United Methodist Church Faces Schism Over Same-Sex Marriage Doctrine

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/united-methodist-church-schism_n_5398221.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Religion News Service | By Sarah Pulliam Bailey
Posted: 05/27/2014 12:51 pm EDT Updated: 05/27/2014 12:59 pm EDT


Stephen Mallett, of Nashville, Tenn., listens during a news conference announcing a case against Rev. Thomas Ogletree for breaking church law by officiating his son's same-sex marriage had been dropped, Monday, March 10, 2014, in White Plains. The decision is considered a victory for Methodists who have defied church law and organized ministry to all couples. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) | ASSOCIATED PRESS

(RNS) Will the United Methodist Church soon have to drop the “United” part of its name?

A group of 80 pastors is suggesting that the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination is facing an imminent split because of an inability to resolve long-standing theological disputes about sexuality and church doctrine.

But more than lamenting the current divisions, the pastors indicated there is little reason to think reconciliation — or even peaceful coexistence — could be found. Like a couple heading to divorce court, the pastors cited “irreconcilable differences” that can’t be mended.

“We can no longer talk about schism as something that might happen in the future. Schism has already taken place in our connection,” said the Rev. Maxie Dunnam, a retired president of evangelical Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky, who joined the statement.

more at link

[hrmjustin]

1. I hope they don't break up but there may not be a choice.

It is a shame because it took almost 170 years to unite US Methodists but now that is coming to an end.

[trotsky]

2. That's what religion does really well.

It gives all parties involved a fixed anchor - an immutable point on which they are SURE they are following their god's will - thus denying any possibility of compromise or agreement.

And as we have been told repeatedly here in this group, religion is simply "another way of KNOWING," so there we are.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. 'a case'? for breaking 'church law'?

What kind of penalties was he facing?


found it: 'loss of clergy credentials'.

[cbayer]

4. That's a big deal.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Why?

[cbayer]

6. I don't know if you are required to have a license or be a member of something

in order to do your work, but people that are face losing their careers and livelihoods if they are thrown out of those organizations.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. He voluntarily relinquished them in protest. They didn't even require he drop it while appealing.

I can respect acts like that on principle.


But that said, I don't think the government requires a license to preach anything. There are splinter groups from major churches all the time. Sounds like this preacher has a dedicated following, which makes sense given current political climate, and apparent discord in the Methodist church, there's a fair chunk that will support him 100%.

I think he'll be fine. And I appreciate the stand he's taking.

[cbayer]

10. I also have nothing but respect for what he has done.

The error here is in the assumption that "preaching" is all a minister does.

Ministers are often raised and trained in a denomination that has a great deal of meaning to them. They are often part of a bigger organization, where they may be involved in governance and setting policy. They may have credentials granted by those organizations that are unique to that denomination.

That is why, as the article points out, there may be a schism. As part of this schism, he would probably be embraced by one sect and abandon the other.

I am sure he will be fine as well. He is clearly of man of principle and willing to stand with others for what he believes in.

Minimizing what he would lose if he lost his credentials within the Methodist church is merely a reflection of the value you personally put on those credentials, not on the value he puts on them.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. I still don't see exactly what those credentials gain

or what specific adherence to that particular organization/denomination means. Perhaps I don't understand the nature of such churches, but from where I stand, it just looks like they interpret bits of the bible somewhat differently.

Maybe it's a metaphysical question, but what 'is' a church, beyond a physical structure in which a body of people gather?

If the people go with him, he retains the meaningful 'bit' of the 'church' right?

I just don't understand the 'value' of those credentials/specific church membership.

[cbayer]

14. The reason you don't understand, I would guess, is that you

don't really understand the meaning that mainstream denominations have to individuals and groups.

This may be the result of simply lumping them all together and not understanding that there can be significant differences in the way they do things and the positions that they may take on various issues.

It's not metaphysical at all.

I was raised in a denomination where the progressive ministers from across the country gathered once a year to discuss and debate positions the denomination would take on certain issues. Today those things may include some critical issues, like GLBT civil rights, which is what is going on in the Methodist church right now.

Children's activités are often coordinated around churches belonging to a particular denomination, including camps and opportunities to broaden one's experience. During the Civil Rights era and the Viet Nam war, coordinated protests were organized within denominations and then interfaith coalitions formed. This was some powerful stuff.

A church can be, and generally is, much, much more than a physical structure where people gather. I would again suggest that it is your lack of understanding about this that colors your view.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. That's what I meant by the 'meaningful bit of the church'.

The human association/group.

It sounds like I understand, but yet not understand. It SEEMS to me that the group association is meaningful, and the 'denomination' title is largely symbolic, as is the building.

Fire levels the building, well, the building can be replaced, for instance.
The people, not so much.

[cbayer]

19. The denominational title is not unimportant.

Any meaningful survey you look at will be broken down into denominations. Within those you will see huge differences on various issues and other demographics. Churches and denominations are dynamic social organizations that share goals, values and social objectives.

People choose to affiliate with a certain groups for a reason and that is particularly true for the clergy.

You seem to want to dismiss and minimize all that, but that takes away from exactly what this particular person put at risk.

And that's not fair to him at all. If you don't get it, that's fine. But dismissing it is really just minimizing what he has done.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. it sounds like we are describing the same thing.

You just used more words.

"but from where I stand, it just looks like they interpret bits of the bible somewhat differently."

"Any meaningful survey you look at will be broken down into denominations. Within those you will see huge differences on various issues and other demographics. Churches and denominations are dynamic social organizations that share goals, values and social objectives. "

These seem like the same statements, more or less. Interpretation drives doctrine, thus shared values.


I don't doubt he's taking a heroic stand. I guess I'm just suggesting, as I have in RCC threads in the past, that people stop investing effort in orgs that do not share their values. Build meaningful relationships on shared values. At the end of the day, the church isn't the important piece. It's supposed to serve, to facilitate. The people and their associations are what is important. That can be as small as two people, meeting ad hoc on any afternoon for the first time, and still be meaningful.

I think my takeaway here is, that it seems incredibly backwards to me, for individuals to want to drag some hierarchical organization toward their values, rather than simply forming bonds that reflect their values from the get-go. What's the point? Why fight? Why work to change it? Why keep it at all? It seems like an abstraction layer that, rather than serving up access and resources to the user, instead obfuscates those resources to no ones benefit.

I am all for people forming bonds that are meaningful, and in alignment with their values. Even religious bonds.

I can't imagine why people maintain or respect religious bonds that are not just different than their individual values, but inimically so. To the point of strife, and this impending possible 'fracturing' of a church.

Why is the church of importance here at all? Why does it have value that warrants such a struggle? There are easier ways to form peer bonds.

[cbayer]

22. What you have described is exactly why there are different denominations.

People stopped investing effort in orgs that did not share their values and built meaningful relationships on shared values. That is why the specific denomination is important to them. Sometimes there comes a value on which they cannot agree and there is a schism. Sometimes similar denominations share so much in common that they unite. It seems to be exactly what you have proposed for catholics.

Hierarchal organizations are important in both religious and secular organizations for many reasons. There is more power to accomplish your goals in numbers. It allows sharing of resources, financial and non-financial. It provides leadership to do the grunt work, often without any renumeration. Surely you can recognize the value of this in secular organizations, why not religious.

Is your child part of a sports organization? Why? Why can't you just get some kids together in a lot and play a game? Of course, you can, but what does the organization provide?

You don't value religion or see why it's important to some people, but your apparent inability to consider that it is valuable and important in many positive ways for others presents a real stumbling block to understanding what is going on here. It presents a huge blind spot that makes it easier to simply dismiss it as meaningless.

Form peer bonds in whatever ways make sense to you, but please accept that others do it differently than you. You not found the way.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. When did I say I 'found the the way'?

I'm suggesting a course of action.

You have stated you don't belong to said factions. So, let's maybe hear from the target of my suggestion, rather than someone who has, apparently, no dog in this fight.

You are objecting awfully strenuously for someone who isn't the target of the suggestion.


(I am careful to minimize the tribalistic aspects of team sports for my kid, actually. I view said structures the same way, actually. The game is important. The org is not.)

Edit: Also this paragraph seems bizarre to me:

"You don't value religion or see why it's important to some people, but your apparent inability to consider that it is valuable and important in many positive ways for others presents a real stumbling block to understanding what is going on here. It presents a huge blind spot that makes it easier to simply dismiss it as meaningless. "

This seems an existentialist conflation of 'religion'. Are we talking a faith, or a denomination? A denomination isn't 'a religion' necessarily, in full context. A Methodist is, a Christian. As is a RCC, or a Presbyterian, etc.

[trotsky]

21. Part of what his denomination stands for, is what he took his action against.

I.e., discriminating against homosexuals. He took a stand, his church opposes him, ergo he should find a new church home. And the people who supported him, now find themselves at odds with the church they had chosen previously to represent their values. Isn't it time to reassess and find a church that DOES?

[hrmjustin]

8. Loosing your license means you can't work.

But other churches would either put you to work right away or he would have to be reordained in some denominations.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I'm confused.

I was under the impression that the government did not license priests directly.

He can preach whatever he wants, yes? Maintain a church, regardless, yes?
I don't think the Methodist Church can even stop him from using the name, trademark-wise?

[hrmjustin]

11. His methodist church license I mean.

The only thing clergy have to do with the state is schow their license so they can preform marriages.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. So he would most likely need to be ordained in some other sect to continue that specific function?

Man, this is just an area of human society that government should NOT be touching at all. Why on earth shouldn't he be able to freely perform a marriage? Why not me?

I don't get it. But, not specifically within the scope of this conversation, so no worries.

[hrmjustin]

15. Any leader of a religious faith can perform a marriage. To do this states proof that you are a

religious leader. At this po7nt it depends on what state he is i0as to whether he can still do it after he gave up his license.


As for reordination it woukd deoend on ehat denomination he would want to go. If he wanted to become clergy in my church he would have to go back to seminary and take a year of Anglican Studies. Then be ordained a deacon and then a priest.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. I see. The path to ordination varies, it seems.

I've seen some where all you had to do was a quick online course, and ta-da, you're ordained.

(That was a very interesting wedding, let me tell you)

[hrmjustin]

18. Many protestant denominstions accept ordinations of other denominations.

My church only accepts RCC and Eastern Orthodox ordinations. They would not have to be reordained.

The Evangelical Lutherans of America Church is in communion with us and the clergy are allowed to work in our churches.