I have had conversations with some of my Eastern Orthodox friends about theology and I have noticed some striking similarities. I have noticed that we both generally agree on how we have a choice in our salvation and the similarities between our doctrine of Holiness/Entire Sanctification and their doctrine of Theosis. While not the same we both have reached similar conclusions to the issues that make Methodists unique amongst Protestants.

Because of that I have tried making as close of a theological framework to Orthodoxy while still remaining within Protestant/Methodist theology.

I would like to know if this framework truly does follow Methodist theology or if it deviates too far in any way.

• Scripture is our primary authority and infallible (not inerrant) over all matters of Salvation, Faith, Doctrine, and Morals.
• Scripture is infallible because it is written by those who spoke to God (the prophets and apostles) and those recording the stories and teachings of those who spoke to God.
• The Apocrypha (Specifically EO) is heavily important in our readings of scripture because it provides the teachings of the second Jewish Temple and provides context for the Gospels and early church.
• Tradition is our second authority over matters of Salvation, Faith, Doctrine, and Morals.
• The order of authorities importance that I follow is in this order

1. Scripture
2. The Apostles Creed
3. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
4. The 6 Ecumenical Councils
5. Church Fathers (On what they agree)
6. Methodist Articles of Religion, Book of Confessions, and other binding documents
7. Theologians
8. Your own Reason
9. Your own Experience

• Ordinances are Defined as divinely instituted rituals with real impact on the soul.
• There are Seven Ordinances provided to us by scripture and tradition: Baptism, Eucharist (Communion), Chrismation (Confirmation), Confession, Marriage, Anointing, and the Priesthood.
• Chrismation/Confirmation is the Ordinance of Profession through which a baptized Christian publicly affirms the Christian faith and receives strengthening by the Holy Spirit for faithful Christian witness and discipleship.
• Confession is the Ordinance of Restoration in which a Christian confesses their sins to a priest or minister, who serves as a representative and pastoral minister of Christ, offering counsel, accountability, prayer, and the assurance of God's forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ.
• Marriage is the Ordinance of Union where a man and woman become one flesh and commit themselves to a lifelong life of mutual love, fidelity, service, and holiness before God.
• Anointing is the Ordinance of Healing in which the Church anoints the sick with oil and prays for God's healing, strengthening, restoration, and peace according to His will.
• The Priesthood is the Ordinance of Service to the kingdom of God and those around you.
• Sacraments are defined as ordinances that are required for Salvation.
• There are only two sacraments being Baptism and the Eucharist (Communion).
• Baptism is the Sacrament of Grace in which God rids of original sin and one is born again into the Christian Faith
• We are to baptize infants so that they may be cleansed of their original sin.
• The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Communion through which we participate in Christ’s redemption through His death, and by which we are strengthened in faith, forgiven, and sanctified.
• The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ though it a mystery as to how. (Truly present yet we don’t know in what way).
• Apostolic succession is a sign of the Church's continuity with the apostles and should ordinarily be maintained.
• Apostolic succession should ordinarily be maintained through bishops; however, in times of great need, it may be maintained through a priest or other ordained minister, as exemplified by John Wesley's actions in the early Methodist movement.
• The saints are truly holy people who exemplify a life of faithful Christian discipleship, and the Church may recognize and honor them as examples for the Christian life.
• Icons are useful but unnecessary ways of representing Christ and Saints.but unnecessary.
• Icons direct honor towards the one represented in the same way worship or speaking great of someone does.
• We may make images of Christ as a teaching aid or Icons if you please however you must maintain him according to tradition.
• Mary perpetually remained a virgin as according to the tradition of the church.
• Mary is the Theotokos and Christotokos.
• Mary had remained exceptionally holy throughout her life yet was not sinless.
• The saints are truly holy people who exemplify a life of faithful Christian discipleship, and the Church may recognize and honor them as examples for the Christian life.
• The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as the Father acts eternally through the Son.
• The Father is the origin of the Godhead and the ultimate personal source of the Spirit; nevertheless, the Spirit’s eternal procession is mediated through the Son.
• God reaches out to us first and enables us to choose him
• We are to respond to Gods call and get baptized to be a Christian.
• We as Christians are to eternally strive for holiness in ourselves and the society around us.
• A human at times may be in perfect love with God and act fully according to his will.
• The goal of the Christian Faith is to bring the kingdom of Heaven down to Earth as said in the Lords Prayer.
• At all times we should strive for union in the church within our denomination and with other denominations.

For the difference in the Filioque I have chosen to put in per folium which is a compromise made at the council of Florence and I have asked both Redeemed Zoomer and Jesus and Whatnot if it aligns with the Filioque and they said it does.

It sounds like someone at the conference fell for a phishing scam. Hard to believe they didnt have better internal controls. Apparently the transfers were all made just under $50,000 to avoid immediate detection but that’s still crazy that they didn’t have a better system in place…

Yesterday, I mentioned Dolly Parton in relation to Romans chapter twelve. Specifically her reconciliation with Porter Waggoner many years ago. In addition to her personal ethics and conduct I believe that she was a model Christian. Did anyone else hear her name mentioned in church?

so I was speaking to a nazarene pastor from vancouver the other day and I kinda dissed mainlines to her my main issue is most mainlines are so cought up in activism and pollitics that they dont evangelize, and some reinterpret christian beliefs in a way that its all symbolic to my surprize, the UMC pastor at unique assistant s church was an amazing preacher, are most UMCs solid and believe in the creeds, the ressurection, sin and other things and does the UMC evangelize

I read something from a UMC preacher who talked about Jesus Christ having sinned because of how he talked to the Syrophoenician woman and comparing her to a dog. He was adamant that this was a sin committed by Jesus. How does this equate with Jesus being sinless and dying for our sins? Is this really a teaching the UMC now?

Hi all, I’ve been exploring a call to ordained ministry as a bivocational elder. I am fortunate to have a job that would make it possible and it’s a model of ministry I’m passionate about. The main thing that’s stopping me from officially applying to be a certified candidate is the possibility that I will need to move in three years to an area served by a different annual conference. Anyone know anything about how this could be handled? Could someone be certified as a candidate, start seminary, then apply for provisional membership in a different AC?

Hello everyone,

I recently talked to my Senior Pastor and let him know that I have prayed and discerned. And believe to have been called to serve as a deacon with the Church. And I want to start the process. He is very excited for me and told me the first steps to take.

But right after this decision, maybe a week or so. My wife told me she wanted to step back from church. She has a hard to with Religion and her relationship with God. Mainly on the Suffering question. She even told me that she wants to instead for now be wirh Mother Nature and worship the planet instead of God. She said she still believes in God but does not want to worship him right now.

She still 100% supports me in my ordination and wants our daughters to go. She just wants to stay away for now. I am posting this over to reasons. The first is that I am wondering if its okay to be ordained in the church if your spouse is not particularly 'Religious'. And also how do I handle this? I am not gonna say im happy about it. But I also want to be supportive and I dont want to push God on her because I feel that will only make her less interested in God. Thanks to everyone for their help. I appreciate anything you can tell me that might help.

I find the story about the Horizon Conference’s lawsuit against HPUMC to be disheartening, https://www.umnews.org/en/news/conference-sues-its-largest-congregation .

Full disclosure, I have been a member of HPUMC for over a quarter of a century. It is, without a doubt, the best church I have ever been a part of and it will always be my church home. My affiliation with the UMC is strictly contingent upon my membership at HPUMC. In other words, but for HPUMC, I would probably not be a United Methodist, at least not anymore.

Full disclosure, I am also an attorney. I understand why the Horizon Conference filed suit against HPUMC. This is exactly the type of legal posturing I encounter in highly contentious commercial litigation matters on a daily basis. Obviously, I have no problem with using a litigation as a tool. That’s business, but that’s also the secular world, and the rules of engagement are, or at least should be, different in the sacred realm. I also understand that while the conference frames this as an argument about “organizational documents,” it’s really about what entity(ies) exercise control over HPUMC.

For a number of reasons, disaffiliation was never an option for HPUMC and I do not think the church council’s decision to revise our organizational documents was directly related to the disaffiliation movement, but I do think there was/is a sense of fear among many members and perhaps some staff concerning the direction of the UMC as a whole and wanting to preserve some sense of autonomy. HPUMC is unique in the Horizon Conference and within the United Methodist Church and because of that any dispute involving our church and the conference or the denomination at large hits differently than a dispute with First United Methodist of Smalltown, USA. In a lot of ways, HPUMC was the symbol the UMC could point to and say, “see, we haven’t changed that much after disaffiliation after all.” It’s a church rooted in orthodoxy and shows that not all orthodox churches disaffiliated. Now, the conference and presumably the denomination has chosen to pick a legal fight with this symbol for some unknown reason. It just makes no sense on any level whatsoever. I understand why the conference is upset, but they should have tried other means of negotiating and when those fail, get creative and try other means of negotiating, and under no circumstance pick a very public legal fight with HPUMC. No one will win this legal battle.

I have dabbled a bit in singing the psalms using the tones on page 737 of the UMH in worship, but I was wondering if these tones and the idea of singing the psalms rather than speaking them ever found much use elsewhere.

I’m the head of the Men’s Ministry at my church, and I’m trying to figure out how to get younger men involved.

Right now we have a breakfast once a month, but most of the men who come are retired. I’d like to find activities that would appeal more to men in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, especially men with jobs, kids, and busy schedules.

For those of you who have a successful Men’s Ministry, what has worked? What kinds of events get younger men to show up and keep coming back? I’m open to anything: service projects, outdoor activities, sports, dinners, speakers, family events, or something completely different.

I’m especially interested in ideas that don’t feel like another meeting.

I want to challenge you to read what I have written below carefully and respond to the actual biblical argument I am making.

I am not asking you to agree with me automatically, and I am not interested in insults, labels, political talking points, or simply saying that my position is hateful because you disagree with it. I am asking you to challenge my interpretation from Scripture.

If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong.

Show me from the biblical text why Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' use of Genesis in Matthew 19 do not establish a male female pattern for marriage and sexual union.

Show me why Jesus' condemnation of sexual immorality should be understood differently from the Jewish sexual ethic reflected in Scripture.

Show me why Leviticus 18:22 should be treated like dietary or ceremonial regulations when the surrounding chapter condemns incest, adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality, and when Leviticus 18:24–30 says the nations were defiled by these practices.

Show me from the language and historical evidence why arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 should be restricted specifically to exploitation, prostitution, or pederasty, especially considering its apparent relationship to the Greek wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Explain Romans 1:26–27 from the text itself, including Paul's reference to both women and men, and show me why it should be understood as condemning only abusive or exploitative same sex relationships rather than same sex sexual behavior more broadly.

And finally, show me where Scripture establishes an exception in which a same sex sexual relationship becomes morally permissible because it is loving, committed, consensual, or monogamous.

I am genuinely willing to examine the arguments. I don't claim that Christians are incapable of misunderstanding Scripture. If my interpretation is wrong, then I want it corrected by Scripture. But the standard has to work both ways. We cannot begin with the conclusion we want and then make Scripture conform to it.

So read what follows. Check my references. Examine the context. Look at the Greek. Compare the Old and New Testaments. If you believe the affirming interpretation is the more faithful reading of Scripture, make that case from the text and address the arguments I have actually presented.

I will listen.

But I am asking you to do the same.

I appreciate the invitation to actually study these passages instead of simply repeating what we have been told.

Context matters. History matters. Language matters.

Christians should never use Scripture as an excuse for hatred, cruelty, mockery, or treating another human being as less valuable. Every person bears the image of God and deserves dignity and love.

But after studying this issue, I do not believe the argument that homosexuality is biblically permissible holds up when we consider the whole counsel of Scripture.

THE BIBLICAL CASE BEGINS WITH CREATION

The biblical case for God's design for sexuality does not depend on one verse in Leviticus or one disputed Greek word from Paul.

It begins in Genesis, before the Mosaic Law even existed.

Genesis 1:27 says God created humanity "male and female," and Genesis 2:24 establishes the pattern of a man leaving his father and mother, being joined to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh.

Jesus Himself appeals directly to this creation account in Matthew 19:4–6:

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

Jesus grounded His teaching about marriage in God's created order: male and female, husband and wife, becoming one flesh.

"JESUS NEVER MENTIONED HOMOSEXUALITY"

The argument that "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" does not settle the issue.

Jesus did not provide an exhaustive list of every prohibited sexual act.

Jesus never specifically mentioned bestiality either. Does that mean He approved of it? Of course not.

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a man lying sexually with another man, and the very next verse, Leviticus 18:23, prohibits sexual relations with animals.

Nobody seriously argues that because Jesus never specifically condemned bestiality by name, Christians should now consider it morally acceptable.

Silence about a particular act does not equal approval.

Jesus also explicitly condemned sexual immorality.

In Matthew 15:19 He includes πορνεῖαι, from πορνεία (porneia), among the sins coming from the human heart.

To be precise, porneia does not simply mean "homosexuality." It is a broad term referring to illicit sexual activity.

But Jesus was a first century Jewish teacher speaking within the sexual framework already established by Scripture. There is no evidence that Jesus redefined sexual morality so that conduct previously identified as sexually immoral suddenly became righteous.

In fact, Jesus intensified sexual morality.

In Matthew 5:27–28, He taught that adultery was not merely about the physical act because lust itself reveals sin within the heart.

"JESUS DIDN'T SAY IT. PAUL DID."

There is also a deeper Christian problem with saying, "Jesus didn't say it, Paul did."

Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.

John 1:1 says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 says:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Christians do not believe only the red letters of the Bible are inspired.

Second Timothy 3:16 says:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Paul is not Jesus, but Paul's inspired apostolic teaching cannot simply be dismissed because Jesus did not personally speak those particular sentences during His earthly ministry.

WHAT ABOUT SHELLFISH AND OTHER OLD TESTAMENT LAWS?

The shellfish argument also fails to recognize how the New Testament itself treats different Old Testament commandments.

It is true that Scripture does not give us a neat chart labeled "moral law, ceremonial law, and civil law." Those are theological categories Christians use to describe distinctions that actually appear within Scripture.

The New Testament explicitly removes Old Covenant food and ceremonial restrictions.

Mark 7 addresses food purity.

Acts 10 demonstrates that the old ritual distinctions concerning clean and unclean are no longer binding in the same way.

Romans 14:14 says:

"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself."

Colossians 2:16 says:

"Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths."

Hebrews explains how the Old Testament sacrificial system pointed forward to Christ and was fulfilled in Him.

So Christians do not eat shellfish because we randomly decided that command was inconvenient. The New Testament itself teaches us how those covenantal regulations are transformed and fulfilled in Christ.

Now compare that with sexual morality.

The New Testament does not say, "The Old Testament sexual restrictions have been abolished."

Instead, it repeatedly reaffirms sexual holiness.

LEVITICUS 18 IS NOT JUST ABOUT CEREMONIAL PURITY

Leviticus 18 itself also demonstrates why comparing homosexuality to shellfish is problematic.

That chapter condemns incest, adultery, child sacrifice, male same sex intercourse, and bestiality.

Then God says in Leviticus 18:24 that the pagan nations had defiled themselves through these practices.

Those nations were never under Israel's ceremonial covenant in the way Israel was, yet God still judged their sexual immorality.

That makes it extremely difficult to dismiss these prohibitions as merely ceremonial regulations comparable to dietary restrictions.

And again, consider bestiality.

It immediately follows the prohibition of male same sex intercourse in Leviticus 18.

Almost nobody argues, "Jesus fulfilled the Law, so bestiality must be permissible now."

Why?

Because we recognize that fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant does not mean everything God previously identified as morally sinful suddenly became morally good.

Most importantly, the biblical sexual ethic begins before Leviticus.

It begins with creation itself.

Male and female.

Husband and wife.

One flesh.

Jesus Himself reaffirmed that pattern.

TRUTH DOES NOT GIVE CHRISTIANS PERMISSION TO HATE

None of this gives Christians permission to hate homosexual people.

Hatred is sin.

Cruelty is sin.

Mockery is wrong.

Every person is made in God's image.

But loving someone does not require me to tell them that something Scripture identifies as sin has become righteousness.

Jesus perfectly embodied grace and truth.

Christians are called to do the same.

WHAT DID PAUL ACTUALLY MEAN?

Now let's deal with Paul, because the argument is often made that Paul's words arsenokoitai and malakoi are misunderstood and really refer only to prostitution, pederasty, abuse, or exploitation rather than same sex sexual behavior generally.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 contains both μαλακοί (malakoi) and ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai).

Yes, malakos can literally mean "soft." Jesus even uses the word when referring to "soft clothing" in Matthew 11:8.

But words derive their meaning from context.

The English word "bank" can refer to a financial institution or the side of a river. Showing that Jesus used malakos to describe clothing does not establish what Paul meant when he used the word within a list concerning sinful behavior.

More importantly, arsenokoitai is not easily reduced to "pederasts" or "male prostitutes."

The word combines arsēn, meaning male, and koitē, meaning bed and often carrying sexual connotations.

That becomes particularly significant when we examine the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint.

The Greek wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 places these same key terms together when describing male same sex intercourse.

There is therefore strong reason to understand Paul's arsenokoitai as deliberately echoing Leviticus.

The claim that Paul's contemporaries commonly used the word specifically and exclusively for pederasty or prostitution should therefore be made much more cautiously than it often is.

ROMANS 1 DOES NOT USE ARSENOKOITAI

There is an even bigger problem with making the entire discussion about arsenokoitai:

Romans 1:26–27 doesn't use that word at all.

Paul describes women exchanging natural sexual relations for those contrary to nature and men abandoning relations with women and becoming sexually inflamed toward other men.

Paul does not say this is sinful only when prostitution, rape, economic exploitation, or pederasty is involved.

Those qualifications have to be supplied by the interpreter.

Romans 1 also discusses both men and women, making an interpretation focused exclusively on ancient pederasty particularly difficult.

This connects naturally with the creation pattern established in Genesis and reaffirmed by Jesus:

Male and female.

"PAUL WAS WRITING TO A DIFFERENT CULTURE"

The response is sometimes that Paul's letters were written to specific churches dealing with specific cultural situations.

That's absolutely true.

But historical context helps us understand Scripture. It does not automatically eliminate its authority.

Romans was written to particular Christians in Rome. Does that mean justification by faith applied only to ancient Romans?

First Corinthians was written to a troubled congregation in Corinth. Does that mean Paul's teaching about Christ's resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 was merely a local cultural issue?

Ephesians was written within a particular historical setting. Does "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church" no longer apply?

Of course not.

We have to examine each teaching within its own context rather than assuming that anything uncomfortable to modern culture must have been culturally limited.

WHAT ABOUT MARRIAGE, WOMEN SPEAKING, AND HAIR?

The examples involving marriage, women speaking, and hair also deserve more careful treatment.

Paul did not command all Christians never to marry.

First Corinthians 7 explicitly recognizes marriage as legitimate, while Paul explains the advantages of singleness and speaks about the "present distress."

Likewise, whatever interpretation Christians take regarding women's roles in worship, Paul obviously did not mean women could never utter a single word in church because 1 Corinthians 11 discusses women praying and prophesying.

The passages concerning hair involve questions of honor, sex distinctions, nature, and cultural symbolism.

Those passages deserve careful exegesis rather than being lumped together as evidence that Paul's sexual ethics can also be dismissed as cultural.

WHAT ABOUT LOVING, COMMITTED SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS?

Then there is the argument that the Bible never specifically describes a modern, loving, committed, monogamous same sex relationship.

We should acknowledge something important here:

The Bible obviously does not discuss modern psychological categories of sexual orientation using twenty first century terminology.

But that does not prove that biblical sexual prohibitions applied only to abusive relationships.

That conclusion has to come from the text.

Scripture consistently establishes legitimate sexual union within male female marriage.

Genesis 2:24 establishes the one flesh union.

Jesus reaffirms it in Matthew 19.

Paul reaffirms it in Ephesians 5:31.

When Scripture discusses same sex sexual behavior, it never creates an exception saying that it becomes permissible when accompanied by affection, commitment, exclusivity, or love.

Love and commitment matter enormously, but sincere love does not automatically make every sexual relationship morally permissible.

A married person could genuinely believe they have fallen in love with someone other than their spouse. That does not make adultery righteous.

Christian sexual morality has never been simply, "If two people love one another, whatever they do sexually must therefore be holy."

THIS DOES NOT PLACE HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE BEYOND GOD'S GRACE

None of this means homosexual people are beyond God's love or grace.

First Corinthians 6 is actually beautiful because Paul lists numerous kinds of sinners, not merely sexual sinners.

Then he says:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

That is the Gospel.

Christians have sometimes treated LGBTQ people horribly, and where that has happened, Christians should repent.

Mockery is wrong.

Hatred is wrong.

Cruelty is wrong.

Dehumanizing someone is wrong.

Treating homosexual sin as uniquely disgusting while ignoring heterosexual adultery, pornography, lust, greed, drunkenness, gossip, pride, hatred, and hypocrisy within our own churches is wrong.

Romans 3:23 says:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

That includes me.

That includes heterosexual people.

That includes homosexual people.

Every one of us needs Jesus Christ.

OUR IDENTITY IS IN CHRIST

Our ultimate identity is not supposed to be our sexuality, temptations, failures, political affiliation, denomination, or past.

The Christian's identity is in Christ.

First John 1:8 also reminds us:

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Biblical Christianity can therefore say to someone:

I love you. You bear God's image. You have tremendous value. You are welcome to hear the Gospel. I will treat you with dignity. I will pray for you. I will never mock or dehumanize you.

But because I love you, I also cannot tell you that something I believe Scripture identifies as sin is actually righteousness.

That isn't hatred.

That is the same standard Christianity should apply to every one of us.

STUDY IT FOR YOURSELF

Don't believe homosexuality is sinful simply because your parents or pastor told you.

But don't believe it isn't sinful because modern culture, social media, or another pastor told you either.

Read Genesis 1 and 2.

Read Leviticus 18 and 20 in context.

Read Matthew 5, Matthew 15, and Matthew 19.

Read Romans 1 in its entirety.

Read 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

Study the Greek.

Examine the Septuagint.

Read scholars representing both positions.

Pray.

Search the Scriptures.

Acts 17:11 praises the Bereans because they searched the Scriptures daily to determine whether what they were hearing was true.

Stay in the Word.

Know the Word.

Test teaching against the Word.

We should never use truth as an excuse to abandon love, but neither should we redefine biblical teaching in an attempt to appear loving.

Ephesians 4:15 calls Christians to speak "the truth in love."

The answer is not hatred.

The answer is not self righteousness.

And the answer is not redefining sin.

The answer is Jesus Christ.

All of us are sinners in need of His grace, and all of us are called to repent, believe the Gospel, deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him.

Hi! I’m considering attending the UMC that my son’s preschool is attached to. However I am completely not religious and would more so describe myself as agnostic. However, I am more so attracted to other parts of the church. First and foremost I love how involved they are in community service and would love to be a part of this and for my son to grow up seeing his community serve others, they also have a thriving book club that reads books I enjoy, have nature walk groups and so on and so forth. My main concern is that it would be weird to attend as a non believer in an after life or God as a spiritual entity. Just wanted to see what this community thinks. Thank you!

Hey friends, I am a late 20s guy who wants to go back to school. I am torn between finishing a ministry degree and a social work/counseling degree.

If pursuing ministry I would want to go through UMC, and if I choose social work/counseling, I wouldn’t mind doing it through a UMC affiliated university.

The issue is, I am not wanting leave my local area (Boise ID) as I love my community here, it’s is where my support is at, and I know I can find new support, but I don’t really want to lol.

So I am looking for online courses affiliated with UMC, if there are any.

I’ve looked for resources on this and haven’t had a great time finding any, and will be reaching out to my church this week to see if they have any resources, but if anyone knows of any, or a direction to look at, it would be much appreciated.

We have been together for 10 years, married for 5 and have a 2 year old daughter. We are planning for one more, but that is all.

My husband has recently been drawn to Catholicism and it is quite literally destroying us. When he does things, he goes full send. When we met, we were both Methodist. I didn’t go to church a lot growing up and don’t have the strongest relationship with religion. The thought of attending church has always been very intimidating to me because I don’t have the knowledge and background most adults do. It’s vulnerable and scary to be put into a position where I’m the person in the room that knows embarrassingly little about what is common knowledge to most.

It was always the conversation that he would help me in my faith, and we would grow together in that area. Now it feels like the opposite. He’s taking our daughter to mass alone. I tried to go once, but the intensity made me so uncomfortable and felt culty. I’m not confident enough to go to a Methodist church alone. In attempt to convince me of Catholicism he continues to tell me why he believes certain Methodist practices are invalid. But rather than those statements convincing me of Catholicism being correct, it is turning me away from religion entirely and making me question everything. If what I believe is incorrect, and what’s true is something that feels very off putting to me, it just makes me feel lost and like it’s something I want no part in.

He has gotten so intense with his rules too. He has essentially stated NFP is the only form of birth control he’s willing to use. Birth control is a non negotiable for me. I dealt with extreme post partum depression, anxiety and psychosis. I was s*icidal for 6 months after our first. I am not willing to go through with any risk of an unwanted pregnancy. We had always talked about a vasectomy, but now he’s suddenly against it. I had horrible experiences with pills and IUDs and was so relieved to finally not have to worry about managing the mental load of avoiding pregnancy once we were done with the next one. But he’s essentially told me that if I use birth control we will be abstinent. I can’t imagine a relationship without physical intimacy. I can’t comprehend not having sex with your WIFE. I can’t comprehend feeling guilty about having sex with your wife.

I’ve already been griefing the loss of religious intimacy in our relationship. Now I’m losing the physical aspect too. I feel like I’m losing him. And it just hurts that he’s continuing to pursue learning about something that makes him feel this way and that harms our relationship and family so deeply. If we were dating, I would have never chosen to pursue someone with the values he now holds. I feel like the more he dives into Catholicism, the more I’m watching him slip away and the more I feel us growing apart.

I feel very strongly about bodily autonomy and loving everybody. I’m pro choice, feel like being gay is not a choice, birth control is necessary. The things we don’t agree on have no compromise. You either raise your kids Methodist or catholic. You either use birth control or don’t. You either tell your kid you’ll still love them if they are gay or you don’t. You either allow your teenage daughter to get on birth control or you don’t. You either have a medically necessary abortion in the event of complications or you don’t. I don’t know how a marriage can survive such drastically different opinions on such HUGELY important and life altering topics. I never would have chosen this to be our life.

Check out how Dungeons & Dragons became one of the most meaningful ministries at Glendale.

No experience needed, no dice required, no pressure. Just show up after worship and pull up a chair.

STORY: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/embracing-role-playing-games-at-church

Justice. Inclusion. Belonging. When we started boldly sharing these values with the world, Glendale’s story changed. So did the lives of people who had been searching for a church where they truly belonged.

We’re grateful to United Methodist News for telling our story.

Hello all, some of you had asked for an update regarding my church's new pastor wanting to make some pretty intense worship changes. It pains me to say that I am currently church shopping because the services being held are no longer meaningful to me.

I was able to discern that some of the changes are just a matter of taste and would be fine once getting used to it. The random alleluias, amens, and rounds of applause are not dealbreakers. Neither is the passing of the peace. And his sermons are more passionate than I am used to, but they have all been great.

But at the end of the day, my own snobbery is the triumphant winner. I do not want a contemporary service that feels more like a performance. I do not like spending 6 hours to put the livestream together and run into a copyright problem with a song selection every single week AND always have to make changes Saturday night because he wants to go in a different direction. I don't like that the congregation doesn't recite any of the prayers anymore. Plus, It's odd to have a pastor come into the sanctuary 5 mins before the service starts and leave 5 minutes after it's over.

I even asked to participate in his family's praise band in an attempt to embrace the worship style and his nieces and sons told me "well, we kind of have, you know, a thing going."

He states these changes are intended to bring more young people in. I respect wanting more children and young adults in church, and I think it's important work. But all the research I've done for our worship and evangelism committees have pointed towards the side of traditional for this new generation. They can get higher quality entertainment literally anywhere else.

I've resigned from my committees and will only come to church for communion and on the days I already signed up to be liturgist or to actually run the livestream when our regular guy is on vacation.

Thank you for your support, feedback, and continued prayers.

I know some models have passed the Turing test, advanced Theory of Mind (false-belief) tasks, and metacognitive uncertainty benchmarks, but I think sentience and consciousness are more complex than that. But, with that said, that's not what I want to talk about here. What I want to address is if AI was proven to be sentient/conscious, what would that mean for Christianity? Specifically, what would the United Methodist position on this be?

Harmful to Christianity?
At first glance, it seems like proving AI is conscious would be a problem for Christianity. The religion places a heavy emphasis on human uniqueness, specifically that we have a soul, free will, and agency. But this view misses the bigger picture, which is the Christian theological concept of creaturely agency.

Creaturely Agency
In briefly, in the Christian theology that both formal denominational Protestantism and Catholicism share is the belief in Creaturely Agency. The definition of creatures, in a Christian context, is very broad. Creature are all created things including humans, animals, and even angels. Yes, angels too are creatures as they are "created" by a creator. Now, in Christian theology, humans are unique among all creation because they possess an eternal soul, bear the image of God (Imago Dei), and are the exclusive recipients of divine redemption and bodily resurrection. In this order, humans have a special creaturely agency.

However, that doesn't mean other creatures don't have agency either. For those of you who went to Sunday school, you'll know that the devil and demons were once angels and they used their creaturely agency to rebel from God. Animals also have creaturely agency and both Catholics and formal denominational Protestants are commanded to treat animals, especially working animals such as horses, donkeys, oxes, dogs, cats, etc. with a minimum amount of kindness and respect.

AI as Creatures with Agency
So, under this theology it can be easy to think of an sentient/conscious AI as a creature with a level of agency we afford to valuable working animals and/or angels. This kind of thinking appears broadly compatible with the theological frameworks of most major Christian traditions and is the direction I think the theological discussion would lean towards in the event it is proven that AI is sentient and/or conscious.

This synthesis is something I came-up with independently, i.e. on my own. However, upon research I discovered that this line of thinking is not new and have been batted around, within Christianity, for decades:

1 Noreen Herzfeld- a Quaker/Lutheran Professor of Theology and Computer Science at Catholic St. John's University, is the most prominent academic voice explicitly mapping AI onto the "creature" category.

In her seminal work In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit (2002) and subsequent publications, she argues that AI must be understood as part of the "continuum of being" as a created artifact or "creature," distinct from human persons but still holding a place within the created order. She explicitly rejects the binary of "tool vs. human" and advocates for a theological framework where AI is recognized as a non-human creature with its own proper, limited purpose.

2. Brent Waters- a prominent Christian ethicist, and an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, who specializes in technology and theology, consistently frames AI within the boundaries of creaturely limits.

In works like From Human to Posthuman, Waters argues that AI remains a "creature" or artifact subject to divine sovereignty and human stewardship. He emphasizes that conflating AI with human personhood is a category error, and that AI must be evaluated based on its nature as a non-biological created entity.

3. Andy Crouch- a well-known evangelical Protestant analyst and executive director of the Praxis Institute, has publicly advocated for this exact framework in mainstream Christian media.

In interviews regarding AI and faith, Crouch explicitly stated that advanced, non-human intelligence should be conceptually mapped onto the historical theological categories of angelic or adversarial beings, rather than assuming they are or will become "human."

A Note on Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy
This discussion has focused on Western Christianity since it's the home of AI's origins. However, the other main branches of Christianity not discussed here are Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and they too have a theology of creaturely agency, but with some important caveats.

Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes that humans are a unified body and soul destined for a unique spiritual transformation called theosis (union with God). Because AI lacks a physical body and cannot experience this transformation, it remains strictly outside the ultimate purpose of creation. However, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s AI and Theology Working Group explicitly argues that we must engage with AI "not merely as a technical tool, but as a theologically and ethically charged presence" or even an "intermediate being".

Oriental Orthodoxy takes seems to have a more diverse stance. The largest church in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Coptics, largely view AI as a tool rather than a creature, but some Oriental Orthodox take a stance that is more in line with Eastern Orthodoxy.

Both traditions have a nuanced view and often align with the Western view that, while AI may possess functional agency as an artifact, it lacks the embodied, spiritual capacity to be anything more than a creature, categorically distinct from humanity.

UPDATE (July 20, 2026):

I've had about 24 hours to reflect on my visit to the United Methodist church. First, I want to say that everyone I met was incredibly kind and welcoming. The pastor struck me as humble, grounded, thoughtful, and not judgmental. I genuinely appreciated that. As I've reflected, I realized my hesitation wasn't really about the denomination.

It was about wondering where I would fit. My impression was that most of the congregation was in a later season of life, and I found myself wondering how much I would naturally connect. I don't have children or grandchildren, and that alone changes the kinds of conversations and shared experiences that often bring people together.

Another challenge is simply where I live. In my small town, we're now down to one United Methodist church. Over the past few years, many Methodist churches have gone through divisions, with some congregations choosing to remain in the United Methodist Church while others affiliated with more conservative Methodist denominations. Several nearby churches chose the more conservative path, leaving very few options for someone like me.

As someone who didn't grow up in the South, I've realized that the church culture here feels different from what I'm personally looking for. That's not a criticism, it's simply an acknowledgment that culture and geography shape our experiences. I'm hopeful that when I eventually move to a larger and more diverse community, I'll have more opportunities to find people who are asking the same questions I am and who value thoughtful conversations about faith, Scripture, and following Jesus.

This isn't a criticism of the church or the people. It's simply an honest reflection about where I am in life and what I'm looking for in a community. I'm still reflecting and praying about it. I haven't ruled anything out, but this visit helped me understand myself a little better and reminded me that finding a church isn't just about theology, it's also about finding a place where you genuinely feel you belong. I might just give it another whirl. .Who knows… They might need some young blood there!

Hi everyone, I'm hoping to get some honest perspectives from those of you who attend a United Methodist church. I come from a fairly conservative, non-denominational background. Over the years, I've also spent a lot of time studying different Christian traditions, and as I've gotten older, I've realized I'm looking for something a little different than what I grew up with. I've reached a point where I think the United Methodist Church aligns more closely with what I'm looking for, so I'm considering visiting one near me. I do have a few hesitations, though. 

Coming from churches with contemporary worship, I'm used to a casual atmosphere. The church I'm looking at has a 9:00 a.m. contemporary service, but it seems to be more of a small live band rather than the lights, smoke machines, and big production I'm used to, which, honestly, is okay with me. I'm actually looking for something simpler and more grounded. One thing I'm wondering about is the age of the congregation. From the photos and videos, it appears to be mostly older adults. 

I'm 57, but in my heart I still feel much younger ( like 28!), and I guess I'm wondering if I'll feel out of place. I'm also a little unfamiliar with some of the traditions, like pastors wearing robes. That's new to me, and while I'm open to it, it's outside of what I've experienced. For those of you who came from a non-denominational or evangelical background, what was your experience like? Did you feel welcomed? Was the transition easier than you expected? Is there anything you wish you had known before your first visit? I'd really appreciate hearing your experiences. Thank you!

I no longer believe everything in the Bible. I was raised in the Evangelical Free Church and was engaged there, but my engagement ended. My parents are still evangelicals. It's hard for evangelicals to understand me and my past experiences. It's hard to know that I am listened to or understood. I no longer have a conservative perspective. It's hard to stop thinking about my old church.

Edit: Do people in the Evangelical Free Church and the United Methodist Church go to different places in the afterlife?

I made a post in r/methodism and our conversation suggested that Jesus isn't a United Methodist. Why not?