Posted on 02/24/2019 8:12:14 PM PST by sam_whiskey
In a key United Methodist General Conference vote setting voting priorities for the next three days, delegates preferred the Traditional Plan backed by global evangelicals over the liberalizing One Church Plan backed by most bishops.
The Traditional Plan, which got nearly 56%, reaffirms current United Methodist teaching on marriage as male and female. One Church Plan, which got nearly 49%, would overturn that teaching and compel local congregations to choose their own definition of marriage.
In one swoop, delegates were asked to vote their preference on dozens of legislative proposals and could vote yes to each one. The vote sets the order by which proposals are considered.
This vote ensures the Traditional Plan will be considered before the One Church Plan and reveals most delegates are not siding with the considerable forces of liberal institutional United Methodism in the USA.
(Excerpt) Read more at juicyecumenism.com ...
A pleasant surprise.
This is a temporary victory. The Methodists will have to expel the liberals in order to get rid of the cancer. The liberals will never give up.
I was on the Ordination track in the UMC, was a Certified Lay Speaker and had preached in Churches all over my district and the adjoining ones. Then my home church got a “hip” new young Female pastor who was closely aligned with the Pro Gay MIND group. Within 6 months, my DS pulled my letter of support and three years worth of work went down the tubes.
Liberals never quit. Satan never sleeps.
Not a Methodist and my religion has more than enough of its own issues.
Just commenting that this seems like a positive development.
Though I’m wondering how the vote was so close.
Always pictured this group as being quite conservative.
But a win is a win and congratulations.
PING.
Liberals have been blocking the promotion of conservatives and advancing far left in the Methodists for many years.
UMC needs to split now, the liberals will never give up. At least they’ll let them keep the churches, the Episcopals stole the churches and property from the conservatives.
Not really. Schism has happened, regardless of whether there is an “official” schism or not. Historically, liberals just won’t leave. We’ll see what happens after this one when their One Church Plan goes up in flames.
So the Traditional plan backed by the delegates so far is winning, but the liberal One Church plan backed by Bishops so far is #2???? What’s the matter with these Bishop clergy??? Sounds like they need to attend a Bible study or two. We’ll see how the final vote goes over the next few days. Ain’t over yet.
The BOD has been crystal clear on homosexuality for 47 years with continuous clarification:
The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.2
1. “Self-avowed practicing homosexual” is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844, 984, 1020
2. See Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985, 1027, 1028
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/homosexuality-full-book-of-discipline-statements
The first public debate on homosexuality began at the 1972 General Conference.
The 1976 General Conference failed to: rescind the official condemnation of homosexual practice; revised the language in the Social Principles related to homosexual unions: “We do not recognize a relationship between two persons of the same sex as constituting marriage.” and also adopted three reports focusing on church funding.
1st- ordered “that no agency shall give United Methodist funds to any ‘gay’ organization or use any such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.”
2nd- Mandated “the use of resources and funds by boards and agencies only in support of programs consistent with the Social Principles of the Church.”
3rd- prohibited “funds for projects favoring homosexual practices.”
1980 GC Homosexual debate affirming our trust in the covenant community and the process by which we ordain ministers.” Also, a statement was included that said “We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant, which is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman.”
1984 General Conference adopted, as a standard for ordained clergy, commitment to “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” including the language on homosexuality: “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.”
1984 General Conference changed in the Social Principles statement by the 1988 Conference “Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”
No General Conference has ever acted to withhold membership in the church from homosexuals.
1988 the General Council on Ministries named a 27-member committee to conduct the study releasing a 33-page report in 1991. The General Council on Ministries received the study committee’s and took no action other than to forward it to the 1992 General Conference delegates.
The 1992 conference voted 710-238 to retain the church’s stand that homosexual practice is “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
The 1996 General Conference added three points to UMC position on homosexuality:
1- Added a footnote defining “self-vowed practicing homosexual”;
a declaration that ceremonies to celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by United Methodist clergy or in United Methodist churches;
2- Call for U.S. military not to exclude persons from service “solely on the basis of sexual orientation.”
2000 GC added a statement: to the Social Principles “We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends.”
The 2004 General Conference reaffirmed positions on homosexuality. The Judicial Council backed their action. The delegates reaffirmed their commitment to the unity of the UMC while remaining in covenant to work together for the mission to make “disciples for Christ throughout the world.”
The 2008 General Conference rejected changes to UM Social Principles. However, delegates approved a resolution to oppose homophobia heterosexism stating: “the UMC opposes all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation.”
The 2012 General Conference left BOD language intact.
In November 2015, African bishops called on the church to hold the line on church teachings regarding human sexuality. recommending the 2016 General Conference include daily prayer “for the return of our denomination to biblical teachings, the unity of the church” as well as the end of “global terrorism (remembering the millions of refugees) and the cessation of wars around the globe.”
It is of my opinion, that the more overhead a denomination has, the more leftist they become.
I am not Baptist, but the SBC has the right idea. The local congregations run their churches how they see fit.
I weep for my former Christian Reformed brothers and sisters. They have become so leftist, it is sickening.
BTW, if anyone reads most of my posts lately, I apologize. I am on night shifts, and get cranky.
I am pretty well convinced that most of the bishops and a good hunk of the rest of the UMC Clergy are Progressives letting their politics affect their theology.
When I first heard about this special General Conference and the discussions that my pastor wanted to have with our congregation here in Northern Virginia, I thought that it was another con job by the Progressives where a decision that had already been made in secret was going to be presented as a genuine choice. But then I realized that my pastor would not willingly be part of such a con.
If the traditionalists win out, I really don't see the Liberals leaving--I think that they will stick around because they want to hijack the UMC more than they want to form their own denomination.
Good to see the UMC-GC “Stand with Africa”!
Therefore:
Lutheran (EL C S*A) Ping!
* as of August 19, AD 2009, a liberal protestant SECT, not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH.
Be rooted in Christ!
NOTE: The August 19 date pertains to the adoption of gay agenda policies, NOT the UMC agreement!
If the UMC-GC adopts a plan to allow the libtards to leave and keep their property there will be a mass exodus.
The result will be a leader but healthier UMC.
Well, homosexuals have been really effective at getting their kind into the hierarchy. Presumably, they’ve been forcing this in other religions.
Send them to Evangelical Lutherans
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.