Can We Live Together in the U.S. Church?



Comments (11)

Comment Feed

Liberal tactics

The attempts of the bishops to prevent the traditional plan from being considered at the special general conference 2019. The specious motions at General Conference to kill time to prevent moving the traditional plan forward. Accusing traditionalists of not being inclusive, when we welcome everyone to participate in worship and sacraments. We love sinners, but we don't celebrate sinful lifestyles. We are all sinners, but some of us are repentant sinners. Liberals saying that traditionalists are causing the division because they insist on having their way. But it's liberals who are rejecting the decisions of the Church. Liberals are short on biblical theology and long on attacking conservatives. When everyone makes up his own theology and has his own rules, we are no longer a connectional church. We will be a congregational church, and it will not be possible to define what a Methodist is.

Gene Thompson more than 1 year ago

Currently, we have absolutely no common ground...

from which to discuss anything. To effectively function as a unified whole, we need something more in common than some undefined belief in God, Jesus and our Wesleyan heritage all wrapped up in some corporate activities.

betsy more than 1 year ago

re; "we have absolutely no common ground"

How utterly defeatist and tragic! Viewing that we have 'no common ground' virtually assures that the end result will be only after we are all in common ground(the cemetery).. That 'undefined belief in God, Jesus' might be called "faith". Or we can let the Pharisees destroy with their narrowness and legalism.

w.f. meiklejohn more than 1 year ago

No to any common ground

As a life long UMC member,I haven’t stepped foot in any UMC church in 2 1/2 years and I won’t be back until either the Traditionalist Plan is fully embraced and ENFORCED (low probability), or we completely split(higher probability).

I can’t share a church or a pew with a centrist,progressive. As others on here have noted they can’t be trusted to follow the rules. Thus, they have no credibility.

I want a church where I feel comfortable. Where I can wear my MAGA hat, put on my sidearm and sit in the pew feeling loved, not confronted. I want a church where no one cares if I use a styrofoam cup, a plastic straw, or eat all the meat I want (cause I don’t eat vegetables).

I want a church that believes true Christians don’t believe in abortion or same sex marriage. I want a church where secular terms such as social justice, global warming, gun control, white priviege, black lives matter, etc are never part of any sermon, lesson, or. Other church correspondence. I want a church where sermons are based on a traditional,evangelical view of God’s Word and are centered around sin, repentance, forgiveness, faith, prayer The HolyTrinity, etc.

I want a church whose leaders uphold the vows they made to follow the BOD and who are ready to declare from the pulpit homosexual behavior is a sin and marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. I want a church that celebrates Mother’s Day and Fathers Day, but Never Earth Day, or Gay Pride Day.

I’ve watched for the last 15 - 20 years as the UMC has drifted away from being centered on God and Biblical principles to being centered around secular, humanistic principles.

Enough is Enough. Either we embrace and enforce the Traditionalist Plan, or we completely split with no sharing of GCGM, UMCOR, seminaries, etc.

Whereas you may call that “defeatist and tragic” I say “Hallelujah” to moving away from the sinful ways of secularism and liberalism and Thanks to God for moving us back into his loving and grace filled realm.

Steve more than 1 year ago

In case you haven't figured it out..

Traditionalists and progressives/centrists have completely different "do or die" issues: For progressives/centrists it is sexuality; for traditionalists its live within the bounds of how the church is designed to function. The traditionalist perspective is that we can stay together and argue sexuality until those proverbial cows come home; but when one group decides they are free to do whatever, then we have absolutely no way to function. Such diverse and contradictory understandings cannot share the same space. We can live along aside of each other, but trying to share the same space is impossible.Progressives/centrists do not have a monopoly on what everybody is supposed to think and believe; learn what it takes to live with true diversity.

betsy more than 1 year ago

I don't think you are right, betsy

If the Traditionalist 'hill to die on' is living within the bounds of the rules - then if the rules were to flip at GC2020, you and the other Traditionalists would simply continue on as Methodists?

Call me Doubting Thomas on this one.

I do get that the rules being broken is a huge issue for that side of the aisle. But I think if the 'political' game were lost, and lost so convincingly that there wasn't going to be a way to flip it back, I think most of the Traditionalists would walk.

Which means it's not really about the rules. [That may be different for you personally, but not for the wider point of view]

JR more than 1 year ago

You do realize...

The progressives and centrists are the ones breaking the rules. How can there be any trust to "live together" when progressive and centrist Clergy will not abide by the official decisions of the church? Please stop pretending that we can "live together" when our beliefs about christianity are radically different. If you were honest about wanting to live together you would honor the church's devisions by following the rules or leaving.

td more than 1 year ago

Polls and experts

Dewey Beats Truman the New York Times headlines yelled.

Thank you.

Richard Hicks more than 1 year ago

exclusionary self interest?

So now adhering to the Book of Discipline and the authority of scripture regarding biblical marriage is "exclusionary self interest". Wow.

Teresa Dawson more than 1 year ago

Well, in this case

It's pretty obvious it always was. The BoD was changed in 1972 as a reaction to social change. Anything like that is a great example of saying "I'm OK, you're not OK," which is exclusionary self-interest on steroids.

George Nixon Shuler more than 1 year ago


...would you propose eliminating all revisions and additions to the discipline since its initial adoption? Do you see it as a document that is not amendable?

td more than 1 year ago