The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Surprised by the Methodist!

The issue here seems to be looking for a church that accurately teaches Jesus’s teachings. I’m not sure that we have to compromise regarding the matter of how God “accepts people”. This seems to me to be at the heart of the message of the Gospel: how to be reconciled with God. I think that a church that “accepts people as they are” as their message is being unclear about the message. Did Jesus “accept people as they are”? No, I don’t think He did. I think that He clearly asks everybody to change.

But Jesus did accept people where they were at, and then showed them how to change for the better. That is the difference.

The inclusivist says, come and join me on my journey. The exclusivist says, convert or die (or these days, be excluded from the group).

Sherman seems to have found a group that takes the inclusivist route.

Which one are you likely to want to change to be more like?

Sigh,

I think topics got conflated somehow back upthread.

You had expressed concern that the big-tent inclinations of the UMs (despite the very conservative foundational docs of the United Methodists) were for some congregations so big that the inclinations conflicted with “discipling”. (Actually, the UM bishop assembly has regularly defrocked clergy who insisted on operating outside doctrinal boundaries, but whatever.) I took this to mean doctrinal discipling, but Sherman seems to have thought you were talking about “disciplining”. The two topics are related, of course, but as you yourself mentioned afterward “Whether congregations discipline like Jesus is a different matter than whether we teach what God has revealed.”

Sherman agreed that there was a distinction between them; acknowledged that they were also necessarily related; affirmed that accurately representing God as best we can is something we want (and ought) to do as faithful Christians, and that we need to teach what God has revealed; affirmed that teaching repentance and a call for a change of heart, mind and lifestyles is part of our evangelical duty–all of which fits with affirming the importance of “discipling” and of not watering down the doctrinal an penitent importance of “discipling”–and then went on to connect this with “disciplining” by concluding (on the basis of some standard theological doctrines) that any disciplining ought to be done in better ways than what he had experienced and was complaining about. (A complaint you seemed to agree was valid but distinct from the larger process of discipling.)

Amy agreed with Sherman about erring on the side of mercy when it comes to the church discipline process that Sherman was complaining about never being done correctly in his experience (not when it comes to larger questions of making disciples).

Your reply to her agreement about this was “But you guys, WHY ERR?”

Frankly, I wasn’t sure which topic you were asking about (since you had seemed to agree that an unmerciful church discipline process was wrong but distinct from doctrinal and penitence evangelism which you were concerned the United Methodist congregations weren’t strong enough on. Assuming you had the UMs specifically in mind, which is who Sherman and the others were talking about, and not Methodists in general or another Methodist body.) Were you emphatically asking “why err” on the side of mercy in the church discipline process?–which is what they were talking about. Or “why err” on the side of mercy in promoting and teach church doctrines and penitential evangelism?–which they had already agreed shouldn’t be done. (Thus Sherman’s guess that you were trying to be tongue-in-cheek humorous.)

Consequently I tried to phrase my reply so that it could apply either way. Which, although I thought I was being usefully multi-purpose, maybe didn’t help matters after all. :wink:

Actually, I think Jesus did accept people as they are. Sinners, prostitutes, tax-collectors were drawn to Him. Did He encourage them to change? Of course he did. But his acceptance of them was not based on them having already repented. Rather His acceptance of them produced in them the desire, will, and strength to repent. Grace produced repentance. Repentance is not a requirement of grace.

To me the heart of the Gospel is that God was/is in Jesus reconciling all of us to Himself. The good news is that God loves us, accepts us, and desires a relationship with us no matter how big of a mess we’re in or we are. That’s good news for someone who is as big as a mess as I am! If grace and salvation was dependent upon my goodness one iota, man, I’d be in a world of hurt. It was God’s love and acceptance of me that drew me to Him. And it was the love and acceptance of people that revealed to me the love of God.

I always appreciate your participation Jason. Thanks.

And on threads like this, not discussing a specific topic, it’s okay to ramble, I think, and just go wherever the conversation takes us or those involved want to go.

It seems that the Methodist have a significantly different Philosophy of Ministry. Protestantism is founded upon their Statement of Faiths, doctrines that they believe to be correct. Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter how much one loves God and loves people, if one does not agree with everything in the SoF, then one cannot be part of that fellowship. Mutual love and respect for God and one another is not enough and there is little, if any, room for differing understandings of scripture. I look forward to visiting a few Methodist congregations and will keep you informed.

Sherman makes a good point related to numerous already/not-yet positions taken in the scriptures.

God doesn’t wait until His people are perfect before accepting them. He accepts them and then leads them to perfection, which involves them renouncing their sins.

What God doesn’t accept (although He may “wink” at it, as St. Paul very daringly puts it, in longsuffering patience) is impenitent sinning. In that regard alone, subsidarily to the overall acceptance of the person (since without continuing active grace from God the person could not continue to exist at all even as a sinner abusing the grace of God), God can be said not to accept the person either.

This pattern is complex, but I think it is demonstrably and routinely repeated in the scriptures at many levels, whether we’re talking about the pre-Abrahamic people, pre-Mosaic Jews and Gentiles, post-Mosaic Jews and Gentiles, or post-Messianic Jews and Gentiles.

The complexity and nuance, however, can lead to confusion, especially when various portions of the total situation are also routinely stressed (with exceedingly strong language no less.)

Methodists protest Western (and Eastern) Catholicism claims, too, you know. :wink:

(Heck, they protest Anglicanism to some extent!–being a direct offshoot not strictly identifiable with it.)

The UM’s are different everywhere you go! I went to a conservative UM church from 1993 to 2002. The church was conservative, but that was quite maverick for the conference which was quite liberal. The conference wanted to break it up and they did so by sending our pastor away and replacing him (the UM church very frequently changes their pastors by re appointment) with a pastor who gave a young man in the congregation an American Indian prayer book for his birthday. We grilled this pastor when he was up for appointment and he claimed to believe in the various things we asked him about, but after he was appointed, he showed his true colors. He was more of an “all roads lead to God” kind of guy and the church fell apart, just as they wished.

The years I was there, it was a great church, though I wasn’t into UR at the time. They started a modern church service and my brother, a non methodist, became the pastor of that service. It was very maverick for them. I think you might find a UM church that could fit in with your beliefs, but it would more likely be a matter of luck since every congregation can be different.

Those are interesting thoughts. So you would say that discipleship is optional to be saved? But without faith it is impossible to please God!

the best my poor brain could come up with is that true discipleship must come after the grace, and grace is a free gift to those who believe…
but grace is offered while we’re still sinners, so we “accept” it by believing it…and then God starts to disciple us.
He does not require that we change as soon as we meet Him. He is the one that is faithful to bring to completion what He has begun in us.

i’d summarise by saying discipleship is the child of God’s love (as demonstrated by grace) and our faith in His ability to help us change

I’m pretty sure this is the sort of thing Roofus is complaining about. Which is not the same thing that Sherm (and others) are complaining about. Which Roofus agrees with them in complaining about, as they agree with him in complaining about this–but for some reason Roofus wants them to be not complaining about this and complaining about what they agree with him on instead.

sigh.

So for example:

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/upfiles/smiley/picard-facepalm.jpg

He was talking about Jesus leading sinners into repentance from their sins so as to make His disciples of them (instead of being rebels against Him). How is this in any way a denial that discipleship is optional to be saved??!

But of course, you weren’t replying to (or even accounting in) those portions, Roofus. You were only looking at the other parts:

But this is only to say what no Calv or (thoughtful) Arm would ever deny: namely that God (including in and as Jesus) doesn’t wait for us to repent before acting to reconcile us to Himself, or even before accepting us despite our sins. We don’t earn God’s salvation. We don’t convince God to desire a relationship with us by saving ourselves from our sins.

Loving the sinner but hating the sin. Loving the sinner involves accepting people “as they are” even though they’re sinners. Hating the sin involves recognizing they’re sinning and leading them out of that.

That’s what Sherman is talking about. He isn’t talking about, much less advocating, what you’re complaining about, namely ignoring the sin and not calling people to repent of it. He and other people here (not only you) are concerned about being careful not to get involved in a congregation of that sort.

sorry Roofus but Jason’s right…and LOL to Picard

Nope, wouldn’t say that at all. I’d say that salvation was the beginning, the start, the foundation, and goal of discipleship, AND without faith it is impossible to please God. The kingdom of God is both now and not yet, today and to come!

auuugh much more elegantly put than i managed! well said, sir!

Thanks James.

Hi Sherman,
Boy that didn’t make any sense to me. Can you explain that or at least direct me to some scholars that can explicate such?
r

try reading it again, and a bit slower?
was 100% clear to me

Don’t be rude. You aren’t infallible and are capable of being decieved as much as anyone else. Because something is clear to you “don’t mean a thing”. It’s clear to atheists that there is no God.

What do you not understand specifically? To expand upon my points though:

I believe that salvation is the beginning and end of discipleship. On one hand, we do not begin being disciples of Christ and growing in Christ likeness until we are saved. On the other hand scripture affirms that we are to work out our own salvation, becoming more like Christ every day. And from another perspective, our salvation was accomplished in Christ through his sacrifice. And from another perspective we do not fully become like Jesus until we see Him face to face on that day. etc. etc. etc. Salvation is like a diamond with many different facets and hughs.

And concerning the Kingdom of God being both now and not yet, it’s a common means of referencing the very present reality of the Kingdom while all the while reconizing that it is not fully seen/understood/experienced yet by us. The kingdom of God is both a present reality and a future hope for us.