Methodists

  • Thread starter Thread starter coralewis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Fieryjades:
For a “World Religions” course taught at a local community college, I had to visit a faith that was exactly opposite to my own (i.e. Catholics go to Protestant services or Buddhist, or something non-Catholic etc.) for a project. As a Catholic, I went to the Church of Resurrection, a local Methodist church, for a contemporary and experience can only be described as cultural shock.

Since we had to write a paper describing our knowledge and some knowledge of the faith, I interviewed a pastor as well as visited this site to gain more knowledge: newadvent.org/cathen/10237b.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the origins, doctines, and history as well as how Methodism is practiced in different countries.

Remember: we do not convert others, God does!

Peace,
FJ
FJ, thank you so much for remind me to give credit where credit is due! It seems that I need to remember that every single day. God does the work and I am His instrument.
I started reading the Catholic Encyclopedia webpage on Methodism but got confused and bogged down so that’s why I started this thread.
 
40.png
snowman10:
You are correct…Methodists are becoming more and more liberal. Being a Methodist myself, though now I no longer consider myself one, I have seen the liberalization of the UMC.

DU
That’s funny, because most of the Methodists I know (including my wife, who is the Methodist Librarian at Drew) think exactly the opposite. Evangelicals have been gaining in strength for the past decade or two. On what do you base your view that the UMC is becoming more liberal (since, say, the late 70s/early 80s)? Attempts to change the church’s doctrine on homosexuality have repeatedly failed; the language on abortion has become significantly more condemnatory (though still very wishy-washy); and the “pluralism” statement added in 1972 was seriously modified in 1988, leading to a worried protest from the liberal theologian John Cobb. If you talk to liberal Methodists, you will find that they are very worried about current trends in the UMC. To some extent both sides benefit from presenting themselves as the threatened party–it helps rally the troops. But on this issue at least (if nothing else!), the liberals seem to have more evidence on their side. Compare the stance of the UMC today with that 20 years ago and conservatives have a lot to be encouraged about.

Edwin
 
Contarni,

Maybe I should rephrase and say that many Methodist churches are becoming more liberal. Look at the lesbian pastor fiascos. If I am not mistaken one of them was NOT defrocked, but please correct me if I am wrong. I see your affiliation is Episcopalian so I must admit that I am unaware with how you feel about practicing homosexuals being ordained. I guess it would be hard to tell though since the Episcopalian church has been on the verge of schisming. In fact I posted an article on your denomination schisming, please search for it if you’d like. Back on topic now, as far as my post on abortion, I think I covered the bases fairly well and gave a fair and balanced look at the wording and stance. If a church does not stand up with moral and ethical standards even in the face of dissent and the risk of losing members, than it is a hollow religion. It may have outward appeal but inwardly it is bare. I would rather have a Church that has stood up for itself for 2000 years than a church that has questionable validity.

I think that what Wabrams said about abortion in a previous post on this thread says enough about Protestantism:

“… just like any other church people twist it to fit their own agenda’s.”

Enough said.

DU
 
40.png
coralewis:
Happy Monday!
My paternal grandma is Methodist. Are there any Methodist posters who can help me (a Catholic) understand what Methodists believe? Any ideas on helping God convert Grandma?

God bless you!
I’m married to a Methodist and my family has a Methodist background on both sides (my dad’s people were not very religious, and my mother’s family were extremely devout evangelicals who had left the Methodists around the turn of the century; so I’ve never actually belonged to a Methodist church, though I currently attend both a Methodist and an Episcopal parish, and my parents have returned to Methodism).

Here are some major points of historic Methodist belief and practice (beyond basic Trinitarian/Christological stuff, of course):
  1. Salvation by grace through faith, traditionally understood in terms of a conversion experience. However, Methodists have always emphasized the need to grow in grace, as well as the fact that the Holy Spirit works in the human heart before regeneration. In the past century that has often meant that Methodists were just like other mainliners (and many Catholics) in watering salvation down to a matter of being a nice respectable person. Evangelicals in the denomination (of whom there are many) of course reject this, but are still a lot more flexible in their understanding than evangelicals/fundamentalists of a Baptist persuasion.
  2. A belief in free will and the free offer of grace to everyone (in other words, a rejection of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination). John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement, understood this in terms of “prevenient grace”–i.e., God gives grace to everyone in order to free the will to respond to the offer of salvation. Many modern Methodists, though, have crossed the line into Pelagianism.
  3. The doctrine of “Christian perfection.” This is probably the most distinctive and controversial Methodist doctrine, historically. Wesley believed that Christians could reach a state of “perfect love” in which they were free from sin (very similar to the usual descriptions of the state of soul necessary for receiving a plenary indulgence in Catholicism). This goes against basic Protestant teaching, and Calvinists especially are horrified by it. (Though a lot of the controversy resorted from different terminology.) Many Methodists came to believe that this would occur in an instantaneous experience; but lots of these “holiness people” (including my great-grandfather and his brother) left the mainline Methodist denomination(s) to form their own smaller groups, and most Methodists today see sanctification as gradual. But sanctification remains a strong emphasis in Methodism. Liberals tend to focus on the social justice aspects.
  4. A belief that the “means of grace” are essential to spiritual growth. This includes a number of practices (such as meeting in small groups), but especially the sacraments. Methodists practice infant baptism, and generally celebrate the Eucharist once a month (it used to be less often–many congregations now do it weekly, but they are still a minority). John and Charles Wesley believed that Christ was spiritually present in the Eucharist and that the Eucharist somehow united us with Christ’s eternal “pleading” of his sacrifice before the Father (“pleading” in the legal sense). Most Methodists have historically seen the sacraments as mostly or entirely symbolic, but these days there’s a revival of sacramentalism (unfortunately much of it is on the liberal end of the denomination, but there are some evangelical sacramentalists such as my wife).
  5. Methodists historically have believed in the supreme authority of Scripture, but have given a lot more role to tradition, as well as to experience, than other Protestants. In the 1970s the scholar Albert Outler suggested that Wesley’s view of authority could be spoken of as a “quadrilateral” of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This unfortunately led to the idea that these four things are equal (there’s a story of a Methodist bishop applying the quadrilateral to the issue of homosexuality and deciding that Scripture was outvoted!). More recently, there’s been a lot of criticism of the quadrilateral, and the current statement is more tentative about it.
On a practical level, one thing you should bear in mind is that Protestants of a Methodist background (unlike Baptists, for instance), generally think that Catholics are too little concerned with (real) good works. My wife’s grandfather, who was a Methodist minister, complained that the local Catholics went to Mass on Sunday and “lived like hell” the rest of the week, and I was brought up with similar ideas. Methodist disagreements with Catholicism are likely to have less to do with faith/works (though if your grandmother’s an evangelical she may raise that issue as well) and more to do with a sense that Catholics are obsessed with “rules” and have an overly complicated religion.

Edwin
 
40.png
snowman10:
Contarni,

Maybe I should rephrase and say that many Methodist churches are becoming more liberal.
Sure. Liberal theology is becoming more extreme–which is precisely why resistance to it is mounting.
40.png
snowman10:
Look at the lesbian pastor fiascos. If I am not mistaken one of them was NOT defrocked, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Right, you’re thinking of Karen Damman. And it created a huge fuss at General Conference. The Pacific conference is much more liberal and is decidedly in favor of gay unions, etc. Rev. Damman was essentially acquitted on a loophole. General Conference closed the loophole, but couldn’t make it apply retroactively. More recently, another pastor (Irene Elizabeth Stroud) has been defrocked in Eastern Pennsylvania. Which again supports my point that the trend is going against the liberals, at least for now. The UMC is both quite centralized and very democratic–the ultimate authority rests with the representative body, General Conference. And since conservatives are growing numerically while liberal churches are dwindling, conservatives are becoming more powerful in General Conference. However, there are a bunch of “general boards” who act quasi-independently (their members are appointed by General Conference but once appointed don’t seem to be under tight control), and they tend to be very liberal. (One of them, for instance, supported the pro-choice march that was discussed on this board a while back.)
40.png
snowman10:
I see your affiliation is Episcopalian so I must admit that I am unaware with how you feel about practicing homosexuals being ordained.
I strongly disagree with it, although I think there are bigger issues involved that conservatives often lose sight of, making homosexuals into scapegoats. (For instance, the widespread tolerance of divorce is something conservative mainliners rarely address, because dealing with it would be a lot more costly.)

I’m currently hanging rather loosely to my identity as an Episcopalian. I haven’t transferred my membership from my old parish in NC (where I was confirmed) to the parish in NJ which I’m currently attending (my wife and I also go to a Methodist church). If I were a cradle Episcopalian I might feel it was my duty to stay and fight. But as it is, the crisis over homosexuality has just demonstrated how problematic my reasons for becoming Episcopalian were in the first place. It has given me a solid foundation in many respects, and I’m grateful for my years as an Episcopalian, but I don’t think this is where I should be permanently. If I can’t persuade myself to become Catholic I’m likely to join the UMC, which is my wife’s (and now my parents’) denomination (my family comes from a Methodist background, as I explained in an earlier post). If I can’t see my way clear to convert to Catholicism, then the best thing to do, I believe, is to stay in the tradition from which one comes and work for greater faithfulness without expecting perfection (which, in the practical matters that Wesleyans like myself consider important, is as hard to come by in Catholicism as anywhere else). My family wound up having a house church, so I’m forced to pick my church in a sense, which I think is a very unhealthy and unnatural condition to be in.

I agree with you of course that churches need to stand up for moral standards. But I think we all live in glass houses–Catholicism has not been perfect in this regard either (for instance, the frequent condemnations of the slave trade on paper were never backed up with effective action, as far as I know; and then there’s the unholy alliance of the post-Reformation Catholic Church with the modern monstrosity called absolute monarchy . . . . )

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Contarini,

Believe me when I say I understand. I come from the Methodist background and it is a wonderful faith. No you cannot expect perfection of yourself but you can expect that Christ would leave an authoritative representative (Catholic Church) to lead Christians towards Christ using all methods possible. The institution itself is unflawed but the people running it certainly are. Look at some of the Popes…horrible men in certain ways. But the Church has survived. It survived the Dark Ages and the Reformation. It is now growing again after a period of decline. To be honest, I have more faith in the Church than I do in the United States. I hope and pray that you hear Christ calling you home to Rome. We will be waiting with open arms.

All the best,

DU
 
40.png
Contarini:
I’m married to a Methodist and my family has a Methodist background on both sides (my dad’s people were not very religious, and my mother’s family were extremely devout evangelicals who had left the Methodists around the turn of the century; so I’ve never actually belonged to a Methodist church, though I currently attend both a Methodist and an Episcopal parish, and my parents have returned to Methodism).

Here are some major points of historic Methodist belief and practice (beyond basic Trinitarian/Christological stuff, of course):
  1. Salvation by grace through faith, traditionally understood in terms of a conversion experience. However, Methodists have always emphasized the need to grow in grace, as well as the fact that the Holy Spirit works in the human heart before regeneration. In the past century that has often meant that Methodists were just like other mainliners (and many Catholics) in watering salvation down to a matter of being a nice respectable person. Evangelicals in the denomination (of whom there are many) of course reject this, but are still a lot more flexible in their understanding than evangelicals/fundamentalists of a Baptist persuasion.
  2. A belief in free will and the free offer of grace to everyone (in other words, a rejection of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination). John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement, understood this in terms of “prevenient grace”–i.e., God gives grace to everyone in order to free the will to respond to the offer of salvation. Many modern Methodists, though, have crossed the line into Pelagianism.
  3. The doctrine of “Christian perfection.” This is probably the most distinctive and controversial Methodist doctrine, historically. Wesley believed that Christians could reach a state of “perfect love” in which they were free from sin (very similar to the usual descriptions of the state of soul necessary for receiving a plenary indulgence in Catholicism). This goes against basic Protestant teaching, and Calvinists especially are horrified by it. (Though a lot of the controversy resorted from different terminology.) Many Methodists came to believe that this would occur in an instantaneous experience; but lots of these “holiness people” (including my great-grandfather and his brother) left the mainline Methodist denomination(s) to form their own smaller groups, and most Methodists today see sanctification as gradual. But sanctification remains a strong emphasis in Methodism. Liberals tend to focus on the social justice aspects.
  4. A belief that the “means of grace” are essential to spiritual growth. This includes a number of practices (such as meeting in small groups), but especially the sacraments. Methodists practice infant baptism, and generally celebrate the Eucharist once a month (it used to be less often–many congregations now do it weekly, but they are still a minority). John and Charles Wesley believed that Christ was spiritually present in the Eucharist and that the Eucharist somehow united us with Christ’s eternal “pleading” of his sacrifice before the Father (“pleading” in the legal sense). Most Methodists have historically seen the sacraments as mostly or entirely symbolic, but these days there’s a revival of sacramentalism (unfortunately much of it is on the liberal end of the denomination, but there are some evangelical sacramentalists such as my wife).
  5. Methodists historically have believed in the supreme authority of Scripture, but have given a lot more role to tradition, as well as to experience, than other Protestants. In the 1970s the scholar Albert Outler suggested that Wesley’s view of authority could be spoken of as a “quadrilateral” of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This unfortunately led to the idea that these four things are equal (there’s a story of a Methodist bishop applying the quadrilateral to the issue of homosexuality and deciding that Scripture was outvoted!). More recently, there’s been a lot of criticism of the quadrilateral, and the current statement is more tentative about it.
On a practical level, one thing you should bear in mind is that Protestants of a Methodist background (unlike Baptists, for instance), generally think that Catholics are too little concerned with (real) good works. My wife’s grandfather, who was a Methodist minister, complained that the local Catholics went to Mass on Sunday and “lived like hell” the rest of the week, and I was brought up with similar ideas. Methodist disagreements with Catholicism are likely to have less to do with faith/works (though if your grandmother’s an evangelical she may raise that issue as well) and more to do with a sense that Catholics are obsessed with “rules” and have an overly complicated religion.

Edwin
This is an excellent summation. 👍
 
I just want to clarify a couple of points. There has been a certain amount of quoting from the Methodist Discipline. It is important to say that this is not the equivalent of the catechism in other churches, inc. Catholic. The Discipline (AKA the Little Red Book) is not intended to include all matters of doctrine, nor does it present a complete & sufficient rule of life.It exists to (A) keep meetings/committees in order. (The whole Wesley family seems to have all had 😉 OCD.) And (B) to enunciate those matters which may be used to bring charges against members. (Think excommunication and/or lesser penalties.)
Many, many of us in the Methodist are much more strict in our views of abortion–& other prolife issues–than the quote would seem to indicate. The LRB is simply clarifying what circumstances would warrant expelling a member for having an abor tion. I know that the Catholic church excomunicates anyone who has an abortion. We do not. That does not mean that we are all “wishy washy”, but states the terms under which disciplinary action can be taken.
I would be delighted to see the rules on abortion–as well as some others–become more clear & more stringent…I would point out however, that some churches have no rules dealing with abortion at all.
 
Zooey,

This post was started on the topic of Methodism and while it is true that other groups do not mention abortion, lets not go off the beaten path so to speak.

But maybe we should start a thread on the official positions of other denominations.

DU
 
40.png
snowman10:
Zooey,
This post was started on the topic of Methodism and while it is true that other groups do not mention abortion, lets not go off the beaten path so to speak. But maybe we should start a thread on the official positions of other denominations. DU
I wasn’t intending to derail the thread!:nope: My thought is that I have met a lot of people that think that the LRB is a catechism.It isn’t. And I tend to get 😦 annoyed when it gets treated as one by other people.
I think that an explantion of the LRB is a:yup: helpful piece of info about the Methodist tradition.Our theology is not explained by LRB. It simply sets up an orderly process by which we govern ourselves.It is when it is treated as a theological treatise that it becomes a problem.
Methodism is ,in my part of the country at least, becoming more & more conservative both in theology & in terms of position on many social issues. This is not readily apparent from reading many Methodist publications. But then, neither is America’s move to more conservative moral values apparent from reading the MSM.Yet another reason why this type of :hmmm: dialogue is desperately needed.
God bless.
 
It is a privlige to have someone that is as sincer as you about ecumenical dialouge. The problem to me personally with Methodism, and with Protestantism in general, is the lack of history and the change of beliefs and values for the lay people. I like to think of Christianity as a Theocracy and not a Democracy. In my Methodist church (I am still a member and attend with family,but I goto Mass as well) it has become more liberal. In our service, most Sundays, we have Clown Liturgy. This is where 9 and 10 year olds dress up as clowns, make up and all, and dance and perform skits and that is part of our worship service. I have no problem with that as an AFTER church thing, but people seem to watch it as entertainment more than worship. I agree God loves to see little kids but come on, there is a time and there is a place. Just a sign of the times I guess…😦

DU
 
Snowman,

Of course Christianity is a “theocracy” in one sense, but God can exercise His governance over the Church in various ways. Historically, there were democratic elements (election of bishops by the people, for instance) in the early Church. The Church is not a democracy, but neither is the Church an absolute monarchy. The idea that there is some link between Catholicism and absolute monarchy is one of the most devastating corruptions of post-Reformation Catholicism, IMHO, and many of the problems of the past forty years come from the reaction against that warped perspective. The Catholic Church can be governed by a variety of methods–what matters, as far as I can see, is that ultimately authority rests in the hands of the bishops in communion with the Pope. How the bishops and the Pope are chosen is a matter for contingent human regulation. It seems to me that some conservative Catholics confuse the question of how the Church is governed on the human level with the claim that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and thus will not err. It shows a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit to assume that the Spirit can only guide one person and not a lot of people. (This is not denying the importance of communion with Rome.) If you compare Catholicism with other religious groups that have one supreme leader with great authority, it becomes clear that such a structure is not the thing that keeps Catholicism on track. On the contrary, centralized authority makes it easier to change a doctrinal position (as the Orthodox, who change relatively more slowly, would point out). The problem with a democratic structure such as that of the UMC is that it leads to a lot of compromise and “wishy-washy” stands–abortion being a prime example of that.

Zooey’s caution about the use of the Book of Discipline is a valid one. It is comparable not to the Catechism but to the Code of Canon Law–except that the BoD gets updated every four years, which can be very confusing.

Edwin
 
Edwin, thanks for teaching me so much. Here’s a question for the Methodists: Do you believe in consubstantiation (I think Luther invented that) instead of transubstatiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

God bless you,
Corinne
 
40.png
coralewis:
Edwin, thanks for teaching me so much. Here’s a question for the Methodists: Do you believe in consubstantiation (I think Luther invented that) instead of transubstatiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

God bless you,
Corinne
“No, we believe that the change is spiritual. They signify the body and blood of Christ for us, helping us to be Christ’s body in the world today, redeemed by Christ’s blood. We pray over the bread and cup that they may make us one with Christ, “one with each other, and one in service to all the world.”
(United Methodists and Communion brochure)

Hope this helps!

DU
 
40.png
Contarini:
Snowman,

Of course Christianity is a “theocracy” in one sense, but God can exercise His governance over the Church in various ways. Historically, there were democratic elements (election of bishops by the people, for instance) in the early Church. The Church is not a democracy, but neither is the Church an absolute monarchy. The idea that there is some link between Catholicism and absolute monarchy is one of the most devastating corruptions of post-Reformation Catholicism, IMHO, and many of the problems of the past forty years come from the reaction against that warped perspective. The Catholic Church can be governed by a variety of methods–what matters, as far as I can see, is that ultimately authority rests in the hands of the bishops in communion with the Pope. How the bishops and the Pope are chosen is a matter for contingent human regulation. It seems to me that some conservative Catholics confuse the question of how the Church is governed on the human level with the claim that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and thus will not err. It shows a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit to assume that the Spirit can only guide one person and not a lot of people. (This is not denying the importance of communion with Rome.) If you compare Catholicism with other religious groups that have one supreme leader with great authority, it becomes clear that such a structure is not the thing that keeps Catholicism on track. On the contrary, centralized authority makes it easier to change a doctrinal position (as the Orthodox, who change relatively more slowly, would point out). The problem with a democratic structure such as that of the UMC is that it leads to a lot of compromise and “wishy-washy” stands–abortion being a prime example of that.

Zooey’s caution about the use of the Book of Discipline is a valid one. It is comparable not to the Catechism but to the Code of Canon Law–except that the BoD gets updated every four years, which can be very confusing.

Edwin
The fact is the Holy Spirit IS guiding the Church. Unfortunatley, the Cardinals are capable of not listening to what the Holy Spirit may be saying and they could actually elect the wrong person for the job of the papacy. However, the Holy Spirit will protect the deposit of faith and not allow it to be destroyed becuase Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So while things like this papal election have not been in fashion since the time of St. Peter it does not mean anything. Christ did not leave EXACT details (that we know of) but he did leave the authority with Peter from whom the Papacy proceeds. But all of this does not matter unless the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, which seems apparent since it has survived 2000 years through the Dark Ages and the Reformation. Seems to be a testament to God’s grace and love of the church. Remember that the institution itself is unflawed, it is the people that are. You truly are a wonderful person and intelligent. Keep posting as I really enjoy my convos with you.

Blessings,
DU
 
Originally the question was what do Methodists believe.

Actually they don’t believe very much. I have been to a number of their Sunday Services. You will hear quite a few quaint stories about Old Testament figures. They don tend to talk much about the new Testament and certaintly NOT Revalations (Apocalypse).

They tell the children “:Bible Stories”:. But they do Not talk about Sin or the avoidance of the occation of sin. They DONT WANT TO MAKE ANYONE MAD. They are wishy washy.
 
40.png
Exporter:
Originally the question was what do Methodists believe.

Actually they don’t believe very much. I have been to a number of their Sunday Services. You will hear quite a few quaint stories about Old Testament figures. They don tend to talk much about the new Testament and certaintly NOT Revalations (Apocalypse).

They tell the children “:Bible Stories”:. But they do Not talk about Sin or the avoidance of the occation of sin. They DONT WANT TO MAKE ANYONE MAD. They are wishy washy.
Exporter,

I agree that MOST individual churches do exactly what you say, though there are a few that do preach about sin, but not many. It really is an “i’m okay, you’re okay” denomination.

All my love,
DU
 
40.png
Exporter:
Originally the question was what do Methodists believe.

Actually they don’t believe very much. I have been to a number of their Sunday Services. You will hear quite a few quaint stories about Old Testament figures. They don tend to talk much about the new Testament and certaintly NOT Revalations (Apocalypse).

They tell the children “:Bible Stories”:. But they do Not talk about Sin or the avoidance of the occation of sin. They DONT WANT TO MAKE ANYONE MAD. They are wishy washy.
We don’t believe very much, huh? What do we not believe in? As far as the Old Testament goes, I don’t really remember learning too much about it after the 2nd or 3rd grade in Sunday School. Most services were devoted to the New Testament. You’re right, we don’t spend much time on Revelations; but then again, why would we? And sin is talked about, just not shoved down your throat during the service.

BTW, did you only go to one church and several services there, or to several different churches?
 
40.png
Exporter:
Originally the question was what do Methodists believe.

Actually they don’t believe very much. I have been to a number of their Sunday Services. You will hear quite a few quaint stories about Old Testament figures. They don tend to talk much about the new Testament and certaintly NOT Revalations (Apocalypse).

They tell the children “:Bible Stories”:. But they do Not talk about Sin or the avoidance of the occation of sin. They DONT WANT TO MAKE ANYONE MAD. They are wishy washy.
Exporter,

I’m sorry that I keep picking on you, but you keep claiming knowledge of matters on which I’m pretty confident I know more than you, and then saying things that absolutely contradict my own experience. Methodists do not neglect the NT at the expense of the Old. Quite to the contrary, my advisor (who is a Methodist minister) thinks that modern Methodists are in danger of falling into the Marcionite heresy. They focus heavily on the NT, especially the Gospels. Many Methodists, even devout and well-educated ones, don’t know a whole lot about the OT (compared with what someone from a fundamentalist background would know, for instance). The use of the lectionary has unfortunately contributed to this. They typically pick the Gospel and ignore the OT reading (though the church my wife and I attend uses a Psalm–and the pastor generally ignores the lectionary for the main Scripture reading, picking a passage from the OT on occasion).

I understand why you would come to this impression, and I don’t quarrel with your other claims (they’re a bit harsh, but unfortunately have some basis in reality).

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
Exporter:
Originally the question was what do Methodists believe. Actually they don’t believe very much. I have been to a number of their Sunday Services. You will hear quite a few quaint stories about Old Testament figures. They don tend to talk much about the new Testament and certaintly NOT Revalations (Apocalypse). They tell the children “:Bible Stories”:. But they do Not talk about Sin or the avoidance of the occation of sin. They DONT WANT TO MAKE ANYONE MAD. They are wishy washy.
This is an extremely rude statement. It is also inaccurate & does not reflect the reality of Methodism. Yes, we have members who are very liberal;with all due respect, it seems to me that I have heard of:rolleyes: 1 or 2 liberal Catholics. Every church has them; :confused: so??
My pastor is anything but wishy washy. We have good solid Biblical teachings from the whole of Scripture, not just the OT–which is after all, the inspired word of God, just as the NT is!! I cannot tell you when I have heard a “quaint story” from the pulpit. And, yes, we do believe in, & seek to avoid sin. In fact, we are often called “holiness” people for just that reason. That was what the Wesley brothers emphasized, & we carry on that tradition.
We have just finished a study of Daniel & Revelation(the Apocalypse) in our adult Sunday school class. We spend much time in prayer & study of the scriptures.
As far as Bible stories for children, I cannot imagine any better way to awaken an interest in scripture in those little ones, of whom the Lord said, “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” On this basis, many of us have begun a lifelong search for a deeper life of prayer, & a knowledge of our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ.
I would scarcely call this “not believing in anything”. God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top