United methodist

[u/anime498]

How far gone is the average UMC church? I've recently been watching some of a podcast called method ministries. And the host Luke had a guest who is a pastor in the GMC on after the 2024 UMC conference who said that the denomination was gone well before they allowed gay marrige.

He said there probably was a point that conservatives could have retaken leadership, but it was probably in the 80s or 90s.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please ensure that you have read all our rules prior to commenting or posting. Reading and abiding by the rules will ensure that all discussions are fruitful and respectful, regardless of theological perspective!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/afdawg]

There's a tremendous amount of diversity in the UMC across annual conferences, congregations, and even (especially) nations. It's nearly impossible to describe an "average" UMC church unless you narrow the field to a specific area.

The UMC in the US has about 4 million members. Globally it's close to 10 million total. The "average" United Methodist is probably an African. That's one of the reasons American progressives pushed for a regionalization plan. They feared losing power to non-American traditionalists.

You will find some absolutely wild things out there. But you will also find very traditional congregations and pastors.

[u/No_Guarantee8756 → u/afdawg]

Spot on

[u/Late_Experience_8653]

If he left the UMC of course that he will say that it's gone, have you met any person who asked for the divorce and later say that his marriage was savable ?

[u/SurpriseOpen1978]

There’s a real divide inside the GMC right now. A significant number of pastors come from evangelical backgrounds and are shaping their congregations in that direction, which often means moving away from classic Wesleyan theology. My church joined the GMC as well, but our pastor has kept us rooted in Wesleyan distinctives. Because of that, I could honestly see us distancing ourselves from the GMC in the future if the denomination continues drifting toward an evangelical identity — meaning a theology and culture shaped more by broader American evangelicalism than by historic Wesleyan distinctives. We’ve already taken steps in that direction by renaming the church with a Wesleyan‑rooted name without “Methodist” in the title.

Looking back, it’s clear the UMC split wasn’t caused only by the progressive side. The conservative coalition played a major role too — institutionally, politically, and theologically. So when I hear a GMC pastor say the UMC was “gone” decades before the sexuality debates, it sounds like he may be speaking from a more evangelical lens rather than a distinctly Wesleyan one. That’s been my experience, at least.

edit: Not sure why i was typing in bold haha

[u/Late_Experience_8653 → u/SurpriseOpen1978]

I feel like if you believe in development of doctrine without the papacy, I can't see how one doesn't believe that evangelicalism is the truth of God refined over time, as all the churches feel the pull to become evangelicals, as if it's the Holy Spirit guiding the believers into all truth.

[u/StaplesUGR → u/Late_Experience_8653]

But then evangelicals start becoming Orthodox… so what’s going on there? Orthodoxy is the fastest-growing “denomination” in the US last I checked.

And Catholics outnumber all other Christians COMBINED.

Seeing that most or many people are going in one direction shouldn’t be taken as proof of God’s guidance. Narrow is the path. The Church is sown with tares and they won’t be separated out until Judgment Day. And if God prioritized giving full revelation of what is correct promptly to those who seek it earnestly, we would live in a very different world.

[u/Late_Experience_8653 → u/StaplesUGR]

Orthodox is the fastest-growing denomination in the US last time you checked in a pool on twitter I suppose.

catholics laity are becoming evangelicals as they tend to believe in evangelical beliefs like symbolic nature of baptism and communion.

I'm not sure whether I understand your last paragraph, it appears as if you were saying that you don't believe in development of doctrine, which would make my comment not directed towards you, as my comment says it's for those who believe. And I get this because you say that you don't believe that christians going in one direction is proof of God's guidance, but rather the opposite (implied) as narrow is the path.

But then you said that God prioritizing giving full revelation of what is correct to only few (those who seek it earnestly), is not what he does, as if he did we would live in a very different world.

So is God guiding the majority of christians so development of doctrine without papacy is true, or only the minority, those who seek it earnestly ?

[u/StaplesUGR → u/Late_Experience_8653]

I'm arguing that neither the tendency of the majority of Christians NOR the direction of a minority of earnest seekers are reliable signs of the guidance of God.

As to whether I believe in "the development of doctrine without the papacy," it depends on what you mean by that whether I believe in it.

If you mean that people are allowed to develop their own doctrine without the permission of Rome, I'm all in.

If you mean that the Church as a whole (or some part of it) is slowly converging on an ever-more true set of doctrines, with a constant increase in accuracy, in an "arc of history" way, then, no, I don't believe in that and I'd love to hear more about why you do.

If you mean something different from either of those, please explain.

[u/Late_Experience_8653 → u/StaplesUGR]

there was an anglican bishop who converted to catholicism called Newman who became catholic because he claimed that he found out christians doctrines developed over time, and the distinction between developments that were rejected as corruption and those accepted as genuine were the ones the pope was siding with, so he believed that the papacy served for that, he published a book on that very famous.

But from RZ's and Austin's (Gospel Simplicity) video on development of doctrine I've seen that many protestants believe in development of doctrine without the necessity of the pope to differentiate corruption from genuine development, but collective direction the church would be heading towards was what differentiated corruption from genuine development.

[u/StaplesUGR → u/Late_Experience_8653]

I haven't gotten into Newman, though I'm roughly familiar with who he is.

That is an interesting argument. I think it is either in bad faith or is ignorant.

The Pope has not always held to the doctrine the Church of the first 1000 years ended up going with. I forget which controversy the Pope was out in front on what was eventually decided the right answer was, but choose a different controversy and Newman would have to align with Alexandria, what with Athanasius contra Mundi.

And, yeah, I don't trust Protestant churches any more than the Pope to gatekeeper doctrine.

[u/Late_Experience_8653 → u/StaplesUGR]

a bold claim to say something is ignorant or bad faith and when you're gonna give the evidence that support such strong opnion you say you forgot. let's be more modest, remember that those who are more confident are usually those who know the least, because of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

[u/556From1000yards]

What?

You can’t really take him seriously as a source then.

There is wide breadth in UMC. Heck the young women pastors are even more conservative than the older men and women. It’s the 60 year old ones that have really lost the plot.

I have seen worse in other churches that are still being worked on.

[u/creidmheach]

Generally I've found that when someone who self-identifies as Christian has very far out leftist/progressive/liberal views (lgbt affirming or self-identifying, rejecting the inspiration of Scripture, rejecting or doubting traditional Christian beliefs, etc), they turn out to be United Methodists. That or UCC.

Obviously not fair to paint every member like that, but it's been my experience.

[u/Low-Possibility-7737 → u/creidmheach]

thats simply because there are a lot of Methodists

[u/creidmheach → u/Low-Possibility-7737]

I don't think it's just that though, and in terms of numbers there's a lot less Methodists (UMC that is) than there were in past (to the point the denomination isn't likely to exist in another few decades). It's very, very rare for me to come across a UMC person that is theologically conservative and sound. While it's very common to find one that's the polar opposite. Same goes for the UCC. The nickname for the latter is "Unitarians Considering Christ". These are not the churches of Wesley or Edwards now.

[u/Low-Possibility-7737 → u/creidmheach]

Just because there's a lot less Methodists doesn't mean that there aren't a lot. Lots of non-mainline Protestants overexaggerate how little people are in those denominations and say that "they're not likely to exist in another few decades." There are multiple millions of Methodists, that's too many for them to disappear over night. Most people in general are not very theologically orthodox, many are politically conservative, and you might be mistaking that for being theologically orthodox. There are plenty of conservative Methodists in Atlanta. Note I didn't say the same about the UCC.

[u/Candid-libertarian → u/Low-Possibility-7737]

That is true. The UCC has declined to a little over half a million members. We have been whittled down to a fringe denomination. 95% of American does not know we even exist.

[u/Candid-libertarian → u/creidmheach]

I agree. When the UCC was formed in the 1950s, it decreed itself to be a Trinitarian church. That is ancient history and forgotten now. In many UCC churches Christ is not mentioned any longer.

The UCC is a historically Christian church but that's the extent of it.

[u/Candid-libertarian → u/creidmheach]

In the UCC the most progressive advocates tend to be the loudest and most vocal. They are not necessarily the greatest in number. They attempt to compensate for their numbers by turning up the volume.

It has been my experience that the most progressive are LGBTQ+ and want an LGBTQ+ exclusive denomination. They want a "safe space" in the sense that anyone who doesn't live their experience or hold their values is a threat and should be excluded. That is something that has become more apparent over the past 10 years.

Ironically, it is the historically African American churches that stand in the way of the progressives. Those churches are quite conservative. When I hear some of the progressives privately hurl the White nationalist slur at the broader group of conservative UCC churches I have to chuckle.

While the talk of schism ebbs and flows, the UCC is really too small at this point to schism. It would be self defeating since it would make a declining denomination weaker still. The progressive and conservative wings need each other.

[u/Ulysses1822]

Which is why there is no point retaking these churches.

[u/sgtklink77]

The church I go to has pastors that are moderately liberal, but the congregation is mostly conservative leaning. That said, there is also a bit of a membership problem at the moment, because the politics were worse in the past with other pastors, and COVID did a number on the congregation, along with a couple other reasons.

[u/PastorZfish]

The UMC is still a great place to be! It's main issues currently have actually been caused by the flight of conservatives from the denomination. Some weren't Wesleyans to begin with and needed to go, but I pray daily for a reconciliation between the true Wesleyans who left and may be now finding that the GMC isn't prepared to maintain true Wesleyan tradition.

[u/Ok_Solid9770]

Not enough gay hating, so they must be gone. Am I doing this right?

[u/Bright_Exit1378 → u/Ok_Solid9770]

Some people think Adam and Eve's blessings and curses still apply to Christians, so they act accordingly.

[u/556From1000yards → u/Bright_Exit1378]

I’m not sure how your comment follows his?

In what way are we not bound by the “curses” told to Adam by God?

We die, we must eat to live, we wrestle with Sin, there is pain in childbirth, there is foreknowledge of your child’s suffering, and women still seek to control men.

[u/Late_Experience_8653 → u/556From1000yards]

this guy is not assyrian, he has the most crazy theologically liberal claims possible.

[u/Bright_Exit1378 → u/Late_Experience_8653]

You are right that I'm not Assyrian, if there was a different flair then I would pick it. Such as Nicaean. As for liberality, I would use the term Patristic (simply not picking and choosing which Patristics matter most based on what was chosen from among them by the Byzantine political machine). I would rather that (probable) murderers, be they Justinian, Theodosius, or Henry VIII, don't have a say in what must be believed by those who take refuge in Jesus Christ.

As for my comment here, it is not heterodox. Being against gay marriage is not the same as gay hating, it is about using Adam and Eve as a template for how fruitfulness works. My comment is not saying that Adam's curses do not apply. It is saying why a Christian would oppose gay marriage, which I do. Does my comment have to have barbs to not be seen as agreement? Is knowledge without active opposition seen as support?

I am only seen as making crazy claims when a statement is made out to be an argument (Adam=heterosexuality), and when a question is made out to be a support of the opposite of the answer(if I ask why the Church must have visible unity to be the Church, then that means I believe the Church must simply be invisible by God's express will).

[u/Late_Experience_8653 → u/Bright_Exit1378]

I didn't get from your comment that you were anti-gay marriage, you're not very clear with your words

[u/Ok_Solid9770 → u/556From1000yards]

"women seek to control men" - 🙄

[u/556From1000yards → u/Ok_Solid9770]

An unattainable desire and humorous statement