Scholars' Talks on Post-Way-Forward UMC to Be Livestreamed



Comments (9)

Comment Feed

I appreciate that these people are sincere

in their understanding and truly believe in what they are promoting. I appreciate that they have invested time thinking about and working out their stance. However, there does not seem to be a session that will answer the very important question posed by Tom Lambrecht in his response to the dissenting Asbury alums. It is the question that defines a traditionalist:

"The dissent concludes, 'It is indeed far past time for members of the Body of Christ to rid ourselves of theologies and missional practices that deny the Missio Dei and which cause harm to others.' It takes quite a lot of nerve to call all the church fathers and mothers, teachers and theologians for the past 3,000 years sinful and causing harm because they adhered to the scriptural teaching that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is contrary to God's will. On what basis would the authors [progressive thinkers] have us adopt their understanding of the Missio Dei (mission of God in the world), as opposed to the one put forward by countless generations of Christian teachers and leaders?"

betsy more than 2 years ago

You can keep reposting that...

...but you keep ignoring responses.

"'It takes quite a lot of nerve to call all the church fathers and mothers, teachers and theologians for the past 3,000 years sinful and causing harm because they adhered to the scriptural teaching that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is contrary to God's will."

I don't see anyone doing what he's accusing - 'causing harm' might be a reasonable criticism but one couched in the knowledge of their era, but one we could legitimately apologize for now.

Were church leaders 'sinful' for their actions against Galileo? I don't generally think anyone suggests that, only that based on their knowledge at the time he was considered to be under "vehement suspicion of heresy". For being right, he was charged and kept under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

Similarly, church leaders views on homosexuality should be taken in context with what we know about homosexuality in their time vs the modern era.

So maybe you could ease up on the Lambrecht-quoting? :)

JR more than 1 year ago

Waste of time and money

Real reporting would have included the cost of holding such a closed meeting to discuss future. Seems like an oxymoron to hold a closed meeting to discuss the future that affects everyone. Invitation only? Really, are they in high school and believe they are the "cool kids"? Nobody from Asbury was invited, as they did not want a person of convictions that will not bow down to their financial pressure, but are willing to stand up for the Word of God. This will cost millions and accomplish absolutely nothing but prolong and avoid making a way for a split, which will happen.

Tracy more than 2 years ago

Real reporting

I see the story about the scholars meeting as being real reporting. I was pleased to see it will be live-streamed. As for the cost, I don't believe it will cost millions, maybe a few thousand dollars but the dollars will probably not be apportionment money. Scholars have a way of covering their own expenses. Asbury Theological Seminary scholars were probably not invited because Asbury is not a United Methodist-related seminary, is not part of the University Senate and does not support full inclusion of LGBTQ United Methodists in the life of the denomination. The story reports that those attending are "United Methodist scholars who support the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ persons in the full life of the church." I know many of these scholars and don't see them bowing down to any financial pressure and willing to have a conversation about a broader understanding of Scripture than presented by traditionalists in the life of our denomination.

The Rev. Dr. Daniel R. Gangler more than 2 years ago


It's not only the cost in dollars that need be considered; how about all the time spent preparing, presenting, and discussing these navel-gazing subjects. How about working at a Habitat for Humanity home or working at a food bank instead. I mean really helping the disadvantaged instead of forming a mutual admiration society in a conference room. That's the real waste going on here!

Dave more than 2 years ago

Yes, but...

Many of the administrators and faculty are ordained UMC Elders also with PhD's who are very much concerned with the future of the UMC. Asbury is also a significant source of Elders for the UMC. So, no, there is no logic in excluding them. Except for the fact, that as somebody else observed, progressives are all about a diversity of views as long as they do not endorse the consistent, historic teachings of the Christian faith. Which raises the question of exactly how does diversity work when it has become self-limiting?

betsy more than 2 years ago

It seems to me that...

This group is only willing to listen to those who believe like they do.

betsy more than 2 years ago


No one from Asbury? So much for academic freedom

Thank you

Richard F Hicks more than 2 years ago

I have to laugh

I have to chuckle at the statement “Participants will reflect a variety of theological perspectives but will be united in a progressive social vision”. That’s some real variety of perspective you got going there. Sounds like a real echo chamber to me

John more than 2 years ago