# Methodist split - Florida update



## brutally honest (Sep 2, 2022)

“The implosion of the 13-million-member global United Methodist Church has accelerated as 106 conservative Florida congregations are suing their liberal bishop, Kenneth Carter, for better terms as they quit the denomination. This schism of America’s largest liberal Mainline denomination represents the wider collapse of 20th century liberal Protestantism, whose leading institutions are fast receding if not dying.”

https://wng.org/opinions/methodism-implodes-amid-litigation-1662032394


----------



## Madman (Sep 2, 2022)

Separating the sheep and the goats.


----------



## dslc6487 (Sep 2, 2022)

Many United Methodist Churches in Georgia have already disaffiliated with the United Methodist Church and many more have already voted to disaffiliate. All of this could have been prevented several years ago if the proper action had been taken  against those clergy that turned from biblical teachings and turned from following the rules as set forth in the Book of Discipline.  And, it does not take but one immoral incident, left unattended, to mushroom into a situation that is unsalvageable...


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 2, 2022)

dslc6487 said:


> Many United Methodist Churches in Georgia have already disaffiliated with the United Methodist Church and many more have already voted to disaffiliate. All of this could have been prevented several years ago if the proper action had been taken  against those clergy that turned from biblical teachings and turned from following the rules as set forth in the Book of Discipline.  And, it does not take but one immoral incident, left unattended, to mushroom into a situation that is unsalvageable...



It seems like Georgia has also had problems with liberal bishops.  This story is from last year:

Methodist Bully Bishop Escalates North Georgia Crisis, for "Love" - Juicy Ecumenism


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2022)

Even if you don't agree, shouldn't those Churches be allowed to secede from the union so to speak?


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 2, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Even if you don't agree, shouldn't those Churches be allowed to secede from the union so to speak?



Absolutely.  I’m sure many churches want this over ASAP.  It's been dragging on for awhile now.


----------



## 4HAND (Sep 3, 2022)

No wonder America's in the shape she's in.


----------



## Madman (Sep 3, 2022)

The argument is usually over property.  The national organization makes claims as does the local congregation.

Unfortunately, as with the liberal Episcopal group,  the national org would rather give it to Muslims than sell it to the congregation at a reasonable price.

Just walk away.  Ultimately the Lord will bless the move.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 3, 2022)

The issues now splitting the UMC have been brewing for 30 years. Originally, the divisiveness was about the greater church's funding of urban ministries (including ministries to the [then] tiny homosexual communities in cities) instead of continuing to support the many areas of ministry the church has been supporting for a century. When several ordained clergy (a very tiny minority) openly acknowledged that they were homosexual, the issues refocused on how to deal with homosexuals in the church.

For a while, most United Methodists were willing to accept that the denomination's rules, including the biblical prohibition of homosexual unions would continue with a commitment to love the sinner, not the sin. Somehow that changed around 2005-2008. It seemed (to me) that a tiny number of activist homosexual clergy leading urban churches, rejected the biblical teaching, insisted on their "new" interpretation, and led a revolt. The conference leaders failed to oppose this revolution. Several urban churches seemed to go along with the changes. Annual Conferences debated this, but it seemed no one listened to anyone else

Now I see that more than 80% of all United Methodist churches are opposed supporting homosexual clergy, but those churches represent fewer than half of the total number of individual members. The United Methodist churches in Africa, South Korea, and elsewhere in the global connection, uniformly oppose ordaining or sustaining homosexual clergy and have made it clear they will not continue in union with a General Conference that does. Interestingly, it appears that all UM churches have seen a drop in membership, attendance, and financial support during this time. Those churches that have already split from the General Conference have generally seen growth both in membership and in ministries. 

I suspect that the division of the UMC is a reflection of the current broken society we live in. Most large urban UM churches have decided (mostly by slim majorities) to be "inclusive" and "accepting." Those churches have chosen to disregard the Discipline of the United Methodist Church (the rule book) and move in a "new" direction. Most of the Bishops (generally elected from large urban churches) and most Conferences in the US have taken sides supporting the urban churches. As a consequence of their actions, churches that choose to remain loyal to the Bible as written and to the church, as spelled out in the Discipline, have been left with no choice but to leave.

Heartbreaking, but I do remember that there is ONE church, the church of all who believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ our Savior, and the Holy Spirit. The politics are painful, but not the Church.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 3, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Even if you don't agree, shouldn't those Churches be allowed to secede from the union so to speak?


Yea that’s what I’m wondering - what’s binding them? Unless they’re wanting to hang on to the identity of UMC??

Edited to add: I think I see now. Kind of being forced out but it’s costing them instead of the ones not upholding church standards. 

“United Methodist properties, in a “trust clause,” are owned by the denomination through the local state-level “conference.” But in 2019, when the church’s General Conference again reaffirmed traditional biblical sexual teaching, it okayed a new rule letting dissenting congregations take their property with a one-time exit fee. Dissenters could be pro-LGBTQ liberals or conservatives upset over nonenforcement of church law. Departing churches must pay two years’ worth of “apportionments” to the denomination plus clergy pension liability. The stated deadline for departure is December 2023”


----------



## KS Bow Hunter (Sep 3, 2022)

It's a mirror image of the split in America politically...the traditional, conservative churches in smaller, more traditional cities, counties and states are at odds with the leadership in the largest cities and states that lean liberal.  It won't change.


----------



## tell sackett (Sep 3, 2022)

I tend to see it the opposite way. What’s happening politically and in society is a result of what’s happening in the church. 

Now it seems the SBC is dabbling their toes in the same sump hole.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 3, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Yea that’s what I’m wondering - what’s binding them? Unless they’re wanting to hang on to the identity of UMC??



I don’t understand all the details, but they’re basically waiting until the next “general conference” to discuss an orderly separation plan — and they keep postponing the conference.

More here:


https://juicyecumenism.com/2021/02/25/understanding-the-umc-general-conference-delay/

https://juicyecumenism.com/2022/03/03/filibuster-umc-general-conference/

https://juicyecumenism.com/2022/03/14/why-further-delay-umc-general-conference/


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 3, 2022)

tell sackett said:


> I tend to see it the opposite way. What’s happening politically and in society is a result of what’s happening in the church.
> 
> Now it seems the SBC is dabbling their toes in the same sump hole.



What is the SBC doing?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 3, 2022)

It was a blessing when the Episcopals splintered. The church went back to the teachings before the influence of “contemporary society.”


----------



## tell sackett (Sep 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> What is the SBC doing?


Woke


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 3, 2022)

tell sackett said:


> Woke



Yeah, I have seen some of that.  Just wondered if there was something else.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 3, 2022)

tell sackett said:


> Woke



Is this the fault of the seminaries?  Are they teaching this nonsense?

Or is it that our secular schools are producing “woke” graduates who then enter the seminaries?


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 3, 2022)

tell sackett said:


> Woke



There is a YouTube channel called “Woke Preacher Clips” that is both hilarious and incredibly sad.


----------



## tell sackett (Sep 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Is this the fault of the seminaries?  Are they teaching this nonsense?
> 
> Or is it that our secular schools are producing “woke” graduates who then enter the seminaries?



Yeah, it’s creeping in more and more and spreads to the pulpit from there. Leadership at the national level is at best asleep at the switch. The last two presidents have been less than stellar. Jury’s out on the new one. 

This is all my humble opinion, others may have a different view. We had this go- round in the 70’s, now here we are again.


----------



## Madman (Sep 3, 2022)

The social gospel has taken over many places.

Let ‘em go.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Sep 3, 2022)

Israel said:


> To secede is, in one way, to acknowledge _the once legitimacy_ of the thing seceded from, but not a repentance of having ever ascribed to that thing its legitimacy.
> 
> Things always beget _after kind._
> 
> ...



i have read this post 5 or 6 times, slowly and with purpose.


I still don't have a clue as to the thought you wanted to convey


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 3, 2022)

NE GA Pappy said:


> i have read this post 5 or 6 times, slowly and with purpose.




Here’s to your patience, sir!


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 3, 2022)

NE GA Pappy said:


> i have read this post 5 or 6 times, slowly and with purpose.
> 
> 
> I still don't have a clue as to the thought you wanted to convey





> To secede is, in one way, to acknowledge _the once legitimacy_ of the thing seceded from.


I’m reading this portion to mean the same as Stacy Abrams when she refused to concede to Kemp. Her reasoning was it meant she was accepting what was considered legitimate if she were to concede.

The churches in this situation are faced with penalties with seceding from the organization; they’re saying it was the leaders that fouled up, not them. To secede with penalties in that situation would be an injustice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> “The implosion of the 13-million-member global United Methodist Church has accelerated as 106 conservative Florida congregations are suing their liberal bishop, Kenneth Carter, for better terms as they quit the denomination. This schism of America’s largest liberal Mainline denomination represents the wider collapse of 20th century liberal Protestantism, whose leading institutions are fast receding if not dying.”
> 
> https://wng.org/opinions/methodism-implodes-amid-litigation-1662032394



If history, both ancient and recent, teaches us anything, it's that anything homosexuality and the homosexual agenda touches, it destroys.  This isn't rocket science.  It's as plain as day.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 4, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If history, both ancient and recent, teaches us anything, it's that anything homosexuality and the homosexual agenda touches, it destroys.  This isn't rocket science.  It's as plain as day.



I agree, but appointing women pastors seems to be the preliminary step in accepting homosexuality.  All the Mainline denominations did that first.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 5, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I agree, but appointing women pastors seems to be the preliminary step in accepting homosexuality.  All the Mainline denominations did that first.



I may be mistaken but I don't think the Baptist did that (women pastors).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 5, 2022)

Israel said:


> That's because the men were women.
> 
> Ya ever notice in what Jesus says...He does not say?
> 
> That's a rhetorical question cause it's plain it's not considered much, if at all.



I literally have no idea what that meant.  Even your short posts baffle me.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I may be mistaken but I don't think the Baptist did that (women pastors).



I don’t think the SBC has, but I’m not sure about the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

When I said “mainline”, I was referring to the so-called “seven sisters”:

American Baptist 
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America 
Presbyterian Church (USA)
United Church of Christ 
United Methodist Church


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 5, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I agree, but appointing women pastors seems to be the preliminary step in accepting homosexuality.  All the Mainline denominations did that first.



The commonly accepted history of the early church, a history even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges (with a qualifier), includes a woman named Grapne' (there are different spellings of her name) who was Bishop of Rome (the actual title of the Pope is Bishop of Rome) shortly after Paul was murdered. She served for several years and apparently was instrumental in growing the young and hidden church. It was only after Constantine called the first Council of Nicaea (325 AD) that the Church looked to men as principle leaders of the church. It wasn't until the late middle ages that the RC Church officially reserved the sacrament (priestly duties) to men only.

Even that Papal order did not spell the end of women in the clergy. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not encourage the ordination of women, but their history includes women pastors in ever century of their existence. Even the modern Roman Catholic church has accepted WOMEN Priests among the Anglican clergy who transferred to Roman Catholic with their churches a little over 20 years ago.

I honestly do not accept that there is a direct, or even indirect, connection or relationship between women clergy and homosexuality. 



SemperFiDawg said:


> I may be mistaken but I don't think the Baptist did that (women pastors).



In 1996 I visited Waco, Texas to attend the ordination of a young woman a Southern Baptist Pastor. The Southern Baptist Church does not prohibit the ordination of women. Admittedly, as a local church decision, such ordinations are very rare.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 5, 2022)

Anglicans split from the Episcopals, there are no female Bishops and though female priests are not prohibited it is not the norm.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> The commonly accepted history of the early church, a history even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges (with a qualifier), includes a woman named Grapne' (there are different spellings of her name) who was Bishop of Rome (the actual title of the Pope is Bishop of Rome) shortly after Paul was murdered. She served for several years and apparently was instrumental in growing the young and hidden church. It was only after Constantine called the first Council of Nicaea (325 AD) that the Church looked to men as principle leaders of the church. It wasn't until the late middle ages that the RC Church officially reserved the sacrament (priestly duties) to men only.



I am extremely skeptical of all of this.  I'm pretty well-read on church history and have never heard any of this.  A quick Google search turned up nothing.  If you can provide links, I'll take another look.

Women Priests: No Chance | Catholic Answers


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> Even that Papal order did not spell the end of women in the clergy. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not encourage the ordination of women, but their history includes women pastors in ever century of their existence.



Just not true.  I'm not an expert on Orthodoxy, but I know they do not ordain women.  St. John Chrysostom, who is revered in the West as well as the East, said, "The office of bishop excludes all women and most men."

There were women who served as deaconesses but never as priests or bishops.

Ordination of Women - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in America (oca.org)


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> Even the modern Roman Catholic church has accepted WOMEN Priests among the Anglican clergy who transferred to Roman Catholic with their churches a little over 20 years ago.



Not a Catholic, but I don't think that's correct, either.  The RC has accepted married Anglican priests who have converted, though.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> I honestly do not accept that there is a direct, or even indirect, connection or relationship between women clergy and homosexuality.



The relationship is that both are liberal "innovations".  (In the case of homosexuality, it is an abomination.)  All of the liberal denominations listed in post 32 became more liberal with the addition of female pastors.  Ann Coulter makes a similar point in one of her books about politics:  giving women the vote moved the country to the left.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> The commonly accepted history of the early church, a history even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges (with a qualifier), includes a woman named Grapne' (there are different spellings of her name) who was Bishop of Rome (the actual title of the Pope is Bishop of Rome) shortly after Paul was murdered. She served for several years and apparently was instrumental in growing the young and hidden church.




Even Ehrman doesn't believe that.

Who Was the First Bishop of Rome? Let's Resolve the Confusion (ehrmanblog.org)


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 5, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Not a Catholic, but I don't think that's correct, either.  The RC has accepted married Anglican priests who have converted, though.



https://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/history/


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> https://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/history/





That's not an official Catholic site.  Are there Catholics who support ordaining women?  Sure.  Are there rogue "bishops" who will actually do it?  Evidently.

The Catholic Catechism is crystal clear:  no women priests.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 5, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I am extremely skeptical of all of this.  I'm pretty well-read on church history and have never heard any of this.  A quick Google search turned up nothing.  If you can provide links, I'll take another look.
> 
> Women Priests: No Chance | Catholic Answers



https://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2954188-first-bishop-rome-woman.html

https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy

I don't like using Wiki due to it's low standards of accuracy, and constant editing/replacement of fact, but this is an easier read on Joan a middle ages pope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

https://www.womendeacons.org/cerula-and-bitalia/


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> https://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/history/



They were excommunicated, and so were the "bishops" who ordained them.  

From the "FAQ" section of your link:


*Have You Been Excommunicated?*
*Response Regarding Excommunication Decree*
Roman Catholic Womenpriests reject the penalty of excommunication issued by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on May 29, 2008 stating that the “women priests and the bishops who ordain them would be excommunicated_ latae sententiae_.” Roman Catholic Womenpriests are loyal members of the church who stand in the prophetic tradition of holy obedience to the Spirit’s call to change an unjust law that discriminates against women. Our movement is receiving enthusiastic responses on the local, national and international level. We will continue to serve our beloved church in a renewed priestly ministry that welcomes all to celebrate the sacraments in inclusive, Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered communities wherever we are called.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 5, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> https://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2954188-first-bishop-rome-woman.html
> 
> https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy
> 
> ...




It's too late to get in the details, but none of these links are authoritative.  The first link is an internet bulletin board discussion.  The Wikipedia link about "Pope" Joan starts off with the admission that it's just a legend.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 5, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Just not true.  I'm not an expert on Orthodoxy, but I know they do not ordain women.  St. John Chrysostom, who is revered in the West as well as the East, said, "The office of bishop excludes all women and most men."
> 
> There were women who served as deaconesses but never as priests or bishops.
> 
> Ordination of Women - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in America (oca.org)



https://womenpriests.org/ecumenism/orthodox-the-orthodox-churches/

https://womenpriests.org/articles-books/fahey-eastern-orthodoxy-and-the-ordination-of-women/

There is a very large and distinct difference between the "official" positions of the particular Church and the lesser known facts in the church's history.

Women were a part of the leadership in the Eastern Orthodox churches. Their rules for ordination to this day do not preclude the ordination of women. Yes, most of the Orthodox churches accept women as deacons (traditionally recognized as a role subject to Bishops, but not subservient to Priests) but not priests. It is also true that a woman served as the priest for two congregations of the Russian Orthodox church between 1919 and 1925. The woman was considered for Bishop before the first Stalin purge after the death of Lenin.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 5, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Even Ehrman doesn't believe that.
> 
> Who Was the First Bishop of Rome? Let's Resolve the Confusion (ehrmanblog.org)



Sorry, I never met this Bart Ehrman. Seems to be a nice guy. I noted, looking at his bio, that he got his MDiv and TheoDr at Princeton. Same place my wife got her MDiv. Nice school in a pleasant part of NJ. None of that makes his more accurate than other scholars. By the way I had no idea that the UNC had a "religious studies" department. Good for them.

I do note that you specifically cite Ehrman's argument on who was the FIRST Bishop of Rome. I did NOT myself make the argument that Grapt'ne' (another alternate spelling) was first Bishop of Rome, but I have posted URLs citing Phoebe as first. That is a different argument from the history of ordained women in the Church.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 5, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> They were excommunicated, and so were the "bishops" who ordained them.
> 
> From the "FAQ" section of your link:
> 
> ...




Do you want an argument on politics in the church? I don't. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is divided on the ordination of women. Many of the women who were ordained still serve churches, in spite of the political excommunication. My argument is NOT whether the Vatican approves (this week) of women priests. My only argument is that women clergy DO exist and were a part of the church from it's earliest days. THAT argument is truth.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 6, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> It's too late to get in the details, but none of these links are authoritative.  The first link is an internet bulletin board discussion.  The Wikipedia link about "Pope" Joan starts off with the admission that it's just a legend.




Friend EVERYTHING from the first 12 hundred years of the church is "legend" all of the history is based on incomplete records, indirect references, and traditions not put in writing until decades - if not centuries - after the fact. What cannot be disputed is that the very earliest records that survive describe both men AND WOMEN in leadership roles within the early church. The roles of women in clergy is long documented, and NOT some modern invention.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> My only argument is that women clergy DO exist ...



Agree.




GeorgiaBob said:


> ... and were a part of the church from it's earliest days.



Disagree.  If this were true, you could cite an authoritative source.  All your sources are either very dubious (Wikipedia, internet bulletin board) or have an agenda (womenpriests.org.)

Using this as an excuse is very weak.



GeorgiaBob said:


> There is a very large and distinct difference between the "official" positions of the particular Church and the lesser known facts in the church's history.


----------



## Madman (Sep 6, 2022)

There appears to be an ignorance of the priesthood, bishops, and deacons, and the rolls they fulfill.

Consecrating a “female” bishop, or ordaining a female “priest” causes confusion among the laity in respect to those offices.

The ancient Church, while having women in many vital roles, in the life and ministry of the laity, do not have ordained roles where it pertains to the alter.

The short answer would be, Christ is male.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 6, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My brother in Christ. I note that you have focused your brief presence here on GON in efforts to promote your opinion about theological matters. I recognize that you are highly opinionated and forceful in your positions. Those are not complaints, nor objections, simply observations. Enjoy your disputations.

I am well aware of the American fundamentalist and the modern "conservative" movement positions on the history and roll of clergy including the roll of women in leadership. I am also intimately familiar with much of the actual scholarship. That work, peer reviewed and carefully analyzed, is simply not popular enough for publication on "free" internet, as such I intentionally directed you to free sites that addressed your arguments and avoided sites that would have required you to establish your qualifications and then pay to obtain access to the works. That is not an "excuse" it was simply a polite concession.

You choose to dispute the core fact, including Biblical source citations, that women have held leadership roles in Christ's church since the beginning. I now choose to abandon the field and allow you untrammeled free reign for your bias. Please, enjoy espousing your opinion. May you find God willing to smile at your shortcomings, forgive you when you miss the mark, and accept you into the Kingdom when that day comes to you. Until that day, go with God.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

Israel said:


> Is Christ male?
> 
> It would be interesting to consider. Perhaps in light of more fundamental matters.
> 
> ...




Heavy sigh.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

Israel said:


> Is Christ male?



Yes, He is.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> I am well aware of the American fundamentalist and the modern "conservative" movement positions on the history and roll of clergy including the roll of women in leadership.



There's nothing "American" or "modern conservative" about it.  There are 2,000 years of history behind it.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> I am also intimately familiar with much of the actual scholarship. That work, peer reviewed and carefully analyzed, is simply not popular enough for publication on "free" internet, as such I intentionally directed you to free sites that addressed your arguments and avoided sites that would have required you to establish your qualifications and then pay to obtain access to the works. That is not an "excuse" it was simply a polite concession.




This sounds suspiciously like, "I did my homework, Teacher.  Really, I did.  But my dog ate it."


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> You choose to dispute the core fact, including Biblical source citations, that women have held leadership roles in Christ's church since the beginning.



It's not a fact.  It's fantasy.  Your citations are not Biblical.  You've asserted -- twice -- that there was an early female "bishop of Rome", but you have not listed any support for that.  As I noted above, even your Wikipedia link about "Pope Joan" calls it a myth.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> Please, enjoy espousing your opinion.



Anybody can read church history and the Catholic Catechism.  It's not opinion.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> Sorry, I never met this Bart Ehrman. Seems to be a nice guy. I noted, looking at his bio, that he got his MDiv and TheoDr at Princeton. Same place my wife got her MDiv.



If your wife has an MDiv from Princeton, she knows who Bart Ehrman is.

Is your wife a pastor?  A UMC pastor?


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> https://www.womendeacons.org/cerula-and-bitalia/



I took another look at this site and was completely not shocked to find that the same group also runs this site:

https://ishomosexualitynatural.com/

What is their conclusion?

SPOILER ALERT:

*“Scientific studies and human experience confirm that for some people a bonding between two men or between two women proves for them to be perfectly in harmony with nature. In their specific case it is perfectly natural.”*


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

GeorgiaBob said:


> I honestly do not accept that there is a direct, or even indirect, connection or relationship between women clergy and homosexuality.



Still not seeing it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2022)

Is being called by God to preach the same thing as ordination?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I agree, but appointing women pastors seems to be the preliminary step in accepting homosexuality.  All the Mainline denominations did that first.


I thought some of the most evangelical conservative Churches had women pastors that in no way appears to them heading in the direction of accepting homosexuality.

If one thing affects heading in that past, what about Churches that now allow women to wear fancy clothes, hair dos, and jewellery? Churches that let women dress like men, etc.  Could that not be the first thing that is leading to Churches accepting homosexuality?


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 6, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is being called by God to preach the same thing as ordination?



Almost.

If someone is recognized by a congregation (gathering) of the people of God as called by God to preach/teach/share the word of God, then the congregation has ordained that person. 

In some denominations the process is more structured. Some require specific education and degrees, plus a process of discernment that takes several years, followed by a general examination, approval of a local congregation, and literal vote of elders within the clergy before the denomination recognizes that the person is called by God. That person is then "ordained" by the church in a very structured ceremony that usually acknowledges Apostolic Succession as the basis for the ordination. In other churches the minimum requirement is an acclimation of the call by the local congregation followed by a laying on of hands to affirm the ordained and confer the authority of God, as present in the congregation, upon the newly ordained pastor.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

Israel said:


> Is Christ male?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2022)

Israel said:


> Is Christ male?


Yes, what about God the Father? He also made Adam first. It's was a man's world.
"For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands."

In 1 Timothy, Paul wrote, “I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness”

One could look at it as this being the first step towards liberalism in the Church. Once women started wearing such items, and not being subject to their husbands, it lead to women preaching and taking teaching roles over men in the Church. Thus getting the ball rolling so to speak.
It's not something that just started.


----------



## jrickman (Sep 6, 2022)

Perhaps a better question might be, will there be males and females in Heaven, and if so...to what end?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 6, 2022)

jrickman said:


> Perhaps a better question might be, will there be males and females in Heaven, and if so...to what end?



We are taught folks recognized Christ after the resurrection in his glorified body.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2022)

If God was Christ's eternal Father and Jesus an eternal son, then Jesus would have to be male before he was even born. Thus his eternal spirit had to be male as well. Since the Three are the same, and eternal, then they are all three male as well, spirit or otherwise.

There is no way God can be an eternal Father unless he only became a Father at His son's incarnation. Also since the Father and Son are one, both are male.

Unless neither of the three were male or female before the incarnation and only became sexed at that moment. If so then maybe there is now neither male nor female, no classes of rank, no rich or poor, etc. only spirits of one nature.

Maybe we go to Heaven as unsexed spirits only to return as sexed glorified bodies. Unless glorified bodies are not sexed. The LDS think they are where we can continue to have children in Heaven. But they also think we were sexed before we got to the earth.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Sep 6, 2022)

some Jewish sages hold that God is both male and female, and created Adam as both male and female.  Then when Eve was created, it was actually a separation of the male from the female. 

Yeah... it gets really deep and confusing to me too.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 6, 2022)

The gender identity crisis has crept deeper than we thought……..


----------



## jrickman (Sep 6, 2022)

My point here is...and frankly it might be a distinction without a difference in the context of this discussion...is that we as men should not get too far up on our spiritual high horse when it comes to women. I think the general prohibition on women being placed in positions of spiritual authority (specifically over men, not in general) is based on their flesh handicap rather than some spiritual superiority or election on our part. I believe pretty firmly that once we depart the earthly flesh, the ladies are going to be every bit our equals in every single way, no longer bound by their weaker earthly constitution. My personal belief is that no woman should be placed in a position of spiritual authority _where a willing and qualified man_ is available for that role, because as a general rule, women are more easily swayed, and once led astray, have tremendous power to take men with them, as Adam learned the hard way. But I've seen an awful lot of men who probably should have deferred to the spiritual wisdom of some of the women around them over the years...so it really isn't that simple a matter to address.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 6, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God was Christ's eternal Father and Jesus an eternal son, then Jesus would have to be male before he was even born. Thus his eternal spirit had to be male as well. Since the Three are the same, and eternal, then they are all three male as well, spirit or otherwise.
> 
> There is no way God can be an eternal Father unless he only became a Father at His son's incarnation. Also since the Father and Son are one, both are male.
> 
> ...




If I wasn`t confused before, I surely am now. 

Don`t try to explain it to me. It`ll just confuse me more. I don`t plan to come back in here anyway. Maybe ya`ll are trying to enlighten the masses, but I kinda doubt it.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sep 6, 2022)

Israel said:


> Jesus Christ didn't secede from the world, He is/was never of it.
> 
> If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
> 
> ...


We are of this world and have to live in it. Some of us, anyway. I try to speak the language of this world, too. Not riddles and cryptic metaphors.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 6, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> We are of this world and have to live in it. Some of us, anyway. I try to speak the language of this world, too. Not riddles and cryptic metaphors.



There’s sender-message-receiver thing. For one to be contributing the message must be understandable by the receiver. That’s how it works in my world.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sep 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> There’s sender-message-receiver thing. For one to be contributing the message must be understandable by the receiver. That’s how it works in my world.


Some people are not of this world. And don't care if their message is understandable, apparently.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Sep 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> There’s sender-message-receiver thing. For one to be contributing the message must be understandable by the receiver. That’s how it works in my world.



I am a plain man, and speak a plain English.  I understand better when spoken to in plain every day English language.  I think most American are and do understand better that way.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sep 6, 2022)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am a plain man, and speak a plain English.  I understand better when spoken to in plain every day English language.  I think most American are and do understand better that way.


Except for the ones who have delusions of intellectualism. Boy, that was a big word for a hillbilly, wasn't it?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 6, 2022)

If you want to use an analogy, if someone is hungry and you give them something unrecognizable, did you feed them.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> If you want to use an analogy, if someone is hungry and you give them something unrecognizable, did you feed them.


Yes. You can also feed someone without them knowing it.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 6, 2022)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. You can also feed someone without them knowing it.



I would argue at some point an understanding takes place, then or later.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Sep 6, 2022)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. You can also feed someone without them knowing it.


I bet they would eat more and get more out of the meal, if it resembles the 'taters and beans they are use to seeing on their plate, instead of snails and raw squid


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 6, 2022)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I bet they would eat more and get more out of the meal, if it resembles the 'taters and beans they are use to seeing on their plate, instead of snails and raw squid




“I don’t eat nothing with four colors. I like plain food with no seasoning. Well-done and nothing fancy."

  -- Lefty Kreh, famous fly fisherman


----------



## Madman (Sep 6, 2022)

The RCC, the Orthodox Church, the continuing Anglican Church, and others, who keep the traditions and teachings of the ancient Catholic Church do not ordain women to the priesthood and they do not consecrate women bishops.  

There is a good reason for it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2022)

jrickman said:


> My point here is...and frankly it might be a distinction without a difference in the context of this discussion...is that we as men should not get too far up on our spiritual high horse when it comes to women. I think the general prohibition on women being placed in positions of spiritual authority (specifically over men, not in general) is based on their flesh handicap rather than some spiritual superiority or election on our part. I believe pretty firmly that once we depart the earthly flesh, the ladies are going to be every bit our equals in every single way, no longer bound by their weaker earthly constitution. My personal belief is that no woman should be placed in a position of spiritual authority _where a willing and qualified man_ is available for that role, because as a general rule, women are more easily swayed, and once led astray, have tremendous power to take men with them, as Adam learned the hard way. But I've seen an awful lot of men who probably should have deferred to the spiritual wisdom of some of the women around them over the years...so it really isn't that simple a matter to address.


Flesh handicap? Being more easily swayed? Wasn't Adam as equally swayed? I can see women being the weaker sex in muscle build but not in being more easily swayed.
The devil just knew it would be easier for Adam's spouse to sway him than the devil himself in that particular instance.
The devil could sway me easier than Adam so he just goes directly to me and bypasses my spouse. It could work either way really depending on the individual man. I would think I'm weaker than my wife to be swayed by the devil.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 7, 2022)

Israel said:


> Do I speak too plainly?



Yes, you do.  

I much prefer your lengthy, cryptic posts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Even Ehrman doesn't believe that.
> 
> Who Was the First Bishop of Rome? Let's Resolve the Confusion (ehrmanblog.org)



Just a word of caution, I wouldn't start citing what Ehrman doesn't believe in.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2022)

jrickman said:


> to what end?



Pretty much sums up this entire thread past the first page.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> Maybe ya`ll are trying to enlighten the masses, but I kinda doubt it.



Really.  What gave it away?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> . Not riddles and cryptic metaphors.



Cryptic actually implies an understanding by some.  That would not be the case.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Except for the ones who have delusions of intellectualism. Boy, that was a big word for a hillbilly, wasn't it?



Downright cryptic.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 7, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a word of caution, I wouldn't start citing what Ehrman doesn't believe in.



Agreed.  I generally don’t but thought it was appropriate in that case.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2022)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. You can also feed someone without them knowing it.



Yeah, I can't recall how many times over the course of my life I've heard Yiddish and not understood a word of it, mainly because I've never heard Yiddish,  only to come to a deep intellectual comprehension of it later.  Happens all the time really.

I think it's more synonymous with



> If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if _he asks_ for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?



but yeah, I get it: bread, rock; fish, serpent; egg, scorpion.  The latter of the pairs have that secret "spiritual" sauce that only the super intelligent, spiritually elite appreciate.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 7, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, I can't recall how many times over the course of my life I've heard Yiddish and not understood a word of it, mainly because I've never heard Yiddish,  only to come to a deep intellectual comprehension of it later.  Happens all the time really.


Somebody left the analogy.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 8, 2022)

Sometimes, the more that you say, the less that is heard.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 8, 2022)




----------



## Madman (Sep 8, 2022)

jrickman said:


> Perhaps a better question might be, will there be males and females in Heaven, and if so...to what end?


Why would there not be?  We are created male and female, I see no evidence God would change that.

Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.


----------



## jrickman (Sep 8, 2022)

Madman said:


> Why would there not be?  We are created male and female, I see no evidence God would change that.
> 
> Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.



...because the woman was created FOR the man? I guess it just strikes me as odd that so many assume our new and incorruptible bodies will remain fully equipped with the primary means of corruption here on earth even though it no longer serves the purpose of bearing fruit. One almost has to ascribe to the belief that we still marry and produce children in Heaven to follow that line of thinking.


----------



## Madman (Sep 8, 2022)

jrickman said:


> ...because the woman was created FOR the man? I guess it just strikes me as odd that so many assume our new and incorruptible bodies will remain fully equipped with the primary means of corruption here on earth even though it no longer serves the purpose of bearing fruit. One almost has to ascribe to the belief that we still marry and produce children in Heaven to follow that line of thinking.


and it strikes me as odd that some believe the perfected body would be ..... I don't know, .... other......  What exactly would it be?

I don't understand, are you saying sexual organs are the "primary means of corruption"?  I am not sure that is true.

I am not sure what a 'perfected body" looks like, but I see no reason that it should not look much like what we have now.  Nothing in Holy Scripture nor reason would lead us to to believe such.  Perhaps sexual desire is absent from the glorified body just as sin is absent from the glorified mind.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 8, 2022)

Sounds like it’s going swimmingly:

“The Mediation Team members who took part in the Protocol negotiations, pressured traditionalists into making all kinds of unreasonable concessions, and now are openly breaking their promises in apparent hopes of gaining even more advantages for themselves are Virginia pastor Tom Berlin, the Rev. Egmedio “Jun” Equila, Jr. of the Philippines, Reconciling Ministries Network chief Janet Lawrence, West Ohio pastor David Meredith, and liberal caucus activist Randall Miller.

No one should ever again make the mistake of trusting any of these individuals to keep their word, at least not after they see some personal advantage in breaking it.”

https://juicyecumenism.com/2022/09/08/bishop-bickerton-on-the-umc-protocol/


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 8, 2022)

Madman said:


> and it strikes me as odd that some believe the perfected body would be ..... I don't know, .... other......  What exactly would it be?
> 
> I don't understand, are you saying sexual organs are the "primary means of corruption"?  I am not sure that is true.
> 
> I am not sure what a 'perfected body" looks like, but I see no reason that it should not look much like what we have now.  Nothing in Holy Scripture nor reason would lead us to to believe such.  Perhaps sexual desire is absent from the glorified body just as sin is absent from the glorified mind.


I agree but only after the resurrection. Perhaps another reason to believe we don't go to Heaven until then. Christ is our example and I'm pretty sure he still has gender.


----------



## Madman (Sep 8, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree but only after the resurrection. Perhaps another reason to believe we don't go to Heaven until then. Christ is our example and I'm pretty sure he still has gender.


Is Christ not in heaven with a glorified body?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 8, 2022)

Madman said:


> Is Christ not in heaven with a glorified body?


Yes and that is what I said, he is our example "after" our resurrection.


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Sep 10, 2022)

I think the NAME of the UMC needs to be preserved, or I should say "should have been" preserved, and all the liberal homosexual coddlers and those who embrace a lifestyle of sin and celebrate and champion that should've been kicked out-- no matter how many there are!

If, hypothetically, 60% of UMC members want a gay (sinful) church and 40% want a true Christian church that follows God's instructions....
.... the 40% should stay 60% gets to pack up their bags and leave.

Not because the conservatives have more votes,  but because they aren't the ones who changed.
 They didn't start the trouble or pick a fight.

The troublemakers should be the ones who are forced to leave and start their own denomination.

The ones remaining true to the roots of the faith get to keep both the buildings and the name.


P.S. If, after the Unrepentant Sinners and their apologists have left _en masse, _

and the remaining faithful few do not generate enough money from tithing to keep the building operating,  and they rattle around like a few marbles in a giant can,


then they should offer the building for sale and use the money to move into a smaller church facility that suits their smaller congregation.


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Sep 10, 2022)

It's like  saying that Jack and Jill are a married couple ....
..who now want to each bring in a different lover into the marriage,  to have a new marriage of four people! 


I say "no, you don't do that" - you have a divorce and announce to the world that Jack and Jill are no longer married. 

Then, if newly-single Jack and Jill and Susan and Bob want to get together and have their orgies in a pagan house of sin ....that's fine;  just don't call it a "marriage" and don't ask either the Church or the State to bless that and give it any special status!


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 26, 2022)

“It’s expected that 1500 and likely more churches will vote to exit this year, with perhaps a total of 3000-5000 churches exiting by the end of 2023.”









						United Methodist Church Exits Accelerate
					

After 2023, there is no clear path for United Methodist congregations to exit the denomination without losing their property.



					juicyecumenism.com


----------



## brutally honest (Nov 8, 2022)

“Showing the new normal, a second openly partnered, gay activist bishop, Cedric Bridgeforth, was elected in the Western Jurisdiction, and a third came historically close to being elected in the Northeast, openly breaking longstanding rules banning “self-avowed, practicing homosexual” clergy. The growing caucus of gay activist bishops will increasingly redefine the denomination.”









						United Methodists Elect Another Gay Bishop, Set Liberal New Direction
					

United Methodist leaders elected new bishops this week to steer America’s second-largest Protestant denomination in a liberal direction.



					juicyecumenism.com


----------



## 4HAND (Nov 8, 2022)

Abominable.


----------



## brutally honest (Nov 8, 2022)

4HAND said:


> Abominable.



Yes, the Wesley brothers must be rolling over in their graves.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 8, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> “Showing the new normal, a second openly partnered, gay activist bishop, Cedric Bridgeforth, was elected in the Western Jurisdiction, and a third came historically close to being elected in the Northeast, openly breaking longstanding rules banning “self-avowed, practicing homosexual” clergy. The growing caucus of gay activist bishops will increasingly redefine the denomination.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I heard a little about this last week and it was said that roughly 25% of the churches in the US would split off if this went pro-gay.  I was shocked, literally stunned.  I had expected a lot higher number.  It just goes to show how liberal the church has become.


----------



## brutally honest (Nov 9, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I heard a little about this last week and it was said that roughly 25% of the churches in the US would split off if this went pro-gay.  I was shocked, literally stunned.  I had expected a lot higher number.  It just goes to show how liberal the church has become.




Yes, that percentage is in line with the link in post 114 — a truly sad state of affairs.


----------



## brutally honest (Dec 14, 2022)

“A pattern observed in multiple jurisdictional conferences was a new United Methodist language convention of speakers consistently talking about “siblings” instead of “brothers and sisters.” The latter, more familiar church language is now less acceptable because it fails to accommodate transgenderist ideology’s claims that there are far more than just two sexes.

More troublingly, the jurisdictional conferences’ redefinition of United Methodism extended to core doctrinal matters.”









						Jurisdictional Conferences Redefine United Methodist Church
					

Recent jurisdictional conferences have effectively redefined the United Methodist Church, on more issues than just homosexuality.



					juicyecumenism.com


----------



## Madman (Dec 16, 2022)

Nothing more than a division of sheep and goats.  Seek out the remnant.  God has always provided safe harbor for his own.

1 Kings 19


----------

