|
Replies: 51
| visibility 600
|
Legend [17856]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8921
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Will the UMC kindle a profane fire within its walls?
Feb 26, 2019, 9:41 PM
|
|
Reading through the comments below stirred a lot of emotional energy for me, just as it did for many others. Some used OT references to support a thought, some related to the NT teaching about love. Some were against allowing certain individuals to be ordained, others for.
For those who like to "beat up" on the conservative, have you ever read about the profane fire? To those who "beat up" on their contemporaries about loving like Jesus did/does, have you ever read that Jesus Himself said that there is a place where "their worm never dies"?
In the OT, God spoke through the prophet, "I do not change, says the Lord God."
In the NT, Jesus spoke, "Do not think I came to bring peace. I did not come to bring peace, but the sword."
And what we see playing out before our eyes is nothing more than another truth Jesus shared, "For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
Many say, "I will serve the Lord with truth and sincerity." [Good OT reference]. I say it too. But what does that mean? For me, this is what it means: To serve the Lord with truth means I will do my absolute best to know what God truly teaches - to understand it to my best ability. I do this so I will know what offends God (everything) so that I can point it out without fear. Then, to serve with sincerity, that means that without fear, I can look into my own life and see the sin within. Not that I can recognize it in everyone else, but that I can recognize it in me.
Truth AND Sincerity. Am I strong enough for this? Are you?
I am not perfect, but God is. I do not understand the purpose or reason behind all of His ways, I don't have to. God doesn't answer to me, but I will answer to Him.
It is not just the UMC which should be concerned about kindling a profane fire within it's walls.
Message was edited by: HuntClub®
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Where them worms don't die.
Feb 26, 2019, 11:29 PM
|
|
A good passage to pull from. A few lines up from that one, Jesus said this:
And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Mark 9:36-42
Good choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17856]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8921
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Doest thou readeth King James only?
Feb 26, 2019, 11:57 PM
|
|
Amazing how you pick that version to bring home a point about "offending" a child. Try these for comparison though - where the truest theme is captured from the earliest manuscripts - not offending the child but misleading the child - causing them to stumble in sin:
New International Version
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.
New Living Translation
"But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone hung around your neck.
English Standard Version
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
Berean Study Bible
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.
Berean Literal Bible
And whoever might cause to stumble one of these little ones believing in Me, it is better for him rather if a heavy millstone is put around his neck, and he has been cast into the sea.
New American Standard Bible
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
Christian Standard Bible
"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to fall away--it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
Contemporary English Version
It will be terrible for people who cause even one of my little followers to sin. Those people would be better off thrown into the ocean with a heavy stone tied around their necks.
Good News Translation
"If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose faith in me, it would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around the neck and be thrown into the sea.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
"But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me--it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
International Standard Version
"If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
NET Bible
"If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.
New Heart English Bible
Whoever will cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if he was thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around his neck.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And everyone who shall subvert one of these little ones who believe in me, it were better for him if a millstone of a donkey were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea.”
GOD'S WORD® Translation
"These little ones believe in me. It would be best for the person who causes one of them to lose faith to be thrown into the sea with a large stone hung around his neck.
New American Standard 1977
“And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
Jubilee Bible 2000
And whosoever shall be a stumbling block to one of these little ones that believe in me, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
"Their worm does not die, AND their fire is not quenched."
Message was edited by: HuntClub®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And I find it amazing...
Feb 27, 2019, 7:46 AM
|
|
That you get ornery when someone expands your Bible quote, particular one of such an uplifting and positive nature. I grew up learning the KJV, so I guess that's why I quoted it, but I also like that Shakespeare probably translated it, and since he was a closet homosexual, I bet that drives some folks nuts.
And I don't know why you copy and pasted from Bible Gateway, but you do you, boo.
I'm assuming you are insinuating that anyone who causes a child to stumble into homosexuality, which you believe is a sin, will have a fun time with the worms. The problem, of course, is that no one causes a person to go into homosexuality; it's how they are born, and they'll tell you that very clearly themselves.
Let's look at the main point of my post, and the words of Christ: "For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."
And herein lies the point of the UMC issue. Here Christ gives an example of those wanting to reject someone because "he's not one of us." To which Christ replies, if he's doing works in my name and comes to you in my name, he will not lose his reward in heaven and should not be rejected.
That's a pretty clear message to the UMC, all churches, and all Christians who seek to shun or exclude homosexual Christians. And homosexual Christians who try to work in the clergy to spread the works of Jesus fall under that category.
Churches permit adulterers and other sinners to serve. Why is this the magic sin that warrants exclusion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
word. in fact Jesus had A LOT to say about Divorce and
Feb 27, 2019, 9:24 AM
|
|
Zero to say about gays. but we all know the Evangelical churches are filled to the brim with divorces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37134
Joined: 11/22/03
|
they're also filled with homosexuals, so what is your...
Feb 27, 2019, 9:32 AM
|
|
point exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Do they let divorced people serve in official capacities?
Feb 27, 2019, 9:43 AM
|
|
Do they have conventions to discuss their official stance on divorced church members?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
We Methodists already dealt with that particular sin and
Feb 27, 2019, 9:59 AM
|
|
we allowed for context. But this sin is SOOOO much worse!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37134
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Yes...also let homosexuals server in official...
Feb 27, 2019, 10:24 AM
[ in reply to Do they let divorced people serve in official capacities? ] |
|
capacities...just not as the minister.
This is technical, but important, the discussion about homosexual activity/lifestyle is not related to being a member of the church. The UMC is clear that all can join and serve in church-level leadership roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37134
Joined: 11/22/03
|
*serve****
Feb 27, 2019, 10:25 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Technically, gays can serve in whatever role they want
Feb 27, 2019, 11:10 AM
[ in reply to Yes...also let homosexuals server in official... ] |
|
That's the case in every church. They just can't be actively opposed to church doctrine in word, and especially deed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
Well what do we do with the gay Methodist ministers
Feb 27, 2019, 11:22 AM
|
|
that we already have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Depends what you mean by "gay"
Feb 27, 2019, 11:44 AM
|
|
If they have been behaving as if there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, then they should consider resigning. They can go serve in another church where they've adopted liberal theology. Or, as will likely be the case, if the church where they currently serve saw nothing wrong with having a gay pastor, then they can try to take that church to a new denomination or to make it independent.
If they want to continue serving at an UMC church, they have the same opportunity that anybody else would have to repent.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
And if they have the support of their congregation and
Feb 27, 2019, 12:01 PM
|
|
the support of their jurisdiction or have been elected bishop? And if they support the One Church initiative as most of the US UMC do? If they feel like they are led by the words of God to fight for what they believe and for the organization of which they lead as our President of the Council of Bishops believes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Then they need to decide whether they want to be UMC
Feb 27, 2019, 12:43 PM
|
|
If they don't, then they should do their own thing, but recognize that they're doing that based on a minority interpretation of Scripture (or, on no scriptural basis at all) which allows affirmation of homosexual behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
So you completely disagree with the Council of Bishops?
Feb 27, 2019, 12:57 PM
|
|
You sure you ain't Baptist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I'm not Methodist, for sure***
Feb 27, 2019, 1:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
Well what's your skin in the game then?***
Feb 27, 2019, 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Christian, part of the Protestant tradition
Feb 27, 2019, 6:04 PM
|
|
I want to see other churches doing well, and doctrinally sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
Perhaps your doctrine may not align with
Feb 28, 2019, 10:58 AM
|
|
Wesleyan's, that's fine. There is plenty of room under Wesley's teachings of grace, God's love, tradition, reason, and experience to include LGBT folks as clergy and approve their union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
It sounds like your doctrine isn't Wesleyan, either
Feb 28, 2019, 4:49 PM
|
|
I do realize the UMC has been more liberal over the past few decades than churches that are avowedly Evangelical, though (even though some Methodits are Evangelical).
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
I'm quite comortable in the application of
Mar 1, 2019, 10:59 AM
|
|
Wesley's teachings as they pertain to my relationship with God. You should be, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 883
Joined: 9/4/03
|
Re: Then they need to decide whether they want to be UMC
Feb 28, 2019, 12:13 PM
[ in reply to Then they need to decide whether they want to be UMC ] |
|
Being homosexual is more than a "behavior". Every homosexual I've ever spoken to on the subject (and there's been many) stated that being gay is at the essence of who they are. And Yes, they all tried to pray the gay away. To reduce the entire issue down to sexual attraction is not addressing the bigger picture. To say "repent" implies sentencing a gay person to live their entire life in emotional isolation, which is not God's plan for humans (Genesis 2:18). Any heteros here want to repent of being hetero and live a life of celibacy? Anyone? Is hetero marriage all about sexual attraction? No. It's about love, companionship, mutual support, fidelity, etc. It's easy for a hetero to say "repent" and then go home to his/her family.
To treat ALL homosexual relationships as sinful is akin to stating that ALL heterosexual relations are pure. We know that's not true. Any relationship can be sinful or pure in nature; gay or straight. My position is to allow gays marry each other so they can be in a committed relationship and serve God faithfully. If they are called to be ordained, then let them go through the process. Paul himself stated it's better to be married than to burn with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
There must be something missing here
Feb 28, 2019, 4:49 PM
|
|
What is the connection between saying homosexuality is sinful and saying that heterosexuality is right? What if Christianity isn't so much concerned with sexual orientation, as it's currently conceived, as it is with having an identity in worshiping God? Have you considered that the "sexual orientation" might be a historical artifact of certain other arguments, rather than just a natural fact? Maybe that has something to do with why Christians might say that who you're attracted to shouldn't dictate your behavior.
This essay makes much the same point: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37134
Joined: 11/22/03
|
The UMC allows all sinners to serve...
Feb 27, 2019, 9:31 AM
[ in reply to And I find it amazing... ] |
|
it just doesn't allow non-repentant sinners (in its view) to be ordained as a minister. Note that anyone can serve as a lay-leader, in church administration, various councils, etc...in the UMC.
On the subject of adultery and/or divorce, plenty of ministers have been defrocked over such actions based on the situation (continuance, not being repentant, etc...). Same thing with theft and other crimes/sins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14022
Joined: 9/2/03
|
I find it amazing that the church is even still
Feb 27, 2019, 9:58 AM
[ in reply to And I find it amazing... ] |
|
debating this. We're doing more to thwart the spread of Christianity than Islam. Way to go hard hearts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155581]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65689
Joined: 5/6/13
|
You bring up some good points.
Feb 27, 2019, 10:22 AM
|
|
They should let atheists be pastors too. Heck, let's have Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, even Baptist Methodist ministers. That opens up a whole new market to expand into.
New slogan "DON'T CRITICIZE, EVANGELIZE!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
In fact, some liberal/modernist "churches" do this***
Feb 27, 2019, 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17856]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8921
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Do you, in fact, believe that Jesus
Feb 27, 2019, 10:40 AM
[ in reply to And I find it amazing... ] |
|
Said that "their worm never dies and their fire is never quenched"? If you do, what do you think He meant by that and, to whom do you think He was referring to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That's a great question
Feb 27, 2019, 5:00 PM
|
|
Because no, I don't believe much of what's quoted in the Bible was actually said, if any of it. But I do believe the lessons on how to treat human beings are great when it comes to Jesus, and they're also great at destroying the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christian yet seek to discriminate against others on a legislative level.
As for what he meant by it, he means hell, and he means those who would "offend" or "cause them to stumble" or whichever interpretation you prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
This isn't a strong interpretation of that passage
Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 PM
[ in reply to And I find it amazing... ] |
|
And also a good example of the weak justification given for liberal theological readings of scripture. The passage is not about simple tolerance, but about the universal justification of all people through Jesus. It does not say that just any person should be thought of as a teacher or a leader, and it does not say that unrepentant sinfulness should be tolerated just because "whoever is not against us is for us." It also doesn't say that the man driving out demons should not have become "one of us." Instead, the passage says that the Apostles shouldn't tell someone to stop driving out demons (or, generally, doing miracles) in Jesus's name just because he isn't one of the Apostles, and that "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me." It's a reminder that their authority comes from Jesus, and that Jesus is the common cause that makes them an "us." And, if somebody is able to do a miracle in Jesus's name, doesn't that indicate something about the provenance of that person's power?
After saying this, Jesus goes on to talk about going to extremes to prevent "stumbling," or sinning. He uses figures of speech to refer to "cutting off" anything, or anyone, who might lead you into sin. Jesus also takes about purification with fire and salt, which preserve against corruption and decay. In the context of Mark, one of these sins would certainly be ambitious pride and being quarrelsome with those with which you should have a common cause. That should be a caution in disputes like this one, but it would be very hard to argue that this condemnation of sin (which includes an admonition to separate from anybody who is leading you into sin) is actually about tolerance of sinful behavior.
It's also important to read this passage in the context of the rest of the Bible, which says more about what it means to be "in Jesus name." Part of that is recognizing how we're made, and because of that, how we should use our bodies to worship.
Meanwhile, you're arguing with straw-men and grossly simplifying things when it comes to homosexual identity and behavior and sinfulness. Nobody is shunning or excluding people who are attracted to people of the same sex. They're not treated differently than others who have inclinations towards other sin. However, people who engage in homosexual behavior are called to repent just like anybody else (like an adulterer, or like anybody else involved in sexual sin) would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'm afraid you're the one who is amiss here.
Feb 27, 2019, 4:56 PM
|
|
I'm not debating the part about casting out of demons, so don't say I'm employing some "liberal theological readings of scripture" (also a bit silly to apply liberal/conservative labels to translations) in this area. The real meat of what I'm getting at is Christ's response, and it's about people doing good works in his name.
"For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."
And to this, yes, I argue Christ references any homosexual who does good works in his name. It would include all sinners, no?
Meanwhile, you're arguing with straw-men and grossly simplifying things when it comes to homosexual identity and behavior and sinfulness. Nobody is shunning or excluding people who are attracted to people of the same sex. They're not treated differently than others who have inclinations towards other sin. However, people who engage in homosexual behavior are called to repent just like anybody else (like an adulterer, or like anybody else involved in sexual sin) would be.
That's not the definition of straw men. I don't believe I've accused HuntClub of arguing something he is not.
"Nobody is shunning or excluding" homosexuals? Cam, please. I know you didn't type that with a straight face. I'll provide recent and centuries-old examples of homosexual discrimination at the hands of organized Christianity, but only upon request.
"They're not treated differently than others who have inclinations towards other sin."? Really? You're a smart man but that's an absurd claim, and sadly an ignorant one. I invite you to sit down with some gay folks and ask them if they agree. To this day, conservatives are still pushing for legislation to curb their rights and freedoms. I don't see a grand right-wing push to ban divorce or punish adulterers.
Homosexuality is the trendy sin for Christianity to condemn now. Again, evidence provided upon request because I'm not going to post it all if you don't care to entertain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Liberal theology is a thing
Feb 27, 2019, 6:08 PM
|
|
It's not a "liberal/conservative label to translations" that's analogous to politcs, it's an actual tradition of ways of reading the Bible.
Your straw man is that you're imputing motives to traditionalists that they don't have, just like you do in the second half of this post. Conservatives are not "pushing for legislation to curb [gays'] rights and freedoms," unless you interpret "right and freedoms" to include their "rights and freedoms" to have everybody affirm whatever they want to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155581]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65689
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Hahahaha! Good one.
Feb 27, 2019, 9:35 AM
[ in reply to Doest thou readeth King James only? ] |
|
But seriously...I think we can all agree that the KJV is the only real version. This other stuff is hippie crap.
That's not even debatable, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Hahahaha! Good one.
Feb 27, 2019, 9:44 AM
|
|
This guy agrees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17856]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8921
Joined: 12/24/96
|
What is your proof that William Shakespeare
Feb 27, 2019, 10:16 AM
|
|
was ONE of the many translators?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: What is your proof that William Shakespeare
Feb 27, 2019, 10:56 AM
|
|
He was close friends with King James and the leading writer in the nation at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17856]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8921
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: What is your proof that William Shakespeare
Feb 27, 2019, 12:05 PM
|
|
So, an assumption portrayed as a fact. ok
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [345]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 413
Joined: 8/28/05
|
Re: What is your proof that William Shakespeare
Feb 27, 2019, 4:28 PM
|
|
Kind of like how many religious people portray God as if his existence is fact.
Faith masquerading as fact may not be exactly the same but it is certainly in the same ballpark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It's just a theory...
Feb 27, 2019, 4:42 PM
[ in reply to Re: What is your proof that William Shakespeare ] |
|
That scholars can't agree upon.
Kind of like who wrote the books in the Bible. Just as debatable.
But Shakespeare likely left his calling card in Psalm 46.
You do know they don't know exactly who wrote the KJV, right? So Shakespeare is a #### good candidate for the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17856]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8921
Joined: 12/24/96
|
The same calling card found in the Tyndale Bible?
Feb 28, 2019, 7:46 AM
|
|
Or the Great Bible? Both that were written before William Shakespeare was even born? ok
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Don't have a dog in the fight...
Feb 27, 2019, 1:31 PM
|
|
but I must say these threads have been popcorn-inducing for me.
This is just me and my opinion, but I believe the best way for a church to operate is independently. Each congregation believes what they want to believe, and they don't answer to any hierarchy, association, convention, or organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Not sure I entirely agree, but it sounds very Baptist***
Feb 27, 2019, 1:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Well, yes.***
Feb 27, 2019, 1:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Local church autonomy is a Baptist distinctive.
Feb 27, 2019, 1:42 PM
[ in reply to Not sure I entirely agree, but it sounds very Baptist*** ] |
|
Traditionally. Obviously the Southern Baptist Convention is huge in this country, but they technically do not claim to "govern" anything. I go further and say it's best to not even be affiliated with a convention like that, so the local body does not have to answer for potential wrongs of the convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I think the biggest problem with utter autonomy is...
Feb 27, 2019, 2:06 PM
|
|
a crisis of authority leading to a lack of connection with a greater body of believers, as well as a lack of resources. I look for a SBC church (or other church with Evangelical theology) because I know that church isn't just interpreting scripture in order to come up with some sort of eccentric, heretical theology. I can also guess that the liturgy will be pretty recognizable to me, in part because there's a tradition of music and ritual they can draw on. Another factor is that SBC churches will tend to have pastors who were educated in SBC or other Evangelical seminaries.
My guess is that ostensibly non-denominational churches which are basically Baptist in character and Evangelical theologically will struggle with continuity over time because members and attendees will always be relying on what's going on there in the present, with little connection to churches in other places. God can and will bless whoever he wants, but having some identifiable theology and tradition remains important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Every church should have specific and identifiable theology
Feb 27, 2019, 2:16 PM
|
|
However, it should be written down, by the individual church, not by someone else, with the church deciding to just defer to "them". If a prospective member or visitor wants to know where the specific church stands, they can just ask. In this day, most every church has those sorts of things listed for public consumption online.
Also, a lack of affiliation with a higher organization should not, and does not, preclude cooperation with other churches. I suppose I would say it's more likely to be local.
I will just use my experiences as an example...we are a completely independent Baptist church, with no affiliation with any convention. But we try to attend and help with many special services that other like-minded churches have in the area, and we get lots of help in kind when we have such events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I'd be skeptical of most "completely independent" churches
Feb 27, 2019, 2:29 PM
|
|
I want to know where the pastor is getting his theology from, or what tradition he's a part of when he interprets scripture. I also want to know something about the liturgical tradition a church is a part of. These things matter because the church has a history, and the church is greater than any one local church.
I also wonder what options church members are supposed to have, and to what standard/authority they're supposed to refer, when there's a doctrinal dispute within a totally independent church. The ultimate standard is God's Word in the Bible, the life of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but human communities still need human limits. I suppose they can either trust a specific pastor or vote him out and bring in another pastor. But in the end, things are still going to come down to what somebody or some majority thinks is the correct doctrine. I see no reason why multiple churches that have come to the same conclusion shouldn't join together, at least in a convention, to spread that doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Again, if it's written down, there should be no debate...
Feb 27, 2019, 2:44 PM
|
|
The person should review, and agree with, the major doctrinal points before joining. If they do not want to so affirm, then the church should not allow them to join. This is for the sake of church unity. On the question of "where they are getting their theology from," certainly I consider it best practice, and probably just the obvious right thing, to attach specific Scripture references to each of those doctrinal points.
Of course, there are "minors" that are often too numerous and not important enough to be written down. People should just get over disagreement on those, and the Bible actually commands as such.
I've been in church my entire life, and I've never encountered there being a disruption in my local church because of a disagreement on a major point of doctrine. It's because people know where the church stands...it is obvious.
I've seen many times when church members have left because of "minors" or because of personal issues unrelated to doctrine.
I thought it might help to give some examples of what I would call "minors": clothing/dress and musical preferences are the two most common trouble spots, in my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Yes, I agree people should get over those "minors"
Feb 27, 2019, 6:12 PM
|
|
And there are more significant "minors" where I think people can differ and still be in covenant with each other in a church. What I think is problematic is not recognizing the theological tradition that informs certain scriptural interpretations, and then taking the very individualistic stances that people can easily come up with "correct" interpretations on their own, and that churches can and should make up their liturgies out of whole cloth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37134
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I can understand position....
Feb 27, 2019, 1:46 PM
[ in reply to Don't have a dog in the fight... ] |
|
I also think there is positive power in connectionalism, which is a bit unique to the Methodist church (at least how the UMC practices connectionalism) and one of the many reasons why a split would be so painful for many in the church. IMO, the concept of connectionalism is most powerful in regards to national and international missions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3389]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3043
Joined: 10/22/07
|
If there is a split,
Feb 28, 2019, 1:03 PM
|
|
I think it will happen after the next General Conference, which I think is in 2020.
We attend a 115 year-old Methodist church that would likely split. For me, it would be a little hard, being born into a family of Methodists, whose parents met at a Methodist summer camp about 60 years ago (Glisson), was baptized into the Methodist Church, married in a Methodist Church, and enjoy regular Methodist fellowship (& pancakes, as recently as yesterday.)
But if it happens, I guess it just happens. I believe in God's justifying grace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 51
| visibility 600
|
|
|
50
