carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (06/27/91)
In article <Jun.26.00.17.22.1991.21469@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >In article <Jun.25.03.42.20.1991.7377@athos.rutgers.edu> ssc-bee!ssc-vax!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: >> On the other hand, my experiences as a United Methodist were >>entirely different. Nearly all the Bible study I participated in there >>was pretty juvenile, centering on personal feelings and reactions rather >>than the Scriptures themselves. >Yeah, generalizations are *very* easy to make, and not a good idea at >all. We all know that the beliefs and practices of different religions >vary widely. Differences can be easily found between the denominations >of Christianity, and also between different congregations in a single >denomination. I'll admit to some residual resentment toward the UMC, but it was mot my intent to single them out here. I believe that most liberal Protestants don't take Bible study seriously as study. David seemed to be saying either that liberal Biblical interpretation had become too difficult for the layman, or that liberal Protestants don't think that the Bible is important enough to study any more. I think both are true to some extent; it's easy for members of churches embracing liberal scholarship to neglect their intellectual responsibility to properly understand Scripture. >One of my pastoral friends is currently researching a paper she is >writing on the differences of belief between members of the same >congregation. She finds that they can vary widely, even their feelings >on the fact that other members of the church believe differently than >they do. While one rejoices in diversity of belief, another believes >that they must search for a congregation where everyone agrees on what >this particular Christian knows to be "the truth". I didn't want to leave the United Methodist Church when I did. I did and still do consider myself a Wesleyan in many ways. But it seemed to me that "rejoicing in diversity of belief" had reached the point of idolatry in the UMC. The United Methodist Church teaches no doctrine to speak of, considering social activism and its own political process far more important than such things. The curious will discover the traditional doctrines of Methodism and Anglicanism in the first few pages of the Discipline, just before the Statement of Social Principles and the Constitution of the church. But the curious Methodist would be hard-pressed to find anything that could be called "teaching" going on in the average United Methodist Church. The pulpits are used primarily for political advocacy, and the adult Sunday Schools are largely exercises in the blind leading the blind. The bottom line is that you can believe whatever you want in the United Methodist Church; the more outrageous, the better. It need not necessarily involve Jesus Christ at all, although that would be nice. Each Sunday you will be asked to mouth a "creed" and/or "congregational prayers" consisting of some anonymous author's (the pastor's?) personal point of view, and every Sunday it will be different; apparently innovation for innovation's own sake. The new United Methodist hymnal includes Duke Ellington's "Come Sunday", for no good reason that I could discern. For the last few years I was a Methodist, I was so angered by the meaninglessness of Methodist worship that I couldn't bring myself to attend services any more. I have belonged to several United Methodist congregations, large and small, urban and rural. I have been a member of Annual Conference, have served on a number of conference- and district-level bodies, and was selected a youth delegate to the 1976 General Conference in Portland. I met Jesus Christ as a United Methodist, and some of my best friends and closest relatives are still in the church. For a while I thought I was being called to the United Methodist ministry. But I ultimately could not bring myself to stay in the fellowship of a group that accepts so uncritically both the good and the bad, the uplifting and the disruptive in the spiritual realm while being so preoccupied with political correctness. >Back in the early 80's I was invloved in a cast of Godspell that went >about performing in churches in upstate New York (mostly Roman Catholic >churches). While one church insisted that we perform in a social hall, >(which had no stage), another church insisted that we perform in the >sanctuary. Still another church had us perform in the sanctuary, but >took great pains to (pardon my lack of correct terminology) remove "the >host" from the box up front, and leave the door open so that all could >see that "the host" was absent. Apparently such distinctions mean nothing to you. To me they are quite important. While I was still a Methodist I felt a great spiritual void that remained unfilled by anything my church had to offer. I sought this fulfillment continually in the avenues provided by the congregation to which I belonged, although I couldn't bring myself to participate in the intellectual dishonesty that they called "worship". Then one Sunday evening our Methodist young adult group (which was rapidly losing membership to the Presbyterian church up the street served by the well-known author/pastor Bruce Larson) visited the local Episcopalian cathedral for the weekly 9:30 PM sung Compline. Suddenly I found myself in the midst of what I had been missing all these years - authentic worship of the almighty God, and His Son Jesus Christ. I started going to the Episcopal church up the street on Sunday mornings, and met my friends at the Methodist coffee hour for our customary lunch. Many churches which would like to host such a theatrical production as the one you participated in have no other suitable facility than the chancel of their church. Where veneration of the Sacrament is practiced, this necessitates its removal from the premises so that people don't genuflect to what is in essence a stage. This is quite a serious matter for us Episcopalians, for example, and your casual treatment of it hints of disrespect. >Three or four years later, I again toured with Godspell, (put on by the >same organization), we revisited a number of the churches. In many >cases, the individual congregations reversed their stand on where the >show should appropriately be performed. (In most cases they moved us >from a social hall to the sanctuary.) As is their right; were such a thing to happen at my church (as it sometimes does), I would be rather bitterly opposed to it. >These differences didn't surprise me much. I was raised in one church >of a two-point charge, (two congregations served by the same pastor). >And I had observed how different our two congregations were, (and yet how >similar). The two churches had families that changed membership back >and forth, (obviously not because of the pastor). My experience is that United Methodist worship is pretty much the same wherever you go, which is not to say that it adheres to the standard order of worship rather cynically included in the hymnal. >My congregation might be considered liberal. Travel less than 3 miles >and you'll find another UMC congregation that is more conservative. >Travel 5 in a different direction and you'll find one which is still >more conservative. Travel 10 miles, and you'll find a number which are >more liberal. The demographics do vary, usually from urban to rural, and with respect to the social and economic milieu in which the individual church is located. However I don't quite understand what there is for the typical United Methodist congregation to be conservative or liberal about, compared to the issues being dealt with by other denominations. Maybe it's the amount of discomfort caused by the preaching. >One man who has been worshipping with us lately told me how much more >accepting our congregation was. He had come from a small Lutheran >congregation who he said "wouldn't even worship with the other Lutheran >congregation down the road." From this I wouldn't draw the conclusion >that UMC congregations are more accepting than Lutheran congregations, >only that our particular congregation was perceived by him to be more >accepting than another congregation which happened to be Lutheran. Well, we all know which Lutheran group that was, don't we? :^) I *would* assert that United Methodist congregations are "more accepting than Lutheran congregations; but being "accepting" is not necessarily a virtue in my book, nor in that of the Lutherans. >My present pastor has two masters degrees, and is working on her >dissertation. Her Bible studies appear in our conference newsletter, >and might be called "challenging" or "scholarly", but certainly not >"juvenile". I don't conclude from this that all UMC pastors are highly >educated biblical scholars. I'm not saying that Methodist clergy isn't well educated. Some is *too* well educated. I am saying that Methodists (as perhaps some others) are conditioned by the vapidness of their worship to exchange platitudes and warm fuzzies while ostensibly trying to study the Bible. >What much of it comes down to in my view, is not the denomination, but >the people involved. This is why I get frustrated when someone makes a >sweeping generalization about a denomination based upon their experiences >with a very small minority of that denomination. As I tried to explain above, I woudn't describe my experience as a United Methodist as based on a small minority. I have belonged to four or five different UM congregations, have visited dozens more, and have done so in three different (and geographically widely separated) Annual Conferences. I was a United Methodist for fifteen years. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your experience as a United Methodist. If the United Methodist Church brings you closer to Jesus Christ, praise God. It certainly became an impediment to me. > > Tom Blake > SUNY-Binghamton > Christian First > United Methodist Second
mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece) (07/01/91)
I've edited the original post fairly drastically, since my issue (discussed near the end) is somewhat tangential to the discussion. I think that Jeff Carroll wrote the stuff preceded by ">" and Thomas Blake wrote the stuff preceded by ">>". [hmmm... the "drastic" editing still left several pages. Jeff Carroll left the Methodist Church because it seemed more about political action than Christianity. He became an Episcopalean. Thomas Blake had commented that when he was touring with a production of Godspell, some churches removed "the host" from the box upfront, and wondered why this had to be done before a play was put on. Jeff explained > Many churches which would like to host such a theatrical >production as the one you participated in have no other suitable >facility than the chancel of their church. Where veneration of the >Sacrament is practiced, this necessitates its removal from the premises >so that people don't genuflect to what is in essence a stage. --clh] My purpose here is not so much to disagree with any of this as to emphasize that the Episcopal church (of which I have been a lifelong member) is a very "broad" one. People often get the impression that, since all Episcopal churches use the same Book of Common Prayer, they are very similar. Not true. I have been in Episcopal parishes in which the officiant was referred to as a "priest", was called "Father <name>", and chanted every word of the "Mass" (including the readings from the Bible). He heard individual confessions on Saturday afternoons. Incense billowed. The genuflection issue mentioned above would have been "quite a serious matter" in this church. I have also been in parishes where the "service" was said by a "minister" or "pastor" in street clothes, who was called by her first name, and in which the congregation gathered in a circle around a plain altar. No genuflecting, no kneeling. Some of the famous "balloon eucharists" from the 60s and 70s were Episcopal. "Veneration of the Sacrament" is unlikely here. Biblical scholarship is similarly all over the map, from literalist to liberal. The seminaries range from conservative to quite radical. And politics: George Bush is Episcopalian, and the Presiding Bishop was one of the most vocal critics of the Gulf war. There are very (downright embarassingly) rich congregations with fine stonework and tended gardens, and very poor ones where the buildings are basically crumbling. Many people are surprised when I say that one of the things I like about the Episcopal church is that it is relatively non-dogmatic - after all, they say, the prayer book contains hundreds of pages of dogma. Actually, the prayer book defines the community more than its beliefs (in much the same way that most Christians can say that they "believe in the Bible" but disagree entirely on just what they mean by this): as long as you can say the words with the rest of the community, nobody (in the National church organization, at least) is too concerned what you mean by them. Again, however, individual parishes may impose their own restrictions ("closed" or "open" communion, for example, varies by parish, although I suspect the majority are open). I suspect this generally tolerant attitude arises from its roots in a national church (the Church of England): liberals and conservatives are equally born into the C. of E. (it was the default), so the church "belongs" equally to both. The only recent hint of schism in the Episcopal church came not over issues of doctrine but over the massive updating of the prayer book in the 70s. [... more stuff deleted ...] [I think the following is from Blake --clh] >>What much of it comes down to in my view, is not the denomination, but >>the people involved. This is why I get frustrated when someone makes a >>sweeping generalization about a denomination based upon their experiences >>with a very small minority of that denomination. I'm with you. Mark.
tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) (07/01/91)
In article <Jun.27.03.10.42.1991.19249@athos.rutgers.edu>, bcsaic!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: >In article <Jun.26.00.17.22.1991.21469@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake, Who Else But Me) writes: >>In article <Jun.25.03.42.20.1991.7377@athos.rutgers.edu> ssc-bee!ssc-vax!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: >>> On the other hand, my experiences as a United Methodist were >>>entirely different. Nearly all the Bible study I participated in there >>>was pretty juvenile, centering on personal feelings and reactions rather >>>than the Scriptures themselves. > >>Yeah, generalizations are *very* easy to make, and not a good idea at >>all. We all know that the beliefs and practices of different religions >>vary widely. Differences can be easily found between the denominations >>of Christianity, and also between different congregations in a single >>denomination. > > I'll admit to some residual resentment toward the UMC, but it >was mot my intent to single them out here. I believe that most liberal >Protestants don't take Bible study seriously as study. Well, this is interesting. Many of my Roman Catholic friends tell me "C'mon Tom, you know Catholics don't read the Bible!". While staffing confirmation retreats for Roman Catholic congregations, I was actually shocked to find how little many of the confirmands knew of the Bible. So, you drawing from your experience believe that liberal protestants as a rule don't study their Bibles diligently enough. Going by what my RC friends tell me RC's don't either. Is it just the Conservative Protestants then that are giving their Bibles the attention they deserve? Perhaps serious Biblical study goes on in all denominations, and the Bible is neglected in all denominations as well. > David seemed to be saying either that liberal Biblical >interpretation had become too difficult for the layman, or that liberal >Protestants don't think that the Bible is important enough to study any >more. I think both are true to some extent; it's easy for members of >churches embracing liberal scholarship to neglect their intellectual >responsibility to properly understand Scripture. Personally, I'd say that liberal interpretation is easier than conservative. But this of course depends upon your definitions for "liberal" and "conservative". A number of members of my congregation are daily readers of "The Upper Room". (For those of you who do not know, "The Upper Room" is essentially a daily devotional published in magazine form.) In addition, we make special Lenten and Advent devotionals available, (in season ;-) ). So, I'd say a number of individuals take their Bible reading fairly seriously. > The United Methodist Church teaches no doctrine to speak of, >considering social activism and its own political process far more >important than such things. The curious will discover the traditional >doctrines of Methodism and Anglicanism in the first few pages of the >Discipline, just before the Statement of Social Principles and the >Constitution of the church. But the curious Methodist would be >hard-pressed to find anything that could be called "teaching" going on >in the average United Methodist Church. The pulpits are used primarily >for political advocacy, and the adult Sunday Schools are largely >exercises in the blind leading the blind. Ouch! The UMC is non-doctrinal, so that would explain why doctrine is not taught very much. Social concerns *are* very important in the UMC, we get this from Wesley. You seem to balance teaching Christianity against Social Activism. How can you teach Christianity *without* Social Activism? We're supposed to be Christ's witness to the world! To say that the pulpits are used "primarily for political advocacy" is to greatly exaggerate. Personally, I haven't heard enough political advocacy lately. The UMC is far from the most liberal of denominations nowadays. At this last annual conference, the issue of homosexuality was once more brought before us. The results? Our annual conference voted to maintain the status quo. We welcome homosexuals in the church, and we plead for their social rights. We do not affirm homosexual couples. We do not allow practicing homosexuals to be ordained. We do not allow any church funds to be spent promoting acceptance of homosexuals or homosexuality. One of our pastors recently "came out" to his congregation, at annual conference he surrendered his orders. The Episcopal church is *ordaining self-professed homosexuals*, now that's liberal! > The bottom line is that you can believe whatever you want in the >United Methodist Church; the more outrageous, the better. It need not >necessarily involve Jesus Christ at all, although that would be nice. Ouch! Each United Methodist confesses Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour when they join the church. >Each Sunday you will be asked to mouth a "creed" and/or "congregational >prayers" consisting of some anonymous author's (the pastor's?) >personal point of view, and every Sunday it will be different; apparently >innovation for innovation's own sake. Let's see, our Collect is based on the "Book of Prayer", (since our pastor really caught fire in the Episcopal church during college). For an Affirmation of Faith we tend to use "The Apostle's Creed" or "The Nicene Creed" next in popularity would be the Affirmation of Faith of the Korean Methodist Church. The new hymnal includes some wonderful affirmations taken from Paul's letters. (I wouldn't say any of these are illegitimate.) >The new United Methodist hymnal >includes Duke Ellington's "Come Sunday", for no good reason that I could >discern. For the last few years I was a Methodist, I was so angered by >the meaninglessness of Methodist worship that I couldn't bring myself >to attend services any more. If they were meaningless, why were your fellow United Methodists still showing up? Just out of habit? >>Back in the early 80's I was invloved in a cast of Godspell that went >>about performing in churches in upstate New York (mostly Roman Catholic >>churches). While one church insisted that we perform in a social hall, >>(which had no stage), another church insisted that we perform in the >>sanctuary. Still another church had us perform in the sanctuary, but >>took great pains to (pardon my lack of correct terminology) remove "the >>host" from the box up front, and leave the door open so that all could >>see that "the host" was absent. > > Apparently such distinctions mean nothing to you. To me they are >quite important. I'm not certain which distinctions you are referring to, but I believe you have missed my point entirely. My point was that even among congregations in the same denomination, and in the same geographical area their attitude toward the same show varied quite widely. Some seemed afraid that we might profane the altar, while others looked upon the show as an appropriate form of worship. (Which it was for me). > Then one Sunday evening our Methodist young adult group (which >was rapidly losing membership to the Presbyterian church up the street >served by the well-known author/pastor Bruce Larson) visited the local >Episcopalian cathedral for the weekly 9:30 PM sung Compline. Suddenly >I found myself in the midst of what I had been missing all these years - >authentic worship of the almighty God, and His Son Jesus Christ. You'd probably like my pastor. She was raised Presbyterian, but it was the Episcopal church that really breathed fire into her. Since the Episcopal church did not ordain women at that time, she went back to the denomination she was raised in. She married a UM pastor, he was moved to become a DS, we needed a pastor, Nancy needed a church. After a time with us, Nancy decided she wanted to become a United Methodist. Her orders were recognized at Annual Conference, and the rest is history as they say. > Many churches which would like to host such a theatrical >production as the one you participated in have no other suitable >facility than the chancel of their church. Where veneration of the >Sacrament is practiced, this necessitates its removal from the premises >so that people don't genuflect to what is in essence a stage. This is >quite a serious matter for us Episcopalians, for example, and your >casual treatment of it hints of disrespect. Once again, I believe you have missed my point entirely. Obviously, some churches do not have halls appropriate to the task. In some cases, the hall had a true stage, which we did not use. These churches looked upon the sanctuary as more appropriate, other churches felt that it was not appropriate at all. While still others seemed to sit on the fence. (Saint Mary's often puts on musicals, they have a large hall, with a generous stage. When we took Godspell there, they felt it should be performed on the altar, but they took great pains to demonstrate that "the host" was absent during the performance.) If you are familiar with the show, the script is taken almost verbatim from the Gospels. (The first time I did it, I cross-referenced my entire script, locating the source for each line.) The show is a very powerful ministry. (After some performances, I had people asking me to quote from the script.) > As is their right; were such a thing to happen at my church >(as it sometimes does), I would be rather bitterly opposed to it. Why? > My experience is that United Methodist worship is pretty much >the same wherever you go, which is not to say that it adheres to the >standard order of worship rather cynically included in the hymnal. My experience is that all Christian worship services I have been a part of have been "pretty much the same" wherever I go. As much as an RC mass varies from a UM communion service, the service I know varies from another UM service. (Even if they follow the same order of worship, led by the same pastor.) > The demographics do vary, usually from urban to rural, and with >respect to the social and economic milieu in which the individual church >is located. However I don't quite understand what there is for the >typical United Methodist congregation to be conservative or liberal >about, compared to the issues being dealt with by other denominations. >Maybe it's the amount of discomfort caused by the preaching. Wow! Well, let's see. I know congregations that (as tradition mandates) are dead-set against alcohol (of any form), tobacco, gambling, abortion for any reason, pre-marital sex, or any hint of homosexuality in the church. Other congregations are much more liberal in their practices. One nearby congregation hosts a local chapter of "Accord" (an organization of homosexual UM's). Some congregations feel "put off" by a pastor who will not drink with them. Some congregations believe quite strongly in the primacy of scripture, going for what might be called a fundamentalist interpretation. Others as you suggest are more liberal in their interpretation. Some congregations hold prejudicial feelings toward other denominations, (esp. Roman Catholic), while others seek to work with their brothers and sisters, regardless of their denomination. Some congregations believe strongly in evangelism. Getting out and pounding on doors. Others don't want to bother people, they prefer to evangelize by example. Some congregations "share the peace", others feel it detracts from the service. Some congregations believe strongly in sharing their joys and concerns, and praying for one another. Others believe that is more appropriate to share after the service. There are a lot of differences out there. (Watching the debates at the various conferences you've attended should make that quite clear.) >>One man who has been worshipping with us lately told me how much more >>accepting our congregation was. He had come from a small Lutheran >>congregation who he said "wouldn't even worship with the other Lutheran >>congregation down the road." From this I wouldn't draw the conclusion >>that UMC congregations are more accepting than Lutheran congregations, >>only that our particular congregation was perceived by him to be more >>accepting than another congregation which happened to be Lutheran. > > Well, we all know which Lutheran group that was, don't we? :^) Well, I don't. >I *would* assert that United Methodist congregations are "more accepting >than Lutheran congregations; but being "accepting" is not necessarily a >virtue in my book, nor in that of the Lutherans. But I'd say it was one in Paul's book(s), as well as those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I think that the New Testament concentrates on you getting right with God and your neighbor, not on you telling your neighbors how *they* should get right with God. > I'm not saying that Methodist clergy isn't well educated. Some >is *too* well educated. I am saying that Methodists (as perhaps some >others) are conditioned by the vapidness of their worship to exchange >platitudes and warm fuzzies while ostensibly trying to study the Bible. How is it that you have become so bitter? > I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your experience as a United >Methodist. If the United Methodist Church brings you closer to Jesus >Christ, praise God. It certainly became an impediment to me. You refer to our Bible Studies as "Infantile". You refer to our worship as "Meaningless", not "Authentic Worship of Jesus Christ", you call it "Vapid", "platitudes and warm fuzzies". You even suggest that United Methodists don't believe in Christ! Just what *would* constitute "casting aspersions" if this post does not? Consider my cheek turned. Strike again if it pleases you, but if you do, please don't offer up "warm fuzzies and platitudes" in the last paragraph denying that you have intentionally struck. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton