Possibly. I think many people just don’t see how either side would benefit over the constant fighting. And it hasn’t helped any of the other denominations that have bitterly split over the issue, so I guess some people are thinking, why not we just try to come to an amicable parting of ways that doesn’t have to resort to lawsuits over church property and funds.You’re correct in saying that with the OCP conservatives would lose some ground. But conservatives have numbers and money on their side and are well-equipped to retake it.
Only because the UMC is structured differently and the non-orthodox wing tried to restructure it in their favour as ltwin mentioned earlier. But in the other mainline Protestant denominations, the non-orthodox wings have taken over. In the PCUSA’s case, some at the top are pushing out orthodox clergy.You’re correct in saying that with the OCP conservatives would lose some ground. But conservatives have numbers and money on their side and are well-equipped to retake it.
Has this been true in the past, within UMC? From my reading, it seems the conservatives never actually retake ground. Periodically they stop or slow down the retreat, but only temporarily.You’re correct in saying that with the OCP conservatives would lose some ground. But conservatives have numbers and money on their side and are well-equipped to retake it.
The thing the conservatives have in their favor is that the UMC still has a large conservative movement in the Southern US and the overseas conferences. Overseas, Methodism is still growing and that growth tends to be conservative. The liberals run the risk of alienating the most vibrant parts of the church.Has this been true in the past, within UMC? From my reading, it seems the conservatives never actually retake ground. Periodically they stop or slow down the retreat, but only temporarily.
I see the UMC has different demographics from other denominations. That said, my hunch is that the liberals would gladly “run the risk” if they have the votes. They would phrase it differently, maybe “accepting the Gospel call for courageous compassion”. That would be their idea of “vibrant”The liberals run the risk of alienating the most vibrant parts of the church.
Even though the bishops offered three plans, most have come out in support of the One Church Plan, even creating a website to push it. They hope this plan will preserve the denomination’s unity by allowing individual churches and ministers the freedom to follow their own theological convictions. Most of the traditionalists urge adoption of the Modified Traditional Plan—traditionalists that include organizations like the Wesleyan Covenant Association and the Africa Initiative Group, which represents many African Methodists.
After watching this debate unfold for a long time, I do not think the progressive and traditionalist wings of the UMC can live together any longer. The One Church Plan is garnering support because it tries to maintain a big tent, but in reality, it will set the stage for death by a thousand cuts—not least because bishops control the appointments of pastors to churches and the plan allows them to maintain control of those appointments. There is little to keep bishops from appointing pastors that reflect their own theological convictions. Moreover, there is a distinct possibility that if the General Conference adopts the One Church Plan, the African conferences will split, taking around 5 million members with them. Detractors think they can hold the Africans to the UMC by virtue of funding from the U.S. church, but that may not be the case.
[T]he divisions run much deeper than gay marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals. There are divisions over the interpretation and authority of Scripture, the status of the Book of Discipline and the authority of the General Conference, and the mission of the church. When you cannot even agree on these fundamentals, it’s time to part ways. How could the General Conference continue to define doctrine for a church that no longer agrees on core theological principles? How can you maintain connectionalism when some believe the General Conference’s pronouncements need no longer be considered binding?
This is really two different issues:So I gather that there are no openly gay priests in the fold of the Catholic Church who openly thumb their noses at Church discipline and don’t get reprimanded for it,
Um, I think there’s some examples of this. I can’t think of anyone in particular though. James Allison is a priest, is gay, and is also a critic of Catholic teaching on LGBT issues.Follow up: So I gather that there are no openly gay priests in the fold of the Catholic Church who openly thumb their noses at Church discipline and don’t get reprimanded for it, like there is in the UMC with the openly lesbian bishop in Colorado?
I think this was more true in the past than the present. Now, liberal young adult Catholics tend to disengage from the Church. They are less likely than others to join convents, seminaries, or be active in lay programs, or any connection to a parish. The liberals I know don’t raise liberal Catholic children, they raise (essentially) non Catholics. The younger ones now are often not getting married, sometimes not getting their (fewer) babies baptized.the point is that the difference with Catholicism is that, even though you hear about arguments and dissent, people generally try to stay together in Peter’s boat.