The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church!

[Ric]

The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church! (http://confessingumc.org/v2/) <---- Click Link

:confused: Is anyone else a member of this group like myself? :confused:

[ContraMundum]

Looks interesting.

[ClementofRome]

I am not a "member" per se, but I am a supporter of their efforts to bring the UMC back to its biblical foundation.

[Artos]

I was a member of the British Methodist Confessing Movement when I was in UK.
Found British Methodism too wishywashy and liberal so joined the chapter in UK.

The UK Confessing Movement is not as 'political' /aggressive as the one in USA. It is the more the 'charismatic wing' of the British Methodists. The evangelical wing is represented by the Headway Movement. The charismatics were supposed to be in there but the group is predominantly evangelical so some charismatics felt that their concerns had to be voiced in another group....

[seeking.IAM]

I am a member and contributor to the Confessing Movement

<><
seeking.IAM

[WiredSpirit]

I am an active member and contributor to another United Methodist movement: Affirmation (http://www.umaffirm.org/).

[Onesimus85]

Supporter, but not yet a member... my dad is a member though

[1lostsheep]

This is wonderful, I love the UMC but all these problems have led to my interest in other denominations. I don't want to belong to a church that can't hold on to orthodox christian beliefs and that will be swayed by the times. I am so happy to hear about this.

[seeking.IAM]

I love the UMC but all these problems have led to my interest in other denominations.

Yeah, me too. But we have a choice. Those that are dissatisfied can leave or they can stay and advocate for change. The Confessing Movement provides an opportunity to do that.

seeking.IAM
<><

[alaurie]

I'd heard of this before but didn't realize it was something an individual can become an actual member of. I certainly agree with the movement but have some questions for Ric and seeking.IAM.

1. Are your congregations also members? If not, did you discuss joining with your Sr. Pastor? My church certainly already affirms the teachings of the Confessing Movement but isn't a member church.

2. If you're not in a CM church, how do you go about financially supporting your church without supporting the UMC as a whole? That's something that's always sort of bothered me, knowing the tithe is going to support church leaders who deny scripture. Can you write your check for your tithe as "to be used for the local church only" or specify something church specific such as a mission or "operating budget"?

[herev]

I've been investigating. Can't find a reason NOT to be a member or encourage the church to be, but forgive me, somehow it seems like there is something missing in the literature. Am I just being paranoid?
I wrote to them and asked for members of folks or churches near me. (as a pastor) Imagine my surprise when the main person they told me to talk to about it was a member---MY Distrist Superintendant!!

[1lostsheep]

Maybe I should do that....good ideal.

[Ric]

I've been investigating. Can't find a reason NOT to be a member or encourage the church to be, but forgive me, somehow it seems like there is something missing in the literature. Am I just being paranoid?
I wrote to them and asked for members of folks or churches near me. (as a pastor) Imagine my surprise when the main person they told me to talk to about it was a member---MY Distrist Superintendant!!

Wow, that is awesome! :thumbsup:

[Ric]

I'd heard of this before but didn't realize it was something an individual can become an actual member of. I certainly agree with the movement but have some questions for Ric and seeking.IAM.

1. Are your congregations also members? If not, did you discuss joining with your Sr. Pastor? My church certainly already affirms the teachings of the Confessing Movement but isn't a member church.

2. If you're not in a CM church, how do you go about financially supporting your church without supporting the UMC as a whole? That's something that's always sort of bothered me, knowing the tithe is going to support church leaders who deny scripture. Can you write your check for your tithe as "to be used for the local church only" or specify something church specific such as a mission or "operating budget"?

Hi Alaurie,

Sad to say that my congregation is not a member, but I am. I left a church here in Orlando (St. Luke's UMC (http://www.st.lukes.org/)) because it was getting just TOO liberal and the Gospel was suffering. My new church has a very biblical pastor and we are a close knit family - which had doubled in the past twelve months. I don't know if I'll approach my pastor about the CM, but I also don't see the need in my congregation. I joined the CM because of the last church where I was a member (St. Luke's UMC (http://www.st.lukes.org/)) a few years back because I saw where it was heading, and when I offered to start an evangelical ministry to share the Gospel (Jesus) with our community and then I was shot down - I left that church!

As for your second question, knowing the church I am a member of now I have no problems due to the Christ centered and biblical way the church is, but also knowing that the denomination as a whole is in a struggle right now is very heartbreaking for me.

My background is in the Southern Baptist Church, and myself am very conservative. I also believe that God gave me the gift of discernment (I am an apologist) so that I can know His rights from other's wrongs. So I am on top of things all of the time.

[alaurie]

As for your second question, knowing the church I am a member of now I have no problems due to the Christ centered and biblical way the church is, but also knowing that the denomination as a whole is in a struggle right now is very heartbreaking for me.



Thanks Ric. :)

My question about tithes comes from the concern that if we don't earmark the gifts for churches and seminaries preaching scriptural truth, then a portion of the money goes to the UMC which in turn (I think -someone correct me if I'm wrong) supports seminaries teaching whatever the heck they want. I was so dismayed a couple of months ago to pick up a denominational comparison chart at a Christian bookstore that stated there are UMC clergy who deny the virgin birth. Apparently from reading some of the concerns on the CM site, that's mild. :eek: My point is ...the gifts are the Lord's. Are we to send them out to support teaching that denies His word?

Edited to add the link from the CM site about the liberal seminaries.

http://confessingumc.org/v2/resources/tract1.htm

[Ric]

Thanks Ric. :)

My question about tithes comes from the concern that if we don't earmark the gifts for churches and seminaries preaching scriptural truth, then a portion of the money goes to the UMC which in turn (I think -someone correct me if I'm wrong) supports seminaries teaching whatever the heck they want. I was so dismayed a couple of months ago to pick up a denominational comparison chart at a Christian bookstore that stated there are UMC clergy who deny the virgin birth. Apparently from reading some of the concerns on the CM site, that's mild. :eek: My point is ...the gifts are the Lord's. Are we to send them out to support teaching that denies His word?

Edited to add the link from the CM site about the liberal seminaries.

http://confessingumc.org/v2/resources/tract1.htm

Sorry,
I remember reading that part of your question, but in my reply I failed to comment on the part of the question.

I know that in some churches where they give you offering envelopes that on the front you can earmark where some or all of your monies go to in the church and/or ministries. My old church did have that option and my new church does not. But if we are to be good stewards with God's money (and it is His money not ours), if the envelope does not have the option to earmark where the monies go, ask your pastor if you can do so on your envelope somewhere on the front or back of the envelope. I do believe you should have that right in any church.

God Bless!

[alaurie]

but forgive me, somehow it seems like there is something missing in the literature. Am I just being paranoid?


If I'm guessing what you're wondering about correctly, it reads like the group decided from the first not to go there.

[Diane_Windsor]

Is anyone else a member of this group like myself?

Nope, and from what I glanced over at the site I would not be interested in joining such a movement. I just recently came from a conservative denomination.

Diane
:wave:

[Ric]

Nope, and from what I glanced over at the site I would not be interested in joining such a movement. I just recently came from a conservative denomination.

Diane
:wave:PM me if you like,

But it sounds like you may have come from a bad experience from your former church, am I right?

God Bless You Diane!

[Diane_Windsor]

Ric,

Nope-I have never had a bad experience while I was a Southern Baptist. I just think that the the SBC is much too conservative, and I fail to see the good in the conservative takeover. I like the UMC because Methodists aren't afraid of asking tough questions, and it is a more "liberal" denomination. I don't want to be a member of a conservative group.

DIANE
:wave:

[Ric]

Ric,

Nope-I have never had a bad experience while I was a Southern Baptist. I just think that the the SBC is much too conservative, and I fail to see the good in the conservative takeover. I like the UMC because Methodists aren't afraid of asking tough questions, and it is a more "liberal" denomination. I don't want to be a member of a conservative group.

DIANE
:wave:

Hey again Diane,

You and I have the same background. After my salvation I was a member of the Southern Baptist Church, and was so for about fifteen years. I only joined the UMC after I married my wife who was a Roman Catholic.

I deeply miss the Southern Baptist Church, but we needed to find a church where my wife was more comfortable due to her life long rituals she had in the Roman Catholic church. It took us a few years to find the church where we are now members. We went through a few different denominations.

Now if I had my choice of what church to be a member of now, I would join my local Calvary Chapel. The Calvary Chapel is just as biblical as the SBC, but not as legalistic. Also Calvary Chapel is more contemporary than the SBC. :thumbsup:

God Bless!

[markbelieves]

The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church! (http://confessingumc.org/v2/) <---- Click Link

:confused: Is anyone else a member of this group like myself? :confused:

I am not a member but from what I read on the their website I would agree with what they stand for.

[Ric]

I am not a member but from what I read on the their website I would agree with what they stand for.God Bless You! :thumbsup:

[seeking.IAM]

If you're not in a CM church, how do you go about financially supporting your church without supporting the UMC as a whole? That's something that's always sort of bothered me, knowing the tithe is going to support church leaders who deny scripture.

Interesting questions. My church is not a Confessing Movement church. I confess that if it was, I probably wouldn't have become a member myself. Rather, it's disillusionment within MY OWN church that contributed to my joining the Confessing Movement--hence what I wrote above about your alternative being to either leave it or stay and try to change it.

Regarding your question #2, above, I really haven't tried to with hold support from the denomination, but I confess that I have with held support from my church. Recent case in point: On Christmas Eve I am sitting in our 11:00 pm service with a large pre-written end-of-year contribution to my church in my pocket just waiting to drop it in the offering plate. The service was probably the most anemic Christmas Eve service that it has ever been my misfortune to attend in all my years. No readings of the Biblical account of the birth of Christ. Rather, my Senior Pastor read to us out of a storybook (I kid you not) and asked us to use analogy to generalize the story to the birth of Christ. I'm sorry, I think the Bible does a pretty good and direct job of telling the story on its own. There was no fitting adoration during our service of the birth of the King of Kings. MOST in the congregation, however, did stand to give adoration to a particular soloist. It was at that point, that I decided that the check was remaining in my pocket. If we can give praise, adoration, and glory to an admittedly talented soloist but give less so to the King of Kings, we are seriously misguided. When I got home, I tore up the check and sent an amount equal to that check to the Confessing Movement.

So, you ask did I talk to my Senior Pastor about my decision to join the Confessing Movement? No. My church is the embodiment of why the Confessing Movement is needed.

seeking.IAM
<><

[1lostsheep]

It's so sad to see what is happening.

[Diane_Windsor]

Ric,

I don't find the SBC, or Baptists in general, legalistic at all, however, we are getting off-topic :) I went back to the site you gave us in the OP and I could only think of the paralells that I see between the UMC and the SBC, and I also thought of the beginnings of our faith tradition.

I know our history, John Wesley started a movement called Methodism, but he and Charles were Anglican priests till the day they died. They didn't want their followers to break from the Church of England. The word that came to my mind when I was at the site was split.

Because of these reasons I am very wary about any "movement" within the UMC. I do not want to see a break, nor do I want to see in-fighting in the UMC. I grew up during the time when the conservatives and the moderates were at the height of their fighting over the SBC *shudder*

DIANE
:wave:

[alaurie]

Realize the above post is addressed to Ric, but I have to say I don't read 'split' into the Confessing Movement literature at all. I see hearts desiring renewal and revival - concepts at the core of the founding of Methodism.

I suppose it's perspective. My joy in learning about Methodism has been in the Wesleys' teaching, not the teaching of the modern mainstream UMC. I see the Confessing Movement as being much more in line with the Wesleys' focus on holiness. And I love it that the people in the CM are working within the church for change. Too often there seems to be an impulsive "I don't like it, so I'll just leave" reaction in churches which does lead to splits. The CM group seems to me to want to do the opposite - to stay and effect change internally.

[ClementofRome]

Wesley is rolling in his grave (well, not really,.....he is enjoying his present position of glorification).... over the present UMC.

[Ric]

It's so sad to see what is happening.What is that? Sad that the liberals are trying to take over the UMC or that the others are trying to restore the Biblical and Wesleyan roots of the UMC? :scratch:

Or is it sad because just that the struggle is even going on at all? Well we were warned by the Holy Spirit that this would happen (2 Peter 2:1-3).

[Ric]

Realize the above post is addressed to Ric, but I have to say I don't read 'split' into the Confessing Movement literature at all. I see hearts desiring renewal and revival - concepts at the core of the founding of Methodism.

I suppose it's perspective. My joy in learning about Methodism has been in the Wesleys' teaching, not the teaching of the modern mainstream UMC. I see the Confessing Movement as being much more in line with the Wesleys' focus on holiness. And I love it that the people in the CM are working within the church for change. Too often there seems to be an impulsive "I don't like it, so I'll just leave" reaction in churches which does lead to splits. The CM group seems to me to want to do the opposite - to stay and effect change internally.

Thank you, and right you are! :amen:

[Ric]

I'd give you some Reputation points, but you don't have it activated.

[AquilaGT]

The Confessing Movement is a wonderful and positive way to support renewal and help the church hold to the essential, core beliefs that the Church Universal has held to since the beginning of the Church.

[1lostsheep]

Sad that the Libs are taking over. It's great to be open minded and loving people, as I think we should be, but not to the point that you throw out Christian morality and orthodox teachings.

[1lostsheep]

Sad that the Libs are taking over. It's great to be open minded and loving people, as I think we should be, but not to the point that you throw out Christian morality and orthodox teachings.

[Diane_Windsor]

Sad that the Libs are taking over. It's great to be open minded and loving people, as I think we should be, but not to the point that you throw out Christian morality and orthodox teachings.

1. I don't see that happening in the UMC.
2. Who is to say what is "orthodox"?

DIANE
:wave:

[Ric]

The Confessing Movement is a wonderful and positive way to support renewal and help the church hold to the essential, core beliefs that the Church Universal has held to since the beginning of the Church.

Amen and :amen:

[Ric]

Sad that the Libs are taking over. It's great to be open minded and loving people, as I think we should be, but not to the point that you throw out Christian morality and orthodox teachings.

So true, so true. I've seen it happen to a few local churches, once they are taken over by the liberals I have notices a few things:
1. A decrease of membership.
2. No more children at the church.
3. The Gospel of Jesus is no longer taught.
4. The Holy Spirit has left the building! (The Holy Spirit leaves the congregation)
5. A "Social Gospel" takes over. (Which is no Gospel at all!)

In that short list of things I have seen happen to a local church when the liberals take over I see happening the the Episcopal church in America (1, 3, 4, 5), and sad to say I now see happening in our beloved United Methodist church. I have seen in the UMC point number one (1) above and now point number five (5) above is starting to creep in.

If we the UMC start to see (which I believe is just around the corner due to the fact that I left one UMC that go so liberal for another UMC where I am now a member of) number three (3) above start up - number four (4) is not far behind!

Thanks for your post! And God Bless you 1lostsheep! :wave:

[1lostsheep]

Thanks Ric! I'm having a really tough time right now. In all truthfulness I haven't been going to church for a couple years now. I have spent about 3 yrs now looking into the Catholic Church. My mentality has been well, the Methodist are from the Anglicans, and the Anglicans are really from the Catholic Church. I am sooo disillusioned with the UMC right now. Don't anyone take me wrong here the umc does alot of great things. Wonderful things. But there is such a lack of ability in the UMC to make a stand on anything. Moral relativism is the word I am thinking of. I don't know what to do or what the answer is. I have a great respect for Wesley. (although I really need to read more of his works) but there are so many social issues that I am in complete disagreement with the umc on. Actually our local paper last year did an article on church profits for the yr and the Methodist Churches were the lowest b/c they are not growing. People are jumping ship for some solid ground. I don't know what I'm going to do.

[1lostsheep]

"Orthodox" to me are the historical teachings of the church handed down from Jesus to the Apostles to the present day. They are unchangable.

[Ric]

You may want to check into the Nazarene church. The Nazarene church is more conservative than the UMC, but is almost like the UMC - because they broke off from the old Methodist church before the Methodist church merged with the United Brethren church to become the UMC.

Seriously I am thinking of checking out the Nazarene church for myself.

Link: Church of the Nazarene (http://www.nazarene.org/)

[1lostsheep]

Thanks I'll check it out...I'm starting some indepth studying on church history and hope that will help me get settled on a path. I'm trying to figure out how, historically, certain verses in the Bible have been understood. I still have so much to figure out, of course do we ever figure out everything we want to? It's a lifetime of work but I actually enjoy the study alot. (I'm here right?)

[ContraMundum]

Seriously I am thinking of checking out the Nazarene church for myself.

There's a lot of that going around. ;)

[AquilaGT]

Hi all. I have 3 responses to some prior comments.



1. The theological revisionists (liberals) are not winning. Only General Conference can officially speak for the entire United Methodist Church, and the votes on issues of doctrine and belief have remained solidly orthodox (evangelical, or conservative/traditional, whatever word) with increasing majorities each conference. This is because the UMC is growing in the areas where it is orthodox. Don't lose heart or give up - stay and contend for the apostolic faith!



2. Orthodox generally means belief in the creeds developed by the church councils of the ancient undivided Church - the Apostles and Nicene creeds. The triune God, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, his virgin birth and physical resurrection, and the reconciliation of sinful humanity to God thru Jesus death on the cross and the resurrection. Notice how ecumenical this is – basic to all Christians, yet allows latitude on secondary issues.



3. Social Gospel – John Wesley once said that there is no holiness but social holiness. A life transformed by the Holy Spirit will have values that contradict the selfish and materialistic focus of this world. As much as I am committed to orthodox doctrine, that belief should be a light to the world that makes a difference in the hearts and lives of people. In a world in which almost 30,000 precious children die everyday due to extreme poverty, racism is still at toxic levels, the unborn are vulnerable and all the advantages and tax breaks go to corporations and the super-rich, we need more Gospel (social and personal), not less.

[ContraMundum]

I'd like to add one more point of encouragement to AquilaGT's post:

4. The leading evangelical scholar in the world who addresses the liberal agenda and promotes classical Christian orthodoxy is Thomas Oden- a UMC professor at Drew University.

That alone should show that the modernist programme is not succeeding anymore and losing ground.

[AquilaGT]

Dr. Thomas Oden is awesome! He is definitely a champion of the faith.

[1lostsheep]

Thanks AquilaGT, It makes me feel better to know that the councils have stayed "orthodox" and the UMC is absolutely wonderful with service work and outreach. Most of the people in the UMC and the kindest most warm people I have come across. I don't "want" to leave in that sense. I also know that the lib movement to strip our whole society of these important ideas is not simply a UMC issue. However, there is a big problem somewhere when a practicing lesbian can be put in her position in the first place. That being said I agree with you on #1 and #2 and most of #3. Although I would disagree with some of #3 it's not important or why I am where I am. But can I ask you or anyone here a question? This is another thing I am trying to figure out...What about apostolic succession? I was looking at an Anglican site and it claimed to have apostolic succession but how can this be if they are no longer part of the Orthodox or Catholic Church? Do we Methodits believe we have apostolic succussion or is it a non-necessary? I am convinced in my reading that Jesus established one Church. I am thinking that church can only be one of the original churches, the Orthodox or Catholic. I am aware that there is the concept of the invisible church and the visible church. Am I right is saying that the Methodists only believe Christ established 1 Holy invisible church? I am not arguing, just trying to find out exactly what The Methodists teach. I am really not that educated in out beliefs as far as things like this. Thanks!

[1lostsheep]

I will check out Dr. Thomas Oden! Thanks!

[ContraMundum]

But can I ask you or anyone here a question? This is another thing I am trying to figure out...What about apostolic succession? I was looking at an Anglican site and it claimed to have apostolic succession but how can this be if they are no longer part of the Orthodox or Catholic Church? Do we Methodits believe we have apostolic succussion or is it a non-necessary?

The idea that Apostolic Succession is something natural that took place in the church is one thing (eg. when a pastor dies someone fills his place, teaches the same doctrine etc), but the slant that came later in church history is that somehow to be a "real" pastor one needed to have a kind of pedigree, and that the succession from the Apostles was not the doctrine and practice of the Christian faith they gave to us but a series of ordinations linking everyone back to an Apostle.

However, the scriptures know of no such idea. While it is obvious that some form of charism does come from the laying on of hands (As Paul said to Timothy), the idea that this must come only from a bishop who himself was ordained by another bishop who could theoretically trace his ordination back to an Apostle is really a matter of dispute. We know that at various times in church history elders (priests, presbyters, whatever you want to call them) ordained in the absence of a bishop, or even to elect a bishop from among themselves, and that these men were considered genuine ministers. (This is taught by Jerome, in his letter to Evangelius I believe- I can't check right now) Also, we know that what makes the ministry effective is not the minister, but rather the Word of God both spoken and in the sacraments.

So, as far as I know, Methodists trace their lineage back to the Apostles, but not directly through a bishop, but rather through presbyters (priests such as Wesley himself) and although this is irregular that in itself in no way makes it null and void. Rather, the word of God would make the pastor's ministry effective or not.

Although I'm an Anglican, and ordained myself with the "Apostolic succession" in my ministry, I would argue that the practice of retaining ordination for bishops alone is of "good order" for the church, but not "of the essence" of the church. In other words, it's a good practice, but when impossible to have, other forms of ordination will suffice. The word of God will do the rest.

[alaurie]

The comments above that orthodoxy is winning in the UMC are certainly what I've witnessed locally. Even in the Bible Belt, the mainstream liberal UMC churches are emptying, and the more conservative, spirit-filled churches are growing at an amazing rate. Our church is not a 'focus on our numbers' type church, but we rarely have a Sunday without new members either transferring in or making professions of faith.

Ric hit on it in this post (emphais mine). The bolded part is exactly what we're experiencing in my church. I've seen visitors sit weeping throughout the entire sermon - the Holy Spirit is so present. And the worship service itself is low key. We use a mixture of praise and worship music and traditional hymns and include some liturgy (though not as much as I wish for). Our minister never raises his voice or 'puts on the preacher voice' as I call it ;) - just teaches us faithfully from the Word. The key, I'm sure, to the very real presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is the fact that we have a prayer team of 75 dedicated individuals who pray over every single event at our church. They schedule teams to pray whether it's Sunday worship, a youth fellowship, or a community service event. Whenever people are out doing at the church, there are people at home or in the prayer room praying. It's absolutely amazing.

So true, so true. I've seen it happen to a few local churches, once they are taken over by the liberals I have notices a few things:
1. A decrease of membership.
2. No more children at the church.
3. The Gospel of Jesus is no longer taught.
4. The Holy Spirit has left the building! (The Holy Spirit leaves the congregation)
5. A "Social Gospel" takes over. (Which is no Gospel at all!)

In that short list of things I have seen happen to a local church when the liberals take over I see happening the the Episcopal church in America (1, 3, 4, 5), and sad to say I now see happening in our beloved United Methodist church. I have seen in the UMC point number one (1) above and now point number five (5) above is starting to creep in.

If we the UMC start to see ... number three (3) above start up - number four (4) is not far behind!

[alaurie]

Hi all. I have 3 responses to some prior comments.



1. The theological revisionists (liberals) are not winning. Only General Conference can officially speak for the entire United Methodist Church, and the votes on issues of doctrine and belief have remained solidly orthodox (evangelical, or conservative/traditional, whatever word) with increasing majorities each conference. This is because the UMC is growing in the areas where it is orthodox. Don't lose heart or give up - stay and contend for the apostolic faith!



2. Orthodox generally means belief in the creeds developed by the church councils of the ancient undivided Church - the Apostles and Nicene creeds. The triune God, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, his virgin birth and physical resurrection, and the reconciliation of sinful humanity to God thru Jesus death on the cross and the resurrection. Notice how ecumenical this is – basic to all Christians, yet allows latitude on secondary issues.



3. Social Gospel – John Wesley once said that there is no holiness but social holiness. A life transformed by the Holy Spirit will have values that contradict the selfish and materialistic focus of this world. As much as I am committed to orthodox doctrine, that belief should be a light to the world that makes a difference in the hearts and lives of people. In a world in which almost 30,000 precious children die everyday due to extreme poverty, racism is still at toxic levels, the unborn are vulnerable and all the advantages and tax breaks go to corporations and the super-rich, we need more Gospel (social and personal), not less.


Great post! Especially your explanation of Social Gospel. I think for many of us-myself included, the term has become associated more with moral relativism than Wesley's teaching of social holiness as you've explained it. Thanks for the reminder of the historic meaning.:)

[1lostsheep]

Thanks ContraMundum, I think I understand. I imagine the Christian Church as a tree and we are the limbs but we all share the same root. If we could all just get along we would truly be one. Sometimes I feel like I spend so much time studying and questioning that I lose perspective on the essentials. I just want to do the right thing. At the same time this research of mine is a passion in itself. I am currently an adult undergrad student and I want to eventually be a theology teacher at the 4-yr level. So it gets very confusing when you aren't sure where you should be yourself. I can say I love that the UMC uses the Bible, faith, tradition, and reason. That is very important to me. So many churches treat tradition and history like it's a disease. I don't want to lose that.

I am also trying to decide if Peter was made the apostle of authority or the first among equals. I can see it either way and as I am reading Acts again I see that although Peter spoke first in the group they all made decisions by councils and votes, as a group. That is leading me to believe that the Church was not a monarchy.

[Diane_Windsor]

What about apostolic succession? I was looking at an Anglican site and it claimed to have apostolic succession but how can this be if they are no longer part of the Orthodox or Catholic Church? Do we Methodits believe we have apostolic succussion or is it a non-necessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

DIANE
:wave:


http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/egg01063.gif
Eeyore

[Ric]

The comments above that orthodoxy is winning in the UMC are certainly what I've witnessed locally. Even in the Bible Belt, the mainstream liberal UMC churches are emptying, and the more conservative, spirit-filled churches are growing at an amazing rate. Our church is not a 'focus on our numbers' type church, but we rarely have a Sunday without new members either transferring in or making professions of faith.

Ric hit on it in this post (emphais mine). The bolded part is exactly what we're experiencing in my church. I've seen visitors sit weeping throughout the entire sermon - the Holy Spirit is so present. And the worship service itself is low key. We use a mixture of praise and worship music and traditional hymns and include some liturgy (though not as much as I wish for). Our minister never raises his voice or 'puts on the preacher voice' as I call it ;) - just teaches us faithfully from the Word. The key, I'm sure, to the very real presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is the fact that we have a prayer team of 75 dedicated individuals who pray over every single event at our church. They schedule teams to pray whether it's Sunday worship, a youth fellowship, or a community service event. Whenever people are out doing at the church, there are people at home or in the prayer room praying. It's absolutely amazing.

Yes, my new church home is very Christ centered and biblically based too. Praise God for many churches in our denomination that are still that way!

[Ric]

Great post! Especially your explanation of Social Gospel. I think for many of us-myself included, the term has become associated more with moral relativism than Wesley's teaching of social holiness as you've explained it. Thanks for the reminder of the historic meaning.:)

Yes, there is a big difference between "Social Gospel" and "Social Holiness"! :thumbsup: :amen:

[Ric]

I'd like to add one more point of encouragement to AquilaGT's post:

4. The leading evangelical scholar in the world who addresses the liberal agenda and promotes classical Christian orthodoxy is Thomas Oden- a UMC professor at Drew University.

That alone should show that the modernist programme is not succeeding anymore and losing ground.

Thanks for that! I'm going to do a Google search on Thomas Oden and see if he has wrtten any books.

[sinner/SAVED]

2. No more children at the church.



This is probably due to the lib's liberal use of birth control.

[Ric]

This is probably due to the lib's liberal use of birth control.LOL!

You may be on to something here! ;)

[1lostsheep]

Thanks Diane_Windsor that was a great link!! And Wesleys teaching on "social holiness" is something that I may not have understood correctly either as I have mostly seen it in abuse. That makes perfect sense. People are misinterpreting for their own benefit. I need to read more.....

[ContraMundum]

Thanks ContraMundum, I think I understand. I imagine the Christian Church as a tree and we are the limbs but we all share the same root. If we could all just get along we would truly be one. Sometimes I feel like I spend so much time studying and questioning that I lose perspective on the essentials. I just want to do the right thing. At the same time this research of mine is a passion in itself. I am currently an adult undergrad student and I want to eventually be a theology teacher at the 4-yr level. So it gets very confusing when you aren't sure where you should be yourself. I can say I love that the UMC uses the Bible, faith, tradition, and reason. That is very important to me. So many churches treat tradition and history like it's a disease. I don't want to lose that.

Just be careful- theology college can destroy faith. It did mine. By year four I was a shell of the Christian I was when I started, all because of the endless questioning and the need to be "right" about every nook and cranny. It tooks years to recover and I thank God alone for that.

I am also trying to decide if Peter was made the apostle of authority or the first among equals. I can see it either way and as I am reading Acts again I see that although Peter spoke first in the group they all made decisions by councils and votes, as a group. That is leading me to believe that the Church was not a monarchy.

Just check it out for yourself- James was the leader at the Jerusalem council, and Peter got corrected (for his practices at least) and rebuked by Paul. Furthermore, every single early witness of the Fathers claim that Peter and his office (filled by his successors) was a situation of "first among equals". The Romans always proof-text the Fathers to try to prove otherwise, but there is a lot more to things than that.

[1lostsheep]

Thanks for the advice ContraMundum, I still have time and I am open to the path God leads me. I don't want to pursue a career at the expense of my faith. I will have to make sure I have a strong support system and continue to feed myself.

On a happy note, I visited a local UMC today...it felt like coming home...I loved it. I'm going back. It reminded me of the church I grew up in. It's a conservative congregation and the sermon was about personal responsibility. As usual the people were warm and I'm going to give it a go. I have visited many churches but it's not the same as coming home. I will not jump ship. Thank you all for your posts and this thread it made me what to give another church a try.

[seeking.IAM]

Just be careful- theology college can destroy faith. It did mine. By year four I was a shell of the Christian I was when I started, all because of the endless questioning and the need to be "right" about every nook and cranny. It tooks years to recover and I thank God alone for that.


Well said. The best Christian models I have had in my life have been plain persons of simple faith, not theologians. At a point in my life I considered the meaning of a "call." I finally concluded I'd prefer to stay a Christian than risking it all by becoming a theologian and having it become little more than a job or intellectual exercise. I decided that a call to service didn't have to be in theology or ordained ministry, but could be carried out in a life well lived.

No regrets.

seeking.IAM

[ContraMundum]

Well said. The best Christian models I have had in my life have been plain persons of simple faith, not theologians. At a point in my life I considered the meaning of a "call." I finally concluded I'd prefer to stay a Christian than risking it all by becoming a theologian and having it become little more than a job or intellectual exercise. I decided that a call to service didn't have to be in theology or ordained ministry, but could be carried out in a life well lived.

No regrets.

seeking.IAM

Amen!

[amx]

The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church! (http://confessingumc.org/v2/) <---- Click Link

:confused: Is anyone else a member of this group like myself? :confused:

I checked the link and one thought kept surfacing. Gee, they sound like Nazarenes :wave:
Welcome home brothers and sisters in the confessing movement :thumbsup:

[Ric]

I checked the link and one thought kept surfacing. Gee, they sound like Nazarenes :wave:
Welcome home brothers and sisters in the confessing movement :thumbsup:

You sure know how to put a smile on someone's face! :) Thank you!

If it were not for the church that the Lord has led us to where we are member's now, we would join the Metrowest Church of the Nazarene in Orlando post haste!

[Grunt]

Sigh. One step closer to a conservation/liberal split within the UMC, leaving the normal rational people out in the cold.

It's one of the main reasons I haven't been to church in about 6 months, and probably won't be going anywhere any time soon.

[amx]

You sure know how to put a smile on someone's face! :) Thank you!

If it were not for the church that the Lord has led us to where we are member's now, we would join the Metrowest Church of the Nazarene in Orlando post haste!


:)

[radteacher]

I am a United Methodist member and have been since I was 12 years old. My brother and sister-in-law are both Methodist ministers. Could someone please explain to me exactlly what we are talking about. My church teacher the word of God and the Gospels, but I'm not sure what this is. Maybe we don't do it. Bless me with an answer so that I can be aware of it in my personal congregation.


Have a super, blessed day!!!
radteacher <><

[alaurie]

Have you carefully read through the link for the Confessing Movement and this thread? There is great info in both that's pretty straightforward.


I am a United Methodist member and have been since I was 12 years old. My brother and sister-in-law are both Methodist ministers. Could someone please explain to me exactlly what we are talking about. My church teacher the word of God and the Gospels, but I'm not sure what this is. Maybe we don't do it. Bless me with an answer so that I can be aware of it in my personal congregation.


Have a super, blessed day!!!
radteacher <><

[AquilaGT]

radteacher,

As alaurie noted, the Confessing Movement website and this post has some good info, but I'll take a stab at stewing this down to a blunt overview:

There are forces within various Christian denominations, including the UMC, that want to re-vision or revise historical Christian doctrine and belief to make it more palatable to "modern" ears. This leads to denial of key beliefs that all Christians everywhere in all times have believed, such as the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, and physical resurrection. It also leads to accommodating with the predominant culture on many issues instead of relying on the authority of Scripture.

The Confessing Movement with the United Methodist Church is simply calling all United Methodist Christians to a new affirmation of those core, or orthodox, beliefs that we share with all other Christians throughout history.

It's not political - it is theological.

[alaurie]

Thanks, AquilaGT - that's a great summary! I couldn't think of how to condense all the information. It took me a while when the thread started to get through all the CM link info, but I'm glad I did. :)

[Ric]

Thank you and "Amen!"

That is a great layman's summary!

radteacher,

As alaurie noted, the Confessing Movement website and this post has some good info, but I'll take a stab at stewing this down to a blunt overview:

There are forces within various Christian denominations, including the UMC, that want to re-vision or revise historical Christian doctrine and belief to make it more palatable to "modern" ears. This leads to denial of key beliefs that all Christians everywhere in all times have believed, such as the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, and physical resurrection. It also leads to accommodating with the predominant culture on many issues instead of relying on the authority of Scripture.

The Confessing Movement with the United Methodist Church is simply calling all United Methodist Christians to a new affirmation of those core, or orthodox, beliefs that we share with all other Christians throughout history.

It's not political - it is theological.

[Holyroller125]

You may want to check into the Nazarene church. The Nazarene church is more conservative than the UMC, but is almost like the UMC - because they broke off from the old Methodist church before the Methodist church merged with the United Brethren church to become the UMC.

Seriously I am thinking of checking out the Nazarene church for myself.

Link: Church of the Nazarene (http://www.nazarene.org/)
Greetings,

About what year did the Nazarene Church break off from the old Methodist Church?

Did Wesley really mean that sanctification was "entire sanctification" or "sequential-seperate to" conversion?

Please, correct my assumption? Many outside the UMC have misintertrepeted John Wesley's preaching on sanctification. Yet, if I pay attention enough, Wesley really stressed that the cross of Calvary gave someone an instantaneous work of sanctification at their conversion from the work of Jesus Christ. And, sanctification will continue throughout the lifetime of the individual. Nevertheless, "entire sanctification" became the goal and eternal hope that all Christians will reach at the end of the eschaton when we receive our glorified bodies in heaven. Some, especially in holiness ranks (e.g. Nazarene, Wesleyan, Church of God Anderson), say that sanctification is "sequential-seperate to" justification. In other words, sanctification is a second work of grace after conversion/justification. Along with, many Classical Pentecostals hold to a "sequential-seperate to" framework on whether they preach two or even three seperate works of grace. Oneness Pentecostals are the only Classical Pentecostals that do not preach "sequential-seperate to" as a theological framework. Therefore, do you believe outsiders from the UMC have mis-read and mis-quoted Wesley just to remove their "human anxiety" just so that their belief system appears congruent within the framework that they create themselves in the church?

According to a UMC doctrinal source, the UMC was started by an emphasis of divine grace by John Wesley. Sanctification was even a work of grace by Wesley. Yet, Wesley would advocate that sanctification can occur instantaneous at one's conversion. Could it be the reason that the UMC today does not preach that sanctification is a "seperate-sequential to" experience after one's "conversion-initiation" is defininantly a consequence of what Wesley intended in the first place?

Therefore, the UMC is still theologically conservative in their teachings on grace at conversion along with being Spirit-filled in a charismatic meeting. Wesley would have definantly advocated any act of the Spirit at one's conversion as a work of grace, which he meant in the first place. On the same token, the UMC will consider the charismatic experience of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, and work of the Spirit all a work of grace in the church today.

We need to mention, the Pentecostal Movement today was heavily influenced by teachings of the Methodist Church in the late 1800's and early 1900's. In the 1950's and 1960's, some UMC pastors would receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and would start speaking in tonges as the spirit gives the utterance. As a result, a charismatic movement would start in the UMC.

The UMC has an affiliated charismatic organization called the United Methodist Renewal Services Fellowship (UMRSF), or the organization is called Aldersgate Renewal Ministries. Likewise, in 1952, a UMC pastor named Tommy Tyson wanted and prayed for the Holy Ghost (Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit, p. 180). As a result, Tommy Tyson received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and began speaking in tongues. Ross Whetstone was another United Methodist charismatic figure. In 1977, Ross Whetstone helped start the UMRSF under the UMC (Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit, 182). Therefore, some UMC pastors and members can have this experience. Some UMC church's have charismatic meetings. Synan communicates, "By 2000, the United Methodist Church was moving to integrate the renewal into the structures of the church (The Century of the Holy Spirit, p.184)." Now, from what I have read in this forum, is the "confession movement" another name for the "charismatic movement" in the UMC?

Because some UMC pastors had a charismatic experience known as the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues, can a person with this charismatic experience still apply for ordination in the UMC? Is the UMC accepting of someone who has the Holy Ghost and speaks in tongues?

Thank You for your comments, clarifications, and answers.

Greg Norton

[GraceSeeker]

My understanding is that Wesley taught that along with justification one began the process of sanctification. This would ultimately result in one's entire sanctification. Whether it be instantaneous at the same moment of one's justification or a later time, gradual and progressive over an entire lifetime but eventually actually reached in this lifetime, or not reached until the moment of our glorification in heaven was different from individual to individual and was a result of the work of the Holy Spirit.


As to whether the UMC is accepting of a person who confesses to a second work of grace that they term the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and who speaks in tongues, and can this person be ordained in the UMC, it all depends. What it depends on is NOT whether they speak in tongues or not, I myself do and I know many other pastors who do. It depends on how they articulate their experience and project it to be applied to others in the church.

Also, speaking as one who has served on the District Committiee on Ministry, one of the 15 screening steps for all pastors in the UMC, I can also tell you that this may not even come up unless the person relates it to us. It isn't usually a questions that we are thinking of on our own. But we do want to hear your spiritual journey, so we will ask that quesiton and I would expect that generally someone who has had this experience would share it. No one in any of the committeess I have ever been part of has ever found this a reason to automatically make a decision pro or con with regard to an applicant.

[ContraMundum]

Greetings,

About what year did the Nazarene Church break off from the old Methodist Church?

It didn't, really. It was formed from various Holiness churches and believers, but it does have Wesleyan theology, and is a good witness to it by and large.

Did Wesley really mean that sanctification was "entire sanctification" or "sequential-seperate to" conversion?

GraceSeeker answered this well. :)

[Holyroller125]

My understanding is that Wesley taught that along with justification one began the process of sanctification. This would ultimately result in one's entire sanctification. Whether it be instantaneous at the same moment of one's justification or a later time, gradual and progressive over an entire lifetime but eventually actually reached in this lifetime, or not reached until the moment of our glorification in heaven was different from individual to individual and was a result of the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thank You and well said. Someone once told me within my own denomination that if we would just be quiet and listen for awhile they (e.g. another denomation) may be saying the same thing we are. Thus, I concur with everything you said as it relates to justification and sanctification at one's conversion.

As to whether the UMC is accepting of a person who confesses to a second work of grace that they term the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and who speaks in tongues, and can this person be ordained in the UMC, it all depends. What it depends on is NOT whether they speak in tongues or not, I myself do and I know many other pastors who do. It depends on how they articulate their experience and project it to be applied to others in the church.

This pretty much goes for how to handle people who have never heard of the Holy Ghost or the gospel in general. Well put.

Also, speaking as one who has served on the District Committiee on Ministry, one of the 15 screening steps for all pastors in the UMC, I can also tell you that this may not even come up unless the person relates it to us. It isn't usually a questions that we are thinking of on our own. But we do want to hear your spiritual journey, so we will ask that quesiton and I would expect that generally someone who has had this experience would share it. No one in any of the committeess I have ever been part of has ever found this a reason to automatically make a decision pro or con with regard to an applicant.

This would be important for any denomination.

Thank You,

Greg Norton

[Holyroller125]

It didn't, really. It was formed from various Holiness churches and believers, but it does have Wesleyan theology, and is a good witness to it by and large.



GraceSeeker answered this well. :)

Thank You for your timely response and information.

Graceseeker and ContraMundum, thank you for a very healthy dialogue. It is better to listen to the person in another denomation and get the facts directly from the source rather than allow an uninformed and frivilous and hasty presupposition run your perception of a denomination.

God Bless,

Greg Norton

[Redheadedstepchild]

Interesting. I've never heard of the confessing movement in the UMC, though I have heard of Aldersgate. I looked at the link in the OP and didn't see anything refering to the charismatic movement - did I miss something? How are they associated?
And I guess my other question would be, is there a charismatic movement in the UMC at this point - as in something that is gaining momentum? Sure, I know that charismatics exist in the UMC, but it seems sort of a private, hush-hush type of thing. I've looked for info about Aldersgate but there doesn't seem to be a lot out there. Is it still a thriving part of the ministry?

[GraceSeeker]

Interesting. I've never heard of the confessing movement in the UMC, though I have heard of Aldersgate. I looked at the link in the OP and didn't see anything refering to the charismatic movement - did I miss something? How are they associated?
And I guess my other question would be, is there a charismatic movement in the UMC at this point - as in something that is gaining momentum? Sure, I know that charismatics exist in the UMC, but it seems sort of a private, hush-hush type of thing. I've looked for info about Aldersgate but there doesn't seem to be a lot out there. Is it still a thriving part of the ministry?


The confessing movement originated more in response to what was a perceived drift toward liberalism by those who felt the need to ground the UMC in what they see as a more historic conservative theological stance. The connection with charismatic movements is purely incidental as some Methodists are both conservative and charismatic. In the UMC, few who are charismatic would describe themselves as liberal and few who would describe themselves as liberal would be comfortable with the practice of the more obvious charismatic gifts. Whether this is true among other charismatic groups I don't know.

The use of the term Aldersgate is nearly unbiquitous within United Methodism (and I assume the other forms of Methodism as well) because of the importance of Wesley's "Aldersgate experience". Thus the Aldersgate you have heard of, without any context, could be attached to nearly anything.

About the name "Aldersgate"...
The Methodist Church was founded by John Wesley, an Anglican Minister. Following a difficult and discouraging mission trip to America, he questioned his faith. In 1738, at the age of 34, John Wesley attended an evening worship service in London which moved him deeply. In his journal, Wesley described his "Aldersgate experience:"
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/aldersgate-wheaton/wesley2_sm.jpg
In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while the leader was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. from The Journal of John Wesley, May 24, 1738 (read more here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.vi.ii.xvi.html )

[GraceSeeker]

Greetings,

About what year did the Nazarene Church break off from the old Methodist Church?




This year the Nazarene Church will mark their 100th anniversary as a denomination -- officially formed October 5, 1908. Phineas F. Breese, former elder in the Methodist Church, is I understand the founder of the Nazarene Church and its first general superintendent. Though it would not be correct to say that they broke off from the old Methodist Church, as they didn't schism. It is more like they left the Methodist Church and came out of it (and other groups) to form something new of their own that was largely patterned after what most of them knew in Methodism.

[Redheadedstepchild]

The confessing movement originated more in response to what was a perceived drift toward liberalism by those who felt the need to ground the UMC in what they see as a more historic conservative theological stance. The connection with charismatic movements is purely incidental as some Methodists are both conservative and charismatic. In the UMC, few who are charismatic would describe themselves as liberal and few who would describe themselves as liberal would be comfortable with the practice of the more obvious charismatic gifts. Whether this is true among other charismatic groups I don't know.

The use of the term Aldersgate is nearly unbiquitous within United Methodism (and I assume the other forms of Methodism as well) because of the importance of Wesley's "Aldersgate experience". Thus the Aldersgate you have heard of, without any context, could be attached to nearly anything.

About the name "Aldersgate"...
The Methodist Church was founded by John Wesley, an Anglican Minister. Following a difficult and discouraging mission trip to America, he questioned his faith. In 1738, at the age of 34, John Wesley attended an evening worship service in London which moved him deeply. In his journal, Wesley described his "Aldersgate experience:"
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/aldersgate-wheaton/wesley2_sm.jpg
In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while the leader was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. from The Journal of John Wesley, May 24, 1738 (read more here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.vi.ii.xvi.html )


TY so much for that info!:thumbsup:

[Ric]

Interesting. I've never heard of the confessing movement in the UMC, though I have heard of Aldersgate. I looked at the link in the OP and didn't see anything refering to the charismatic movement - did I miss something? How are they associated?
And I guess my other question would be, is there a charismatic movement in the UMC at this point - as in something that is gaining momentum? Sure, I know that charismatics exist in the UMC, but it seems sort of a private, hush-hush type of thing. I've looked for info about Aldersgate but there doesn't seem to be a lot out there. Is it still a thriving part of the ministry?

I don't see anything wrong with the charismatic movement, what I care about is the Liberalism that is taking over the UMC, and is destroying the UMC.

As for Aldersgate? I've never heard of them. Got link?

[Redheadedstepchild]

I don't see anything wrong with the charismatic movement, what I care about is the Liberalism that is taking over the UMC, and is destroying the UMC.

As for Aldersgate? I've never heard of them. Got link?

Sure. Aldersgate Renewal (http://www.aldersgaterenewal.org/#) :)

[footprints1973]

TY so much for that info!:thumbsup:
Interesting...my church is named "Aldersgate UMC" as I am sure many others are, probably from this source. The motto of our church is "The Church with the Warm Heart."

Laura

[Redheadedstepchild]

Actually, I think it may have more to do with Wesley's Aldersgate experience that Graceseeker mentioned a few posts ago. I'm guessing many things Methodist (and Wesleyan in general) are named after it.

[footprints1973]

Actually, I think it may have more to do with Wesley's Aldersgate experience that Graceseeker mentioned a few posts ago. I'm guessing many things Methodist (and Wesleyan in general) are named after it.
Oops, that what I meant...I wasn't that clear. I'm a little spacy today.......:)

[Redheadedstepchild]

LOL - welcome to my world!

[Holyroller125]

I don't see anything wrong with the charismatic movement, what I care about is the Liberalism that is taking over the UMC, and is destroying the UMC.

As for Aldersgate? I've never heard of them. Got link?

Ric and anyone on this forum. Many outsiders of the UMC consider the denomination liberal.

How do you define liberal?

Scriptural/Biblical liberal? Meaning not holding to the fact every Word of God is divinely inspired.

Spiritual liberal? For example, meaning every move of the spirit, even such as moving among Buddhist, can be called valid like the Holy Spirit of the One True God of Israel. In other words, considering people that do not have the move of the Spirit of Jesus Christ as a hare to heaven. In addition, some people outside the UMC, charismatic movement, and classical pentecostalism consider that allowing the spiritual moves of the Holy Spirit that we have (i.e. Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/Speaking in Tongues, Gifts of the Spirit, Divine Healing, 5-Fold Ministry, Eph. 4:10-12) are liberal. I used to believe that the charismatic movement was liberal because of allowing the moves of the Spirit, but I received the charismatic experience known as the Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/Speaking in Tongues. Some church leaders have preached against the wrong things such as charismatics gifts and wonder why they have a congregation, denomination, or organization that has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, lives a stubborn lifestyle in the sight of God, and acts too silly to be a real Christian. I am thankful that I had the charismatic experience because it changed my life completely, and I now have compassion to help other people.

Theologically liberal? Meaning every doctrinal idea goes. And, meaning that the denomination and organization changes its core doctrine, beliefs, and values all of the time. In other words, people are theologically insecure, do not know what to believe, and will allow anything and anyone to influence/move them. This is a symptom of a deeper issue, and this is the answer. A church has this major issue because people have lost the Word of God right in the temple, and the people do not have the Word in their hearts (Please look up Jer. 20:9). If the church had the Word/Spirit in your heart, most of these other issues will take care of itself.

Political liberal? For examples, sanctifying what politicians say. Possibly allowing abortion? Homosexuals? More importantly, sometimes, a country and even our common people need a political liberal to get in office (i.e. change status quo, redue budget, refit public systems, etc.) Sometimes, the politically liberal candidate is the leadership the common people and the poor need to change and make it better. Furthermore, within the political liberal sub-categories, do you mean healthy (i.e. helping common person) political liberal or unhealthy (i.e. homosexuals) political liberal?

Socially liberal? For example, meaning people can drink and drink alcohol as much as they want to, divorce and remarry all they want to, and mirror the norm in society that in essence says that immodesty is okay? The church should not mirror an immodest society. The church needs to be modest in decency and propriety in how they carry themselves as Christians who are incarnational out in the world. The church is supposed to lead the society rather than look to the society. Authentic sanctification and holiness will lead a church to permeate their social ills and inspire change rather than a church being reactive to the social ills.

Culturally Liberal? For example, meaning the church wears what ever the culture wears (i.e. mini skirts, tank tops, pants for women, shorts on men in sanctuary). I believe that it is okay for the UMC to be culturally liberal. I need to be upfront, I used to believe that the UMC was not saved just because they appeared liberal. I do not want to judge on outward appearances. Now, I believe that the UMC can still be saved, even if they are still culturally liberal at thier conversion. Yet, if a church or organization is scripturally, Biblically, Spiritually, or theologically liberal, they have missed the whole boat and are defeating themselves internally. If this is the case, you do not have to worry about the devil because the church has done its job for him.

Likewise, one professor said it like this after a student asked about what is truth. The professor responded with:

Do you mean this t, this t, this t, or this T.

Therefore, which liberal and how many types of liberality are you concerned about in the UMC? This l, this l, this l, or this L?

Thank You for your comments anyone,

Greg Norton

[Ric]

Ric and anyone on this forum. Many outsiders of the UMC consider the denomination liberal.

How do you define liberal?

Scriptural/Biblical liberal? Meaning not holding to the fact every Word of God is divinely inspired.

Spiritual liberal? For example, meaning every move of the spirit, even such as moving among Buddhist, can be called valid like the Holy Spirit of the One True God of Israel. In other words, considering people that do not have the move of the Spirit of Jesus Christ as a hare to heaven. In addition, some people outside the UMC, charismatic movement, and classical pentecostalism consider that allowing the spiritual moves of the Holy Spirit that we have (i.e. Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/Speaking in Tongues, Gifts of the Spirit, Divine Healing, 5-Fold Ministry, Eph. 4:10-12) are liberal. I used to believe that the charismatic movement was liberal because of allowing the moves of the Spirit, but I received the charismatic experience known as the Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/Speaking in Tongues. Some church leaders have preached against the wrong things such as charismatics gifts and wonder why they have a congregation, denomination, or organization that has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, lives a stubborn lifestyle in the sight of God, and acts too silly to be a real Christian. I am thankful that I had the charismatic experience because it changed my life completely, and I now have compassion to help other people.

Theologically liberal? Meaning every doctrinal idea goes. And, meaning that the denomination and organization changes its core doctrine, beliefs, and values all of the time. In other words, people are theologically insecure, do not know what to believe, and will allow anything and anyone to influence/move them. This is a symptom of a deeper issue, and this is the answer. A church has this major issue because people have lost the Word of God right in the temple, and the people do not have the Word in their hearts (Please look up Jer. 20:9). If the church had the Word/Spirit in your heart, most of these other issues will take care of itself.

Political liberal? For examples, sanctifying what politicians say. Possibly allowing abortion? Homosexuals? More importantly, sometimes, a country and even our common people need a political liberal to get in office (i.e. change status quo, redue budget, refit public systems, etc.) Sometimes, the politically liberal candidate is the leadership the common people and the poor need to change and make it better. Furthermore, within the political liberal sub-categories, do you mean healthy (i.e. helping common person) political liberal or unhealthy (i.e. homosexuals) political liberal?

Socially liberal? For example, meaning people can drink and drink alcohol as much as they want to, divorce and remarry all they want to, and mirror the norm in society that in essence says that immodesty is okay? The church should not mirror an immodest society. The church needs to be modest in decency and propriety in how they carry themselves as Christians who are incarnational out in the world. The church is supposed to lead the society rather than look to the society. Authentic sanctification and holiness will lead a church to permeate their social ills and inspire change rather than a church being reactive to the social ills.

Culturally Liberal? For example, meaning the church wears what ever the culture wears (i.e. mini skirts, tank tops, pants for women, shorts on men in sanctuary). I believe that it is okay for the UMC to be culturally liberal. I need to be upfront, I used to believe that the UMC was not saved just because they appeared liberal. I do not want to judge on outward appearances. Now, I believe that the UMC can still be saved, even if they are still culturally liberal at thier conversion. Yet, if a church or organization is scripturally, Biblically, Spiritually, or theologically liberal, they have missed the whole boat and are defeating themselves internally. If this is the case, you do not have to worry about the devil because the church has done its job for him.

Likewise, one professor said it like this after a student asked about what is truth. The professor responded with:

Do you mean this t, this t, this t, or this T.

Therefore, which liberal and how many types of liberality are you concerned about in the UMC? This l, this l, this l, or this L?

Thank You for your comments anyone,

Greg Norton
The UMC are becoming all of these, Spiritually Liberal, Theologically Liberal, Political Liberal, Socially Liberal and Culturally Liberal. All big L!

[Ric]

Sure. Aldersgate Renewal (http://www.aldersgaterenewal.org/#) :)
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.