I went to my first Methodist service (UMC)

I was raised Catholic, but by the age of 17 I stopped going and by the age of 25 become an atheist. I haven't really considered any spiritual or religious matters for myself much since then.

But now I am a father. We live in the same city (medium city in the deep south) that my darling wife grow up in and she wants to recreate the spiritual community for our son that she remembers fondly. So we went to Sunday school (both child and adult) followed by the service. I resisted going as I have no belief in the existence of God and prefer to make omelets on Sunday morning and read DU. Mostly I worry about the whole "not being true to myself" thing and the eventual question of whether or not I believe in God from my son. Nevertheless, I went because its important to my wife and how we raise our son.

I have to admit that I found the experience rather pleasant. Nice folks all around. I saw some of the city leaders and bigwigs from where I work. John Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, landed in what would become our little city when he first came to the "New World" and I can tell the congregation is very proud to be so close to the roots of American Methodism.

There was a whole lot of singing in the service of the old timey religion variety. It was nice. The sermon was about feeding others (especially with love) and to not be greedy. I can see why my wife wanted to go back to her Methodist church.

I expect that their stances on abortion and homosexuality conflict with mine (and my wife's), but if the over all message is good, I can see attending happily in the future. My wife tells me that there is a good chance no one will ever ask me if I believe in God. Its not the Methodist way to confront.

I just thought I share. Before now, I never thought I voluntarily go to church again (other than when I go to Mass with my mother when I visit because it makes her happy).

As for abortion, they leave it up to the person, not the state

And gay marriage, they are mixed - depends on the church. Some Methodist churches will even do gay marriages.

I was Methodist in my first years - long before I became an Atheist

It fits, it just fits my liberal beliefs and the way that I think about my religion.

Few Protestant churches are monolithic: there are conservative UCC congregations just as there are liberal Baptist congregations. Case in point: the UMC my mother attends sponsors a ministry of Exodus International.

as the UMC is. The UMC has canon law that is strongly anti-gay. The UCC has no law that governs individual congregations.

clear on this. They don't ordain gay clergy nor allow gay marriages to be done by UMC clergy nor even on UMC property. The UMC is blatantly anti-gay.

...depending on the particular flavor and location. Glad you found a nice one!

I was raised a Presbo ("God's Frozen People") and still attend if it'll make someone happy that I do so. I have yet to be interrogated about my beliefs, as your wife said.

And she wouldn't go to church that taught hateful things.

The minister used Pres. Obama's words from his inaugural speech to drive the message home about being called to service - of all kinds - both religious and community and adding that we don't know what we are capable of accomplishing until we try. She even read the poem that was read at the ceremonies. I'm so glad I go to a pretty liberal church :)

Chances are they won't even talk about homosexuality or abortion. At least I never heard those topics come up in all my church-going years. The Methodist churches I've been involved with have geerally been pretty laid-back, service-oriented groups, not so much into "scolding" people.

It was really very pleasant to be around people who wanted to be cheerful and helpful.

The emphasis is on community and doing good for the community. I can never recall politics nor hot button political issues being discussed in a Methodist Church. However, the UMC leadership has been staunchly against the Iraq war since the start, having sent Bush several consensus letters on the matter--significant because Bush* claimed to be a member of a Methodist church in Texas...though he certainly didn't get the "born again" stuff from them. ;)

and my experience with the church is that it's fairly socially liberal. I'm sure this isn't the case at all UM churches, but the ones I have been to have been pretty active in community care and outreach (working with food banks, organizing clothing and book drives, sending care packages to soldiers, etc.). I don't go to church much anymore, but when I was in college I did go on a UN retreat with the Wesley Foundation, and it was pretty cool - big on peace and social justice, not on condemning people to hell or anything like that. I'm glad your experience was similarly positive. :hi:

And it wasn't really a very positive category. Its looks like my mental compartmentalization will have to get more complex.

;)

examples of Christianity aren't exactly positive themselves. ;)

Peace. :hi:

The older, mainline, less loudly-evangelical Protestant denominations tend to be a lot less hateful.

Also, Presbyterians were among the earliest Protestant denominations, and the first adherents were at risk of being hanged or worse by the Established Church. That history helps to dampen the fanatical impulses that drive, say, CICU, Nazarenes, et.al.
Although the the Methodists are somewhat younger by comparison, their doctrine is quite even-keeled.

Finally, Presbos and Methodists tend to focus more on Christ and less on Paul(the Warrens and Parsleys are the reverse). Jesus was nicer.


:hi:

Still are.

It's why my ancestors fled - the first converts were hanged. Granted, equilibrium was reached a lot sooner than in, say, France, but it was ugly for a while.

there was pretty much wiped out in the St. Bartholomew's Massacre. Tiny pockets of Reformed Christians continued, mostly in the Pyrenees mountains. But the Protestant faith ceased to be in any functional way in France during the War of the Three Henris. My ancestors fled to Germany at that time.

1/2 Scotch Prod, 1/2 French Prod. The stories the old folks told, whooboy...oral traditions make for some amazing stuff.

France did at least stop the active persecution of non-Catholics after the Revolution, and that is what I was referring to.

150 years earlier. I don't persecute Martians either. Which is really easy to do, since there aren't any here.

My great-great grandfather and some of his relatives returned to France from Germany in the 19th century. Then his son moved to America because there were jobs here. The rest are still there.

OTOH, my Scot forebears never returned from Ireland, to which they fled in the 16th century - they came over here in the mid-1800's. My sister and I have both been back to Scotland (in fact, my upcoming honeymoon will be there), and are the first of our clan to have done so - over 400 years later.

This is one example of why organized religion, as a rule, gives me the dry gripes. Thank goodness there are exceptions, like the church the OP attended recently.

By which I mean that there are large variations between congregations, and the mothership lacks the sort of control of the RCC.

That being said, I renounced my membership in the Presbyterian church after the national organization jumped on the anti-gay bandwagon last year. Nor am I the only one.

since the reunion in the 80's. How you only noticed it last year is beyond me!!

Now they have placed megaphone to lips.

denied ordination or marriage equality.

with the Christian faith". That sounds pretty condemning to me.

because they welcome atheists, just as they are.

What your wife is looking for is community. There are nice ones out there that will allow you to be who you are.

Unfortunately, you really need to ask what kind of weasels that money you drop into the collection plate is going to. With the UMC, even the more liberal congregations are supporting things most of them don't particularly want to support.

Should I find a need for that sort of community, it would have to be either the Unitarians or the Quakers for me.

;)

Thanks, I gotta read that one.

and pretty technically correct. But it does make a point and I think it is an important one that one has to ask themselves at some point in life.

:hi:

HumanSexuality

What do you hope to accomplish by spreading such statements?

The UMC around here is pretty tolerant. For me, going to church with my spouse is not being untrue to my scientific skepticism at all. Nice folks, good reason to get up and out on a rainy Sunday morning.

It is a good habit to have. I would not have considered it in my twenties. As I get older and slower it is nice to have something to look forward to

I don't know if your new church is bigoted against homosexuality or not either, but for the sake of this post, let us pretend the church is bigoted in this way.

Would you feel just as comfortable in a church which was bigoted against Black people or Jewish people?

If so, why; if not, why?

Fortunately, I may be able to dodge it if the following is true:



I don't know how to really answer your question. I think I would still attend even if I didn't agree with central tenets regardless of the issue if there was more good than bad in some qualitative cost-benefit analysis. I can tolerate other people having discriminatory views to a point. Actions, of course, speak louder than words.

4. Regarding ordination

(From the Book of Discipline section dealing with the ordained ministry, Paragraph 304.3)

"While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals* are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."

341.6

Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

6. Regarding use of church money

(From the Book of Discipline section on "Administrative Order," dealing with the responsibilities of the churchwide "Council on Finance and Administration," Paragraph 806.9.)

" shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures.* This restriction shall not limit the church's ministry in response to the HIV epidemic."

Which means that they believe that homosexual unions are blessed by God to the same degree as heterosexual ones are.

The Book of Discipline says "homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian faith". This canon law has been voted on and approved by several General Conferences, which are made up of representatives of all those congregations you say are "reconciling". The majority of UMCs are blatantly anti-gay. It is against UMC canon law to believe that homosexual unions are blessed by God to any degree. The UMC does not ordain openly gay clergy, prohibits UMC clergy doing same-sex marriages, and prohibits such ceremonies taking place on UMC property.

The UMC is an anti-gay denomination.

There are factions, just like in any group of humans. If the pastor's more liberal, there's a good chance his bishop is as well, which means any pastor sent there will be more liberal.

My stepmom did that to my dad after they got married--made him agree to go to her Methodist church. She's the organist at theirs, and he's really come around to it. He's still agnostic, sure, but he likes the music a lot and the good works the church does in the community.

:-)

Wouldn't it be nice to open hearts, open minds and open doors for gay and lesbian people in the Methodist church, too? Previously, women were not allowed to be ordained either, but that has changed. I don't think you can completely judge the Methodist church based on what its conference has done. I do see that the Book of Discipline has stated that the church can not donate to groups involving homosexuality because of incompatibility, but they do not donate to anti-homosexual groups, nor do they preach about it. (Maybe some Methodist churches do, but most do not.) They preach about personal responsibility, which many members of the church believe should also be extended to homosexual people. Not every politician is perfect, either, but we still vote. And regarding the Unitarian Church, they are not a Christian church, and the United Church of Christ just might not be the right one for everyone, particularly the specific church in the original poster's city. Don't forget to take into account the specific church and the fact that they are all made up of individuals.

as opposed to the UCC's first ordination of a woman in 1853, and the UU's in 1858.

The UMC is a conservative church. Why it keeps getting a pass on its repressive positions is a mystery to me, but its official positions on glbt issues are EXACTLY the same as the Southern Baptist Convention, which no one on DU would encourage another DUer to join.

Both of them were reconciling. In my current church, the lay leader is gay and a lesbian couple is part of the leadership.

wouldn't be so blatantly homophobic. It is voted on by simple majority at General Conference. The majority of United Methodists believe homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity.

The rulebook is probably more conservative than many of the congregations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc4.htm

They will come around, they will have to, just like the public at large.

The Episcopals will be performing same-sex marriages. The Presbyterians are also struggling with the issue.

It is a societal change that will also affect the mainline churches, but I don't expect the Methodists to be out in front on the issue, either.

Why would a progressive be part of any organization that discriminates so blatantly? There are denominations that ordain gay clergy, that do same sex weddings, that do not have the repressive policies of the UMC.

And the UMC doesn't have to come around. There are still denominations--large denominations--that refuse to ordain women. The UMC may be the same way about glbts. There's no reason to think otherwise.

I think that you are missing the point that others and I are making about the makeup and behavior of the actual congregations, which eventually will be those who affect change in any area in the future. You are dismissing individual congregants who are on your "side." That's great that your church ordained women early, but that doesn't change the fact that the UMC now has.

organization you want to pretend it is. I have too many gay and lesbian friends who've known the very real pain of being asked to seek ordination outside the UMC to pretend it is a progressive church. One very good friend of mine really believed what you do--that the United Methodist Church was caring and open to gay people. Then he came out to his bishop, and felt the wrath of a man he had felt warmly to, a man he had respected. Happily, he found a church that would welcome him and believed in his call to ministry. But he was forced to leave the denomination in which he was raised.

He and others have been deeply wounded by the repressive behaviors of churches that believe they can be openly hateful and still pass themselves off as "progressive". It isn't going to work any more. Those who know the truth will say so. A church that says officially that "homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian faith", is a conservative church. At best.

Well, how do you expect it to be progressive if everyone who thinks progressively leaves without affecting change within the UMC?!

We're talking about people called by God to ministry, in a church that doesn't recognize that call because of whom they love. Why should they take that kind of abuse when there are churches that won't abuse them?

same-sex weddings largely through massive "civil disobedience" on the part of its clergy and parishes.

For example, about 15 years ago now, my parish in Portland hosted a gay man awaiting ordination (seminary graduates awaiting ordination and performing their year of "internship" are known in Episcospeak as "transitional deacons"), even though our bishop at the time was a waffler who claimed to be for gay ordination but would not actually perform such ordinations until the national church approved them.

This particular transitional deacon made a hugely positive impression on our parish, being an excellent preacher and an all-around great guy. The bishop of the diocese where he was canonically resident (a different state) agreed to ordain him at our church if he came out to the parish and the parish still approved. We did.

At the end of the internship year, the bishop from the other diocese received permission from our bishop to come and perform the ordination in Portland. We anticipated trouble, but the only sign of trouble was one older priest who got up and made a statement about "abominations." Everyone else listened politely, shrugged as if to say "whatever," and the ceremony went on.

The next day, The Oregonian carried a large photograph of the ordination on the second page of its B section, with a headline that read something like "Homosexual ordained Episcopal priest," which seemed like an odd way to describe the man we were all so fond of.

The Episcopal Church does not currently have official same-sex marriages, but there's a lot of guerrilla activity in this regard. My parish clergy conduct several such ceremonies per year, even though they have no legal standing in Minnesota.

The consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire was another bit of guerrilla activism.

People who attend General Convention tell me that the number of people objecting to equality for GLBT members is growing smaller every year and includes more retired bishops than currently active ones.

in Savannah,Ga.
Turned out okay in spite of them.

Was it Wesley?

when people should be examining why an adult needs an imaginary friend.

This is a forum for discussing religion, not for taking cheap shots at fellow liberals.

Perhaps you should examine your obvious need to hurl insults at religious DUers.