching. Your 1500 years of tradition was more like 500 years of abuse in a direction trending away from the first 1000 years of tradition. Protestantism brought everything back to the roots of the faith.

This sounds wrong. The idea of scripture being the sole source of authority as opposed to the tradition of the Church was invented with the Reformation. No one was returning to biblical teaching but rather deviating from the established practice of equally following Tradition and Scripture. Protestantism really is the result of reinterpreting the Scripture to break away from Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox are probably the closest to the Early Christian Church but they really don't differ that much from the Roman Catholic Church who seem to be slightly influenced by Greek philosophy thanks to Aquinas and Augustine. It's really interesting how concepts like original sin and free will are where the RCC and Orthodox differ,  more than likely due to the influence of Augustine a Platoist and how you see reactionary theology created by Calvin which then went on to spawn rival Protestant theologies like Calvinism and Arminianism.

Anyways, Protestantism is a deviation of Roman Catholicism not a return to anything that existed prior to the Reformation or Great Schism.