Talk:United Methodist Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old talk

Additional points:

• History of the United Methodist Church, including the merger between (some Methodist church?) and (some Brethren church?) that formed it.
• Overseas presence
• Possibly the conflicts between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' within the denominations and the repeated threats to divide into two smaller denominations over the last 10 or 20 years
• The issue of autonomy vs globalism of some Central Conferences

• The "some Methodist Church" was between the Methodist Church North and South. The "some Brethern Church" was the Evangelical United Brethren Church which was not a Brethern Church but the German speaking Methodist church in theology and governance. The EUB Church was the result of the Evangleical Church and the United Brethern Church union in 1946 which were the two german speaking methodist denomination both arising in Pennsylvania among German farmers and meeting in barns. The Methodist Church which was English speaking did not want to become associated with the German language during the formation of the American church. There was an agreement between the English and

German speakers to develop separately and co-exist. This history is documented and easily available to anyone interested.

• The conflicts have mainly existed between the Texas Conference and the rest of the Church over the issue of social responsibility of both the Church and individuals. The Texas group being the stronghold of the conservative influence. The United Methodist has a strong Social Responsibility Code which is officially endorced by the Church at every level. The Texas Conference has a problem with that. 65.43.144.208 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Doug Taylor

---

• Why is this page centered? It looks "not in line" with normal Wiki pages.

---

• What about the UMC tenet to move clergy around between churches every few years?

• My Methodist church had the same reverend from 1979 until 2002.

I'm not familiar enough with the history to cover the subject, but the practice has been reduced significantly in recent years. RadicalSubversiv E 00:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• In many annual conferences, appointments average about 4 years -- some shorter, some longer. Perhaps, some text describing the itinerant nature of a Methodist pastor would be appropriate. Early Methodist pastors served a charge for only a year; the hope was that pastors and congregations, if they despised their pastor, wouldn't have to endure forever (as well as to prevent cliques among congregations and pastors). It seems now that there is a move to lengthen appointments, but I don't see the average exceeding 5 or 6 years. --Chiacomo 04:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that in the Philippines Central Conference, appoitments are determined in the seaparate Annual Conference sessions. User:Aeron Valderrama

• The admonition to move pastors goes back to the founder, John Wesley, who believed that Pastors should be moved or "itenerated" to prevent them from becoming overly influenced in their preaching and work by the attitudes of particular local churches and members. 65.43.144.208 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Doug Taylor

Book of Discipline Research Needed: Confirmation

The article contains this comment:

although many churches still hold confirmation classes for members, usually younger ones. This is where lay members learn about God in order to profess their ultimate faith in him. This is often considered a follow-up to baptism.

Somebody (maybe me when I have the time) needs to look up exactly what the Discipline says about confirmation and clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.70.147.201 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian Perfection

Perhaps the article should include information concerning the church's belief in Christian Perfection... I believe clergy are still required to profess belief in Christian Perfection. What do you think? --Chiacomo

We are indeed required to take a vow at ordination in which we profess to be going on to perfection and that we expect to be made perfect in this life. While this is an important, vital part of United Methodist theology, it is a doctrinal distinctive which is (sadly) not emphasized much anymore. KHM03 10:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the personal belief that the church should in many ways "return to its roots" -- with more emphasis on study, personal holiness, pursuit of perfection, service etc... Inclusiveness is great, but the worship of God and service to Christ should be our cornerstone. Perhaps at least a mention of the "doctrine" of Chrstian Perfection as it relates to Methodism would be both "encyclopedic" and instructive for Methodists who might find an article about their church here. I dunno... --Chiacomo 14:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The doctrine of "Perfection" is more appropriately "going onto perfection" which is vastly different from the above. It was a centeral tenant of John Wesley, founder, which states that you never actually reach perfection but should be moving toward it in your Christian life. Any other interperetatation is erroneous or poorly understood. The concept is well defined in many Methodist publications and histories. Guessing is not facts.

• Actually, John Wesley believed that a Christian should be striving for perfection in this life. He fully believed that it was possible to achieve that perfection in this life, and he claimed to know some who had achieved this level of faith. Most assume that he meant his mother Susanna. For John, Christian perfection meant reaching the point where all actions were a result of our love for God, not that we had reached actual perfection in our lives. Charles Wesley, John's brother, beleived that it was possible to reach perfection, but that it likely happened in the moments immediately preceding death. Revmqo (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

need clarification

In April 2005, the United Methodist Council of Bishops approved "A Proposal for Interim Eucharistic Sharing." This document would be the first step toward full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which the UMC bishops believe will happen by 2008. The church is also in dialogue with the Episcopal Church for full communion by 2012.

• The United Methodist Church has been a leader in the national and international ecumenical movement for dating back at least into the 1960s. This is not a new direction. 65.43.144.208 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Doug Taylor

The linked text for "Episcopal Church" leads to a disambiguation page. --ZekeMacNeil 01:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to source this section? --Chiacomo (talk) 14:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought the UMC's governing body had already made this stance

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/churches.iraq.reut/

Liberal?

In the "Characterization" section, how can we make the blanket statement that the UMC is considered "liberal" in light of it's current discriminatory practices and doctrines around sexual orientation?!? Emerymat 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How? How about because the statement made is "the UMC is considered one of the more liberal and tolerant denominations with respect to race, gender, and ideology." How about because the UMC is "considered liberal", to the extent that Reader's Digest has accused it of being a communist front. How about the fact that nothing is said in that comment about sexual orientation. How about if you follow the included link to Liberal Christianity; I think you'll find that most of the points listed describe the majority of United Methodist's fairly well.

While the UMC has leaned to the left in recent years, they seem to be swinging right. They're probably as middle of the road today as is possible. KHM03 22:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with KHM03. Political viewpoint's vary tremendously within the church, let us remember that this is the church of George W. Bush. My experience has been that the chuch varies greatly in the north versus the south, and in urban versus rural areas. Also, everyone here really should sign their posts with four tildas "~~~~," otherwise its hard to take your posts seriously. -MrFizyx 16:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the UMC and the daughter of a United Methodist minister, I have watched the church become steadily more politically liberal in my lifetime. The issues surrounding homosexuality in the church are hotly debated within the church. While the Judicial Council remains rather conservative, politically leanings of the church vary region by region. On the whole I would say the church is rather liberal though. The church does have an Open Hearts Open Minds Open Doors policy that calls on congregations to practice non-discrimination. I don't think it's expressly supported by the Judicial Council though. If that's confusing, imagine the UMC operating similarly to the three branches of the U.S. government; they often act in seeming opposition to each other. This is the United Methodist Church's social policy on homosexuality: [1]. --Xaraphim (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As the UMC discipline states it, it's a pretty accepting stance. It's not radical in either direction and more accepting if anything. I would say the church is more liberal. The UMC does pull of a lot of its learning resources from Cokesbury which rarely has very conservative material and normally distributes progressive Christian material. A small group study program called Living The Questions was put together by United Methodists which includes several progressive scholars such as John Dominic Crossan. That's only one example of material that is definitely not conservative at all. It may not be liberal to the level of the United Church of Christ, but it is close enough. Also, not only is George Bush in the UMC, Hilary Clinton is also a United Methodist. So it is definitely accepting. Xe7al (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

T.V. ads

It should also be noted that the UMC is one of the few religions to advertize on television (mainly CNN and other news channels). This is something that very few other religions do and may be worth to put in this entry. Personaly I think it's kinda silly that a religion advertizes on T.V., but the United Methodist Church does it.

United Church of Christ advertises. Mormons advertise a lot. Personally, I wonder why it would be considered silly to try and reach people where they are.

Because it's pathetic and Jesus is not Coca Cola. McChurch would be the way to describe a church that advertises on T.V.

As a former member of the UMC, I am going to have to defend their ads. They are very tastefully done. There is nothing McChurch about them. Perhaps you should watch them before you evaluate them. KitHutch 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The ads aren't advertising Jesus, they're advertising the churches Open Hearts Open Minds Open Doors policy. --Xaraphim (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the church isn't selling Jesus, they're telling people they are welcome (and as with some of the themes of their commercials, they're also showing they accept anyone). It's not much different from the commercials alerting everyone that they can apply for government coupons for converter boxes for the transition to digital television. Xe7al (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

re: External links

There are a lot of external links. They are not well explained, and most don't seem related to the content. I'm going to remove some recent adds that appear to be organizations of United Methodists that do not represent the church as a whole, but rather some grassroots sub-group. If a majority of editors feel we need these things linked then we should have some note so that readers will understand them for what they are. This should apply whether it is the Confessing Movement, Lifewatch or the Reconciling Milistries Network right? -MrFizyx 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Reconciling and confessing congregations

An anon user:70.182.149.69 has deleted a large chunk about the positions of reconciling and confessing congregations. Since the same anon has made some other edits which seem generally ok, I am reluctant just to revert this. But as a semi-outsider to the UMC (I'm a UK Methodist, but I visit the US regularly and often attend UMC churches when there), I found the deleted material enlightening; neither of the terms is self-explanatory (indeed both could be accused of hijacking Christian terminology of broad historical significance to a narrower cause). On the other hand, this article is surely too heavy on the homosexuality issue, at the expense of more fundamental matters, so maybe the deleted material deserved to go. I'd be interested to know what others who are perhaps closer to the matter think. seglea 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for revert. I am a former united methodist and the explanation of what's been going on since I left is very educational. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bajenkins (talk • contribs) . 31 July 2006
• I think it would be ok to have this in the article, but I have two concerns (1) these need to be presented as grass roots efforts upon which the wider church has no stand (I think many active UMC members might have little awareness of these and would find the info enlightening as well). (2) It is very important that these be cited and presented with the neutral viewpoint. I'm also troubled by the section that has been added regarding "failed liberalizing efforts," this sounds very much like original research which of course is a no-no. -MrFizyx 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We have had the same recentism debate on the United Church of Christ page regarding the Current Issues section of that article. IT was much longer than other sections but contained lots of good information relevant to the denomination. Perhaps you could model the UMC article after UCC controversies. Focus on documented statements by notable groups from both/all sides of the issue. If the homosexuality issue is not the only current issue facing the Methodists then mention others, like church planting the Middle East, or other initiatives. Be sure to document these claims. Anyways, hope this helps. Peace, MPS 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Largest churches in the denomination

This page contained reference to the two larges churches in The United Methodist Church being Windsor Village and Church of the Resurrection. This information was only partially correct.

According to the year-end statistics for 2004 (the most recent fully-audited data) compiled by the General Council on Finance and Administration (UMC), the five largest churches and their memberships are:

Church			      Membership
WINDSOR VILLAGE 	      15945
HIGHLAND PARK                 11774
FIRST FT WORTH                11084
GLIDE MEMORIAL                10653
CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION    10625

The references have been deleted. I don't think they fit well in the Organization unit anyway.

Crude version of logo is now available for those that want to show it on their user page

I now have a non-fair use version of the Church logo that can be used on your user page. You can't use the offical image because fair use images can only be used in the main namespace. So I came up with the image at the right.

I created the image for use in a user box. The code below results in the box shown below.

{{Userbox|border-c=#000|border-s=1|id-c=#fff|id-s=12|id-fc=#000|info-c=#77F|info-s=8|info-fc=#fff|id=|info=This person is a [[United Methodist Church|United Methodist]]}}

This person is a United Methodist

Please note that the image is, at best, crude. Feel free to replace it with a better copy as long as you draw it yourself. However, please note the image is marked with {{ShouldBeSVG}}. That is because the Scaleable Vector Graphics format would be better suited than PNG. The problem was that I could not save to SVG. In fact, I had to omit the transparent background that I felt the image should have.

If someone expresses interest, either here or on my talk page, I will make the code above into a template at User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/United Methodist. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still a copyvio - and can't be used on user pages. Rklawton 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

United Methodist users can use the following template on their userpage: {{User:UBX/umc}}. It will render a beautiful template which does not violate any copyright laws. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to not get back to you when you posted, but it is my understanding that if images weren't straight copies of the logo, they could be used. I remember the Tiger fans user box having a version of the logo for the Detroit Tigers logo. I was told it was OK because it did not match the official logo. So how did my version fail that test? Will (Talk - contribs) 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You were mis-informed, that's all. No poor imitations. Rklawton 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the box proposed by Anupam is no good. It looks wrong without the flames. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the letters "UMC" - a common abbreviation for the church? Rklawton 21:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. However, it is clear that if you have an image that even remotely resembles a copyrighted image, even if not by design, it is not allowed on Wikipedia. To bad. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

John Wesley, the founder of the UMC???

How can John Wesley be the founder of the United Methodist Church? The UMC was founded in 1968 and Wesley died in the 1800s. I guess no one cares about Jacob Albright or Otterbien, the founders of the other churches that merged into the UMC. If Wesley is the founder of the UMC, does that mean that Martin Luther (who died in the mid 1500s) is the founder of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (established in 1988)? KitHutch 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your inquiry. Yes, John Wesley is considered the spiritual founder of the United Methodist Church (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4). The other important leaders (Jacob Albright, Philip William Otterbein, etc.) are all mentioned in the article as well as in the template here. I would also assume that the ELCA and the LCMS both consider Martin Luther to be the spiritual founder of their respective churches as well. I hope this helps! Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wesley is considered the founder of the UMC because he is considered the founder of Methodism as a whole back in the 1720's. Since the UMC is a branch or denomination of Methodism, I think it's fair to say that Wesley is still its founder. David Mitchell 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Right on, Kit. Francis Asbury is the founder of North American Methodism. Wesley died a loyal Anglican cleric. Though I'd much prefer Jesus to be our only founder, if you have to trace INFLUENCE, it goes to Wesley, who himself was influenced by Luther, Zinzendorf, William Law, his mother and father, etc.209.55.81.128 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Barbara Heck, not Francis Asbury, was the founder of Methodism in America. While Asbury was an early leader, he was not the first. Revmqo (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox description

In the infobox, it says that the UMC is both mainline and evangelical. I would remove the term "evangelical." Part of the definition of "mainline" is that there are a variety of groups in that particular denomination including evangelicals. Therefore, you are being redundant when you say that the UMC is both mainline and evangelical. KitHutch 20:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kit Hutch! Thanks for your concern. In my opinion, it is better to leave the information box as it is. Unlike most mainline denominations, the United Methodist Church, like other evangelical Churches stresses the concept of New Birth (source). According to the official United Methodist statement (source), By Water & Spirit, the United Methodist Church has a balance of sacramental and evangelical emphases and is a synthesis of sacramentalism and evangelicalism, where the sacramental aspect of the UMC puts itself with other mainline denominations and the evangelical aspect places the UMC with other evangelical denominations. According to the official website of the United Methodist Church,

“ United Methodists are evangelical! From its beginnings, Methodism has always been part of, and often at the vanguard of the broader movement within Protestant Christianity called “evangelicalism.” ”

Despite the fact that some UMC members do not recognize themselves does not affect the official stance of the denomination. Furthermore, the UMC official webpage aligns itself with Wikipedia's definition of evangelicalism. As the term mainline includes a diverse amount of denominations, so does the term evangelicalism. According to the United Methodist Church as well as Wikipedia (source a, source b), evangelicalism is:

“ ...a tendency in diverse branches of Protestantism, typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically-oriented faith, and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues. ”

The United Methodist Church also states that (source):

“ Declaring the good news of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ offered freely to all who wish to receive it is at the very heart of who we are as United Methodists. We declare that good news with the expectation that it will lead persons to an experience of conversion, of “entirely turning over” their lives to God by becoming disciples of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. And we expect that all disciples of Jesus Christ are transforming the culture in which they find themselves, individually and collectively, as they bear witness to and become agents of the work of God’s kingdom in the world. We are evangelical! ”

A few other references also call John Wesley, George Whitefield et. al. leaders of the Methodist evangelical movement (source a, source b, source c, source d) In light of these facts, I think that it is appropriate for both the words mainline and evangelical to appear in the information box. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Captial Punishment...not John 8:31

Under social issues, it referese to the UMC being apposed to capital punishment in part because "Jesus explicitly repudiated the lex talionis in Matthew 5:38-39 and abolished the death penalty in John 8:31." The reason John 8:31 is mentioned is because it is referenced from the UFC's own website. However, the passage in question is actually John 8:1-12 where Jesus spares the life of the adulterous woman. I'm pointing out the correction here rather than fixing the main article because it is a direct reference from the UFC website, so changing it would be altering the reference. David Mitchell 18:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Judicial Council/Church Court

The Homosexuality section refers to a "Judicial Council, or "Church Court". I can't find another reference to this in the article, and I think it would be great if someone who knows about it can add something about it - possibly in the Organization section?

Thanks very much, Drum guy (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I've removed the word "breakfast" from this sentence.

At the 2004 General Conference, one of the speakers at a Good News movement (a conservative caucus) breakfast floated the notion of an "amicable" separation due to the divisive theological issues that have occurred among Methodists. Later, a proposed resolution unrelated to the speaker [38] was circulated that suggested a Task Force of 21 persons to be set up to come up with a proposal for an “amicable separation” within the UMC to be presented at a special session of General Conference in 2006.

I'm assuming it was vandalism. Let me know if I made a mistake. --Xaraphim (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Poorly put together with POV

The section on Homosexuality seems to have been put together by at least two different people with opposing view points. I think the facts stated here are important, but it could flow together better and maybe have a little less POV. I'd like to reword it incorporating the existing facts. If no one has any reasonable objections, I'll start working on it. --Xaraphim (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Being put together in that fashion sounds like an annual conference session. It's quite reflective of the church I think. I think the most objective way to write about any stance in the church is to use the Social Principles: [2]. It is the official stance (since it was voted on and approved by the church to get around the issues with these different points of view). Xe7al (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

In the section on homosexuality it reads

The United Methodist Church maintains that "Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth...," [61] and encourages United Methodists to be in ministry with and for all people.[62]

In accordance with Scripture,[63] the Church officially considers, "the practice of homosexuality (to be) incompatible with Christian teaching." It states that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" cannot be ordained as ministers.

can someone explain this seeming contradiction? Thanks--Nigazblood (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is considering scriptural support that anyone who is considered to not be in line with Christian thinking is still able to be Christian (examples: tax collectors and those with ailments were considered as being sinners yet, as the bible points out, Jesus still saw them as equals and accepted them as Christians).

My further understanding is that the church was avoiding other issues that would occur such as homosexual marriage which is also not condoned by the church as a whole. So that is what tipped the decision (since the homosexual issue is nearly a 50-50 decision as is with the country as a whole). Just remember that the church does make decisions democratically so it is quite easy to see things that look contradictory. Hopefully, that sheds a little light on the subject without starting a debate as Wsanders points out below. Xe7al (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The church teaches that even though the church does not condone homosexuality, it would be un-Christian to reject them as people. Homosexuals are still children of God, so the church must work with them. This discussion, however, is not necessarily appropriate for a talk page, since Wikipedia isn't a place to debate these issues. Wsanders (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Methodist work group

There is now a proposal for a WikiProject group, possibly initially a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, to deal with articles relating to the Methodist churches at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Methodism. Anyone interested in taking part in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Judicial Council

I added a section on the Judicial Council. it needs work but it's a start; I think it's important to have a section on this, since as Drum Guy said above the judicial council is talked about in the homosexuality section. I'll add references when I have my Discipline handy, or someone else could do it. Wsanders (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "UMC-Evangelical" :
  • {{cite web|url = http://www.umc.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2068577#| title = Is the concept “saved, born-again” unique to evangelicals?|publisher = The United Methodist Church|accessdate = 2007-03-25}}
  • {{cite web|url = http://www.umc.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2068577#| title = Is the concept “saved, born-again” unique to evangelicals? |publisher = The United Methodist Church|accessdate = 2007-08-01}}
• "Oremus Bible Browser" :
  • {{cite web|url = http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=72906292| title = Galatians 3:28|publisher = National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America|accessdate = 2007-06-24}}
  • {{cite web|url = http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=49718087| title = 1 Timothy 6:9-10a|publisher = National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America|accessdate = 2007-06-24}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was born a Methodist & I will die a Methodist...... are you?

Hi there brothers & sisters in Christ!

You know what? My grandfater is a Methodist. My mother is a methodist, my father is a converted methodist, all of my uncles,

& my auntie are a methodist, my siblings, my causins are all methodist, my kids are all methodist. I was born & baptized a

methodist..... therefore I will die a methodist. We have 4 workers in our clan members 1 senior rev. pastor, 2 rev. ditrict

superintendent and 1 retired deaconess. I am happy to have them and to be part of our clan.

I love going to solemn services, it makes me feel good & my soul rejoice once I am attending solemn services. Without

offending those brothers & sisters of the other denomination who are jumping & shouting in their services. I was invited &

was able to attend to other denominations & christians gathering, but for me, I still like the solemn service we do... do

you agree with me? Without offending those people that expressing their belief and faith, I still and really respect them

for they are still our brothers & sisters in Christ. So Methodist out there! Lets keep the flame beside the cross burning,

remember? Its our emblem ..... our logo....our faith....I love You All in Christ! :) (Albertlonghair (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)).

Amen brother! Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was born and baptised a United Methodist, and I love the religion, but Catholisicm and anglicanism are very interesting to me and I want to try them out as well. Tarheelz123 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Methodist-Catholic dialogue

There should maybe be an article on Methodist-Catholic dialogue, it has been very prominent since Vatican II. ADM (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Tarheelz123 (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"College of Bishops" link

When you click on the "College of Bishops" link in the "Governance" section, it takes you to a page discussing collegiality in the Roman Catholic Church. I highly doubt that this is what the original editor intended. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this too, so I fices the link. It is not called "College of Bishops", but the "Council of Bishops".Tarheelz123 (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Every county

"It remains the only Christian denomination or body to have congregations in every county or parish in the United States." This sentence may be confusing to may readers who are unaware that Louisiana has parishes in lieu of counties and may take the word "parish" in the religious sense. I suggest substituting "county or county equivalent," provided that the new assertion is true. See the article on county equivalent. Dynzmoar (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. KitHutch (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As a resident of Louisiana, I wholeheartedly disagree! We should not be forced to change our centuries old political divisions nor the language referring to them in order to please those who might be unaware. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is education. Let those who are "unaware" become "aware!" Revmqo (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Saints section

Afa, you've given no reason for removing the section. A RS is provided, in line with what is written in the article. It is relevant to the article, so there is no reason to remove it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Afa, I just don't see why it's so hard to understand that the UMC says "Saints" and so does the UpperRoom source, which is the UMC publication. So what's the issue here and why keep removing it? Additionally, please observe WP:3RR as continued edit warring will be reported. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The cited article says in part:

"United Methodist's do not believe in Saints in the same way that the Catholic Church does. But we can learn from the lives of saints ... they have many gifts to give us.... (John Wesley) omitted the entire "saints (sanctorial) cycle" of saints' days. Wesley sensed that, 'most of the holy days' (so called) were 'at present answering no valuable end.' Wesley's writing, preaching and prayer were strongly focused on Christ, his birth, teaching, cross and resurrection. For that reason, he emphasized the saving and sanctifying grace of the Lord.... United Methodists do not knowingly exhibit devotion to persons called saints.... United Methodists, along with most Protestants, do not canonize persons by particular criteria, as does the Roman Catholic Church."

The wording in the Wiki article lists things out of context. It adds nothing but confusion to the article. "Saints" is a biblical term meaning "sanctified (saved) ones." Technically, any true Christian saved by grace is a "saint"--a sanctified one. There is nothing unique in Methodism that differs from a general Protestant understanding. This article is about things that uniquely characterize the UMC. "Saints" is not one of them.Afaprof01 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the section is at all confusing. It is a subsection of beliefs. As it is a UMC belief, it is relevant to the section. [There is] No reason not to include it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited by Allstarecho are not official source documents and allow suspect information to be introduced into the article. United Methodist's believe in saints only as the concept relates to the "communion of saints" which are those Christians who have gone on to the church triumphant. It is wise to remember that John Wesley was an Anglican priest and not a United Methodist. While he founded the movement that became the United Methodist Church, we don't adhere 100% to his theology or teachings. The only source document which can legitimately be cited as to what "United Methodist's" believe (in an official sense) is the "United Methodist Book of Disicipline." While it is fair to say that "United Methodists believe that saints are those who have lived a life of faith and example and have gone on to be with God." The denomination has no process for naming/approving saints and generally uses the term with a capital "s" only when referring to Biblical characters who influenced the life of the church and its predecessor the synagogue. The Upper Room is a publication of the United Methodist Church, but it is a periodical, not an historical or theological treatise. As such, it is not a sufficient source to cite when citing the official stance of the entire denomination. In answering the question posed in the cited article, Dan Benedict gives his own POV from a Methodist perspective, but by no means speaks on behalf of the denomination in an official capacity. (According to WP guidance Opinion Articles should not be used to cite fact, only the opinion of the writer.) The section that I removed is wrong and should not be presented as fact. Revmqo (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your assessment that "sources cited by Allstarecho are not official source documents" is entirely wrong. The source is the Upper Room publication, which is owned by the United Methodist Church. Further, the UMC's own web page about saints specifically tells users to go to the Upper Room web page for the UMC position on saints. The source is therefore valid, notable and simply can not be denied. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Revmqo is correct. The Upper Room web site says it is "a ministry of GBOD." GBDO's web site says it is "An agency of The United Methodist Church." It further identifies itself as accountable to UMC's General Board of Discipleship. Are Upper Room and GBDO official agencies of UMC? YES. But official what? Neither is commissioned to be spokespersons about matters of doctrine. GBOD's charter is "making disciples for Jesus Christ." Upper Room says "the heart of its ministry" is publication of a daily devotional guide. Its charter is developing and carrying out programs to meet the "spiritual needs of persons and communities of faith."

The insistence on retaining this section continues to detract from the overall article. It adds absolutely nothing but confusion to the article. What's the point? To say UMC's believe in saints requires a definition of saints. Do they honor heroes and heroines of the faith? John Wesley said YES. Are they even close to the Roman Catholic definition of sainthood. No way. My vote is to delete the section entirely and let's move on to something important. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that! I vote to remove the section as well. It really has no bearing on what it means to be a United Methodist! Allstarecho, please stop interpreting edits as a personal attack. I am a United Methodist Elder and have graduate degrees on what it means to be a United Methodist Christian. I can confirm that Upper Room and GBOD are in fact institutions of the church, but the Doctrine (or Discipline) of the church does NOT grant them the right to speak for the denomination. You can't get more official than the Articles of Faith, which collectively are one of the doctrinal standards of the church. Other than reciting the historical confessions of faith (i.e. Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed) and singing the occasional hymn, the vast majority of United Methodist simply don't refer to saints as a regular part of their religious experience. Sure there are churches named after Biblical "Saints," but even this is limited to a few. It is the Methodist understanding of Grace and New Birth which defines us as a Christian community. Revmqo (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you have an article about a religious denomination and not include this fundamental belief? You simply can't. Leave it as it is. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Revmqo and Afaprof01. The section gives undue wieght (WP:undue) to a very minor Methodist belief. For example, section starts with "The United Methodist Church believes that "saints" are those who have lived a life of Christian faith and example and have gone on to become a part of the church triumphant or "Cloud of Witnesses." Isn't this a general Protestant view? That Christians are saints is a generally recognized belief not unique to Methodists. And a very minor belief. Finally, the section itself points out the fact that this is unimportant to understanding the UMC, saying "Methodists do not have a process for canonizing Saints and do not practice the veneration or patronage of Saints." Allstarecho, you say this is a fundamental belief, but it doesn't seem that they care all that much about it. This section gives undue wieght to a minor, almost an afterthought, aspect of doctrine. Ltwin (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the present version of the section (ie, that made by Revmqo) is fine. It is short and cites a RS that seems agreeable to both sides. While not a super-important belief to to Methodists, it is relevant as a part of their belief. There's no reason not to mention it, as it is sourced. A four-sentence section about an uncontroversial, non-scandalous topic can't be undue weight. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that there seems to be some consensus on the section in its edited form, let's discuss placement. This is obviously a contentious section for some, but it simply doesn't rise to a level of importance within Methodist Beliefs to justify it's prominent placement in the article. Any suggestions as to where we can relocate it so that it doesn't have a major paragraph heading? I suppose locating at the end of the "Beliefs" section would be better than the current layout, but it really doesn't belong there either as it isn't germane to a discussion of core Methodist beliefs. Revmqo (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Where else would it go other than as a subsection of the main Beliefs section? I mean, is it not a belief? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the only option to de-emphasize it is place it within the beliefs section, following the social issues. It has to keep its heading level though, there isn't anything else to place it under, I don't think. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest this statement be rewritten and citations added as it represents POV in it's current form. This opens the door for defining "true Christian believers" and that isn't necessary to complete the intended thought. Revmqo (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"All true Christian believers are considered saints. Christians are saints by virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ whether or not they are thought to be "saintly"—no implication of perfection is implied or intended."

Once again I have reduced the verbosity of this section! As we have previously discussed on endless occasions, this is simply not a relevant section for United Methodism. As indicated previously, some Christians who come to the UMC from other "high church" denominations may hold on to their beliefs about saints, but this is simply not a part of Methodist faith and practice. Besides, there is a separate article to deal with this issue! Revmqo (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the UMC belief it seems pretty apparent that their ideas about saints should be highlighted. I did go ahead and delete a sentence which almost word-for-word was placed at two different points of the same paragraph though. Verbosity seems to be an issue on this page. I do appreciate having examples from the New Testament attesting to the Methodist belief that the term saints is used in accordance to the epistles, but is it necessary to outline five or six different examples? Wouldn't one be sufficient links pointing to other references? Drake11111 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I returned the language which has been present for a while now. I reiterate that this whole section absolutely DOES NOT BELONG on this page. United Methodists have no practice of canonizing saints or venerating them. As previously indicated in this discussion @Allstarecho insisted that this section be included. I personally believe he is mistaken, but agreed to leave it in, but only under the prevision that the statement from the BOD which indicates the idiocy behind this section be left in place. --Revmqo (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How about we remove this entire section and leave the link to the Main Article instead? This section is irrelevant and represents material that is not germain to a discussion of UM beliefs.--Revmqo (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Evangelical

I saw that Kit Hutch removed "evangelical" from classification. What's the basis for this removal? At least historical, I believe the UMC is evangelical. I can see your point that it wouldn't fall in the same category as the pentecostal type of evangelicalism that's prevalent today, but the UMC seems very much an evangelical church in its history. Wsanders (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are defining "Evangelical" as an attempt to create converts, this article needs a section on its evangelical efforts notably missionary work. The Methodist Church has a colorful missionary history. I have a section on the capital of Kansas being originally in a Methodist Mission but I don't see where to flop it down. Americasroof (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In the sense of denominational orientation, "Evangelical" refers to a conservative movement emphasizing a personal relationship with Jesus. All mainline denominations have an evangelical wing. Therefore, it does not make sense to say that the UMC is both mainline and evangrlical because by saying "mainline," one is already implying an evangelical element. It is, however, possible to be evangelical without being mainline. This is different than evangelism, which is the spread of the faith to new followers. KitHutch (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the Church's official position is that it is an Evangelical Church; it does not imply conservatism. I have provided several official sources that buttress the Church's evangelical position at the top of this discussion page. On Maundy Thursday, I picked up an official brochure published by United Methodist Communications. Within the brochure was eight categories that described the United Methodist Church. Two of these categories included Mission-oriented and Evangelical. Underneath the Evangelical category, the following words were written:

“ The United Methodist Church continues its strong evangelical heritage. Within each congregation is a vital center of biblical study and evangelism -- a blending of personal piety and discipleship. ”

Quae cum ita sint, I am adding this as another source in the information box and restoring the previous lead sentence. Americasroof, thanks for your information. I personally would suggest adding your information on missions in the Distinctive Wesleyan emphases section of the article, possibly with additional background information of the Church's history/commitment to missions and evangelism. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The church is definitely evangelical historically and presently. After all, not very many churches advertise that their doors are open to anyone (commercials and otherwise). Xe7al (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have once again reverted the removal of this sourced information. Thanks for your input on the discussion. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The UMC is a mainline denomination. All mainline denominations have evangelical elements. It is redundant to say that the UMC is both mainline and evangelical!KitHutch (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I, along with other editors, have provided reasons given above as to why to keep the term evangelical in the infobox. Before taking the unilateral action of removing the term, I think it would be best to let other editors share their views, since you have decided to rehash this issue. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I support KEEP. The official Web site of the UMC states:

"Over the next quadrennium, the church will seek to focus the work of making disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world around these areas of ministry:

-Combating the diseases of poverty by improving health globally.

-Creating new places for new people and revitalizing existing congregations.

-Developing principled Christian leaders for the church and the world.

-Engaging in ministry with the poor." (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.4443111/k.D720/Four_Areas_of_Ministry_Focus.htm)

It further states: "The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ." (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.1355349/k.FC63/Our_Faith.htm) Yes, it has taken a stand that it is evangelical when it says it's 'THE Mission.' Afaprof01 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Using your definition, all Christian churches try to win converts. Therefore, all Christian churches are evangelical. Again, it is redundant to call the UMC both mainline and evangelical. KitHutch (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting survey result about this may be seen at <http://www.ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080903.htm>. 36% of all Americans say they have no idea at all what an evangelical Christian is. The most common perception is that evangelicals are Christians who place a special emphasis on spreading their faith to other people. I believe today's UMC is making a concerted effort to go back to this part of their roots. I do not believe that definition applies to nearly all Christian churches. Afaprof01 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Which Christian denomination doesn't want to win converts? KitHutch (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that all Christian denominations should be evangelical in focus, KitHutch misses the point that the word "Evangelical" can have more than one meaning/connotation... In the United Methodist context we not only seek to be evangelical, but we are out of a larger movement within Christianity that is in fact Evangelical! While Orthodoxy arises from orthodox(patristics) tradition and Anglicans from Catholicism, United Methodist derive their practice of faith from Evangelicalism. This is not a liberal vs conservative discussion but rather a question of origin. It may be true that elements within the denomination skew the term and philosophy that it represents in their favor, it does not however dismiss the fact that Methodism is at its heart "Evangelical." The Methodist's of old, and certainly the Evangelical United Brethren that joined to form the denomination would have serious issues with your argument. The word "Evangelical" absolutely does belong in any definition of the denomination. It is not a matter of redundancy, but rather one of accurately portraying ones past and prayerfully our Methodist future! Revmqo (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. I seem to remember from my Methodist confirmation classes that Methodist evolved out of Anglicanism in the 1700s. In fact, some "mainline non-evangelical" churches like the Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church honor John and Charles Wesley as "renewers of the church." Yes, "evangelical" can have different meanings/connotations in different contexts. Lutherans originally called themselves "Evangelicals" after all. But all Christians are evangelical and seek to gain more coverts so calling the UMC "mainline" and "evangelical" is redundant. KitHutch (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Evangelical is a word that was stolen from Mainline denominations by the Fundamentalist movement after the word Fundamentalist gained negative connotations. The UMC is only Evangelical in that it believes in Evangelism. There's no other way to word it. It is not the same thing. I vote HARD Remove Ollie Garkey (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-catholic traditions

Should something be added about how the UMC allows votive candles and the performance of the sign of the cross? Tarheelz123 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When and where? Neither of these practices is an official or unofficial practice in the United Methodist Church. While converts from other Anglo-Catholic traditions may continue these practices from their previous faith tradition, they simply are not part of the United Methodist practice of faith. Revmqo (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a really misleading title "semi-catholic traditions." There are many traditions (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Orthodoxy) that follow those practices. I don't think those need to be mentioned in the article itself, however. KitHutch (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Local Pastors

24.236.90.91 continues to make edits which represent POV in relation to the role of Local Pastors in the UMC. While there is no doubt that Local Pastors provide a rich contribution in the life of the church, they are by "Discipline" lay persons who are appointed to serve as clergy in a particular congregation. When that appointment/relationship ends, there position as "clergy" ends unless they receive a new appointment. Elders, Deacons and Associate Members retain their status as clergy even if they are not under appointment to a congregation. While I appreciate the efforts of 24.236.90.91, they are simply not an accurate portrayal, but rather mere personal point-of-view. Revmqo (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revmqo, It is understood by many Local Pastors that they are clergy when accepting an appointment in the UMC. Your statement "While there is no doubt that Local Pastors provide a rich contribution in the life of the church," is not only an understatement, but an outright slap in the face of our brethren that our Local Pastors. Local Pastors comprise a majority of the ministry in the UMC, so maybe this is an opinion, but it is in poor taste for persons in the UMC to think of these persons as "lesser"; your article reeks of such thought. I would also like to point out the fact that the UMC can function with minimal Elders and Deacons, but it must have Local Pastors in order to sustain its congregations. Likewise, Local Pastors require Elders for licensing. I respect the ministry of all our clergy, including you my friend. I appreciate your vigor and love for our great church, but I believe you need to give a bit more respect to those persons who serve a majority of our denomination. I am a student of the Discipline, and I think it is a logical conclusion that when persons are appointed as Local pastors, they are no longer Lay, they are Clergy. In every annual conference, when a person registers for annual conference that happens to be a Local Pastor he or she registers as "Clergy". I think the personal point-of-view is your own and your perceived disdain for a vital ministry of the UMC. In conclusion, I will continue to change this article to better reflect the respect Local Pastors have earned as well as the correct interpretation of the Discipline. (Westhsv (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Westhsv, you need to review the rules for editing wiki. It is not enough to simply disagree and insert your personal POV. I've obviously touched on a subject that you are sensitive too, but it does not change the fact that Local Pastors are laity that are serving in a pastoral role. This is the historical and practical stance of the denomination as a whole (in its doctrine and polity). If you want to discuss the suggested change and see what others have to say, so be it. In the meantime please stop making unsourced edits!

Also, for the record, Local Pastors do not constitute the majority of ministry within the church. They very well might in your Annual Conference, but across the denomination, this is not the case. Revmqo (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have endeavored to make everyone happy by combining the spirit of what was already in the article with direct quotations/sourced material from United Methodist Publications. I invite Westhsv to comment here, rather than insert changes so that the community might be able to discuss any planned changes. Again, please watch your personal attacks when editing. Revmqo (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Revmqo,

Dear brother in Christ, I apologize that you might have felt offended by anything I wrote early. At the top off the discussion page, wiki asks us to be in good faith of each other and avoid personal attacks. My recent post was in line with such a request. Your interpretation of it seems to be on the sensitive side. I do believe that when something is invariantly wrong, it should be changed. The previous article was wrong, so I changed it. I believe the new article better reflects the truth behind the valid and essential ministry Local Pastors provide, so thank you for making that happen. I hope in the future when persons challenge a statement you have made you can find it within yourself to place people in good faith, and that you will not see a challenge as a personal attack.

Also, I was wrong, the Local Pastors do not comprise a current MAJORITY in the UMC, but the most recent state of the church concludes that in the very near future, Local Pastors will comprise a majority of the Ministry in the UMC. I apologize for my mistake. (Westhsv (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Does the local congregation have any consultative role in the Bishops's assignment of pastors? 76.119.245.21 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In the UMC, the pastors serve congregations under the authority of the bishop. When a new pastor/minister is appointed to the congregation, that candidate meets with the local Pastor-Parish Relations Committee. The PPRC can reject a candidate, but the bishop can also "force" a pastor to move and appoint one for a congregattion. KitHutch (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusivity item

Revmqo and I seem to have a difference of opinion regarding the inclusivity item. I came across this item when trying to learn more about the UMC. I found it odd that the item on inclusivity seemed to say that the UMC was open to homosexuality. After doing some research, I edited the line to clarify the inclusivity item.

Revmqo initially undid my edit, claiming that it was vandalism. I restored it. Revmqo now has undone the change saying that it represents POV. I have again restored my edit.

I would appreciate the community's input on this issue.

Initially the line said:

• Inclusivity. The UMC includes and welcomes people of all races, ethnicities, and ages.

I have changed it to say:

• Inclusivity. The UMC includes and welcomes people of all races, ethnicities, and ages. The UMC considers homosexuality to be a sin; congregations can choose to accept homosexuals as members, but homosexuals cannot serve in church roles.

I feel that is a very neutral and factual addition. I would appreciate feedback from the community. I would request that Revmqo not do any more reverts until there is a consensus.

Wshallwshall (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Revmqo, I again request that you stop removing the section. If you feel the wording has a POV or that the information is inaccurate, then please correct the wording, but do not remove it. As I said on your talk page previously, your accusation that this is vandalism is offensive and shows your POV. See What is Not Vandalism and Matthew 7:12.

Wshallwshall (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Revmqo has moved the inclusivity item later in the article and changed the wording to match official wording from UMC. I have no problem with moving the item lower, out of the basic beliefs section. Hopefully that will resolve the majority of Revmqo's concerns.

Revmqo's wording, however, works to hide some facts. His wording is,

"The UMC considers homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching; pastors may welcome homosexuals as members, but homosexuals cannot be ordained as deacons or elders within the church."

Does, "incompatible with Christian teaching" mean that it is sinful or forbidden? I haven't changed that, since it seems like people can see through the wording.

I have changed, however, the item about, "pastors may welcome homosexuals as members." I am changing it to say, "welcome or reject." The reference to UMC Judical Council Decision 1032 shows that this is accurate. If Revmqo wishes to expand the section to explain that nearly all congregations welcome or allow attendance from homosexuals, that would seem to be accurate... but I will leave that to him.

Hopefully this issue is nearly resolved.

The United Methodist Church has spent over 50 years coming to some consensus on it's beliefs with respect to homosexuality and inclusivity. It has done so with careful deliberation and with much anger and hurt feelings on both sides of the debate. Wshallwshall interjected what he/she appears to have read (or misread) in an article and then added his/her two cents worth in this article with little to no understanding of the underlying argument and the reasons why specific words were chosen by the denomination to describe it's stance on the issue. By placing his/her "inflammatory" wording in a section marked "basic beliefs" he/she suggested that this was a core belief of the denomination. Beliefs about the issue of homosexuality and it's place within the church are not fundamental to the practice of Christian faith in the Methodist tradition. While some people would have the issue front and center all the time, it simply is off the radar of the rank and file members of the denomination and those who practice the faith. The decision of the Judicial Council of the church that Wshallwshall quotes is the judicial body of the church's interpretation of the discipline (or doctrine) of the church. It gives clarity to the wording found in the "Discipline," but does not change said wording. My edit changes the wording to reflect the carefully deliberated wording of the denomination. The use of any other wording, and specifically that used by Wshallwshall can be seen as inflammatory and as such, it meets the definition of POV. It never ceases to amaze me that those who edit on Wikipedia are quick to demean and belittle other people when they disagree. Wshallwshall accused me of being un-Christian because I choose to edit out his/her inflammatory language that incorrectly reflects the positions of the United Methodist Church. He/she has also accused me in this section of trying to hide some facts. Maybe Wshallshall should consider that there may be cases where others have more clarity and more understanding of an issue that he/she does.

For the record, Wshallshall is invited to read the "United Methodist Book of Discipline" to find the source of my "attempt to hide facts." The only misrepresentation of facts is Wshallwshall's interpretation of the stated issue and it's actual application/practice within the denomination. I invite you to attend a few United Methodist Church's (in various locations around the US) and you will find that this issues is not clear-cut as you suggest with your edits.

Also, I repeat yet again that the entire issue is already discussed and dealt with in other sections of the article and in it's sister article Homosexuality and Methodism, and Wshallwshall's insistence on inserting yet again an issue that has been debated over and over and over on Wikipedia shows what can be seen as a cavalier attitude toward edits. Revmqo (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: Facts About NPOV

Revmqo... thanks for your opinion. I'd like to offer some references and thoughts in response. Hopefully some additional information can help you understand Wikipedia, Vandalism, and NPOV.

Vandalism
My reference to Matthew 7:12 refers to your accusing me of vandalism. As I said on your talk page, that is offensive. (I notice you removed that from your talk page.) Before you revert other things as vandalism, I would suggest you consider the following from Wikipedia:Vandalism:
"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. . . . Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."

Perhaps your revert/accusation was just misinformed. If so, I'm sorry for becoming offended.

NPOV
Your statement that my change violated the NPOV rule is also incorrect. As you'll remember, I added the information about homosexuals to the existing item on inclusivity. I feel that you cannot have an inclusivity item in today's language without dealing with GLBT issues.

You state that referencing the facts is, "inflammatory." You state that we should only read the official language of the UMC. You say,
"The use of any other wording, and specifically that used by Wshallwshall can be seen as inflammatory and as such, it meets the definition of POV."

That is incorrect. From Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial:
"Some Wikipedians[who?], in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to."

Also, from the NPOV Tutorial's section on Information Suppression:
"A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. . . . Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).

If you disagree with the above, then following Matthew 7:12 would mean that you should reconsider your edits to the articles on Mormonism. I'm sure the official Mormon position disagrees with your edits saying that they are not Christians.

Wshallwshall (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another response from the maligned....

Wshallwshall, once again you are misleading those who happen to read this section. Your original edit cited a decision by the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church concerning a bishop's rule of law as to two questions that were asked at a session of the annual conference over which the bishop presided. At no point is there any substantiating evidence/information in that cited article to make the statement/edit that you made. As such, it is my estimation that you introduced your own "Point of View," (i.e. on that is not neutral). As such I reversed your edit. You again resubmitted it. At that point I labeled your edit vandalism, because you knowingly introduced false and un-cited information even after being challenged. This is in fact the essence of vandalism as described. You quote the term "good faith" above, yet anyone who reads the sourced article will see/sniff out your intentions.

You also accused me of trying to "hide facts," yet my chosen wording is a direct quote from the source document. Be honest, play fair...

Maybe you should reevaluate your own understanding of the intention of Wikipedia and the meaning of NPOV. When you substantiate arguments with phantom citations or ghost information, your arguments fall on deaf ears. You aren't being fair with your dismissive and personal attacks above, when you clearly have a personal motive for choosing wording that doesn't appear in the source article.

As for my edit of the LDS page, yes the official Mormon position would be in disagreement to my edit, but they were in keeping with the vast and overwhelming majority of Christendom and endless sourceable documents. Revmqo (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My Final Rebuttal
I'm not getting through to Revmqo, but I don't like leaving his Ad hominem/inaccurate accusations uncorrected. So, I'll address my final comment to community members reading this in the future. My reason for spending time on this is that I don't like editors hiding verifiable information by accusing editors of vandalism or POV. I have followed Wikipedia's standard of verifiability and NPOV.

Revmqo's comments in this issue have been his personal opinion, offering no citiations or proof. His actions show he is not following the NPOV guidelines or NPOV tutorial, as I referenced above.

Here are some facts... you can decide whatever you like.

1) Revmqo claims above that he did not undo my first edit by calling it, "Vandalism." Check the page history and you'll see the truth. The following is in reverse order, as copied from the page history:

• 13:16, 21 December 2009 Revmqo (talk | contribs) (85,173 bytes) (Undid revision 332974202 by Wshallwshall (talk)removed vandalism)
• 21:09, 20 December 2009 Wshallwshall (talk | contribs) (85,577 bytes) (→Beliefs: Clarify inclusivity item)

2) Revmqo says I am misstating facts by not directly copying the official UMC language. First, copy/paste of the UMC statement may be copyright infringement. (See Wikipedia Copyright FAQ) Second, I would again quote from Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial: Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to.

3) Regarding the UMC's official stance on being inclusive of GBLT individuals, Revmqo is right that the UMC's membership is divided on the issue. The accuracy of my edit, however, can be seen by reading Judicial Council Decision 1032, or can be seen in the following links:

• Methodists Vote To Retain Policies on Homosexuality
• United Methodist Court Affirms Stance Against Homosexuality
• Pastoral Letter on Judicial Council Decision 1032
• Teaching on Decision 1032
• Decision 1032 Remains in Effect
• Here We Stand
• SPRING 2009 JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Reading the original article, I was surprised that the original article language implied that the UMC was welcoming. Researching the issue, I find that most congregations choose to accept LGBT individuals in a limited membership role, but the official position lets pastors reject LGBT individuals. Some UMC pastors choose to do so. The UMC says that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity. How can you have a section on inclusivity and not address that issue? My initial edit just tried to clarify that.

Everything following that was a reaction to Revmqo accusing me of vandalism and his trying to insisting on wording reflecting his POV. Maybe my reacting will slow down the next invalid undo or accusation of vandalism.

Anyway... I've wasted too much time on this issue. I'm straight and non-Methodist, and Revmqo is just dismissing the point I'm trying to make. So, I'm going to unwatch this page and leave its maintenance to others. Revmqo can say whatever he wants in response to this. I won't see it to respond, but I think his level of accuracy & NPOV is shown by the facts listed above.

Wshallwshall (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all quite humorous! I find it funny that some people will try to cover their deceptions by writing long winded soliloquies. All you have to do is read Wshallshall's original post and then read the article he cited and you will see the truth for yourself. Revmqo (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This would seem like a textbook example of a time to use Wikipedia:Third opinion. I'm not inclined to offer a substantive opinion myself at this point, but I will say this much regarding the text in the Inclusivity section: the word homosexual when used as a noun is widely considered offensive and does not belong in a Wikipedia article except as part of a direct quote (as is found in the preceding section). Substituting the word gay, the phrase gay or lesbian, or the abbreviation LGB, followed by a word such as people, congregants, or Methodists would be vastly preferable. (LGBT might also be appropriate; I'm not sure.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It seems to me that a simple solution to this difference of opinion over the Inclusivity item would be to refer to the section on Homosexuality which is directly above it and more fully explains the church's position on homosexuality and the division within the church on the issues. Just an idea. If it is absolutely paramount to have separate wording addressing gay and lesbian members in this section, I'd come down on the side of using the church's verbatim wording (e.g. not adding "or reject" to the church's official statement) in regards to the issue. Viciouslies (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. How good to see sane comments from sane people! I suggested your approach in my first rebuttal. Revmqo (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment "I find it funny that some people will try to cover their deceptions..." Says (talk). Deceptions? Isn't there something in the rules about assuming good faith? Take your insinuating comments elsewhere, Revmqo. You're taking something that is a question of fact, and turning it into an emotional namecalling session. Please don't call other users deceptive. Deception implies that he knows what he's saying isn't true, and is intentionally lying for some nefarious purpose. Having read the links in question, I would agree that he has a point, and certainly believes what he's saying. I'm not yet convinced, but I'm sure that he isn't being intentionally deceptive as you tried paint him.

TL;DR: Cut the ad hominem bullshit, please. Ollie Garkey (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mainline (Protestant)

I know this is a minor issue, but I do not see why mainline is referred to as "mainline (Protestant)" in the article. The Wikipedia article uses the disambiguator because there are other uses for the word. However, in an article about a mainline Protestant denomination, there is no need for a disambiguator. If someone doesn't know what the term means, then odds are the disambiguator wouldn't help anyway, that's why the word is linked to the Mainline (Protestant) article. Ltwin (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and removed the disambiguator. Other US Protestant denominations don not have it it their articles. KitHutch (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems the disambiguator was put back in and I reverted it again explaining my reason in the edit summary. However, let me explain it further. One reason against arbitrarily disambiguating everything in the article is that it becomes horrible to read, with parentheses everywhere a term with one or more uses is introduced. Another reason is that in an article about a Protestant denomination, adding (Protestant) behind mainline is redundant. Ltwin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Why not make your mass edit in sections rather than as a mass edit? You don't own this page, and people made good faith, CITED, edits to this page. You reverted the edits on a whim without discussion. If you made any sort of arguments your edits might be palatable, but in the present form you are introducing NPOV which is contrary to the source documents used to make the edits you reversed. Please suggest your changes here before cutting apart good faith edits by others. Revmqo (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass editing? I actually wrote a good deal of this article. The "inclusivity" section is not needed at all. How is it even a social issue? The underlying reason for even placing that section within the article is to point towards homosexuality, which is already covered in its own section. The "Saints" section previously had some more clarity, which is why I restored some deleted content. Personally, I do not even think the section really belongs in this article because the practice of the "veneration of the Saints" is virtually nonexistent in the United Methodist Church. Having this section in the article is similar to creating sections such as "Purgatory in United Methodism" or "Apostolic Succession in United Methodism," which, really, do not play a major role in the life of United Methodism. Issues such as imparted righteousness or Christian perfection might be better to discuss in this article. As far as the changing of the polity in the information box, did you not see the reference (with a quote that was provided therein)? I would appreciate your comments so I can re-implement the changes I made to the article.

References

"holiness revival movement"

The lead section as of August 7, 2010, reads, "Founded in 1968 by the union of the The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, the UMC traces its roots back to the holiness revival movement of John and Charles Wesley within the Church of England.[6][7][8]" It is my understanding that the holiness movement came out of Methodism. I believe the confusion comes from one of the cited sources, American Holiness Movement, which says, "Originating in the United States in the 1840s and 50s, this was an endeavor to preserve and propagate John Wesley's teaching on entire sanctification and Christian perfection. Wesley held that the road from sin to salvation is one from willful rebellion against divine and human law to perfect love for God and man. Following Wesley, Holiness preachers emphasized that the process of salvation involves two crises." I will therefore be removing the word "holiness" from the questionable statement. In addition, About The Methodist Church is a dead link. Ltwin (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More context in the Predecessors section

This section contains the sentence "John Wesley did not approve of the actions of the American Society; he would continue to be in correspondence with various people about his objections," however "the actions of the American Society" which he didn't approve of are never mentioned. Can someone who knows fill us in. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

The article says, "The United Methodist Church upholds the sanctity of unborn human life and is reluctant to affirm abortion as an unacceptable practice, except when the life of the mother is threatened"

Shouldn't the word "unacceptable" be "acceptable"? 74.190.141.28 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The book of discipline affirms abortion as an "awesome power" for individuals to choose who to bring into life. So what do you really think is right hmmm.--208.54.86.146 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)--208.54.86.146 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Evangelical not Protestant!

Much to the surprise of many Methodists, the Methodist Church was born out of the Anglican Church through the work of John Wesley an Anglican Priest. The Anglican Church was not a part of the Protestant movement. It is Evangelical but not Protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.16.30 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh sorry that is just not true. For one thing, the emphasis among contemporary Anglicans on insisting that they are not "Protestant" but something unique akin to Reformed Catholicism is relatively recent. For example, the original (and still official) name of the Episcopal Church (USA) is the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The United Methodist Church understands itself to be evangelical and mainline Protestant. See this statement by Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards, UMC Director of Worship Resources. The relevant part is here:

Let me begin by offering a clarification. United Methodists are evangelical! From its beginnings, Methodism has always been part of, and often at the vanguard of the broader movement within Protestant Christianity called "evangelicalism."

The history page of the UMC website states:

When The United Methodist Church was created in 1968, it had approximately 11 million members, making it one of the largest Protestant churches in the world.

So unless you have something more substantial to offer, I don't think there is any need to continue this discussion. Ltwin (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

United Methodist Church's beliefs regarding gambling and alcohol is incorrect in Wikipedia.

Please correct your statements regarding alcohol and gambling after READING the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.46.50 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Has this request been addressed? Some more specific criticisms or suggestions would help, should be welcomed here. At least someone was reading the article critically. --doncram 23:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What statements did you have an issue with. I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Methodist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415002847/http://catalystresources.org/issues/303balmer.html to http://catalystresources.org/issues/303balmer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on United Methodist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413175648/http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/Wesley/shorthistory.stm to http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/Wesley/shorthistory.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630101214/http://www.firstumc.org/about_structure.asp to http://www.firstumc.org/about_structure.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230013814/http://are.as.wvu.edu/christv.htm to http://are.as.wvu.edu/christv.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20060725190303/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604186.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604186.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020044858/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/methodist_creedal_church.html to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/methodist_creedal_church.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928135215/http://www.panmethodist.org/panmeth/mission.htm to http://www.panmethodist.org/panmeth/mission.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928101604/http://www.cambridgechristumc.com/statementofbelief.htm to http://www.cambridgechristumc.com/statementofbelief.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612204147/http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/ecumenicaldialogue/unitedmethodist/index.html to http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/ecumenicaldialogue/unitedmethodist/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814020704/http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.1943/pub_detail.asp to http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.1943/pub_detail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725124513/http://www.deusvitae.com/faith/denominations/wesleyanism.html to http://www.deusvitae.com/faith/denominations/wesleyanism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325042219/http://www.gcah.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=ghKJI0PHIoE&b=3637671&ct=4506093 to http://www.gcah.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=ghKJI0PHIoE&b=3637671&ct=4506093
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.methodist-central-hall.org.uk/history/WhatisMethodism.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gatewayumc.org/pdf/hcfinal2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615170932/http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/apcreed.html to http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/apcreed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109013416/http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Wesley/walk.stm to http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/walk.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524022335/https://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_article.cfm?articleid=3174 to http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_article.cfm?articleid=3174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070913232442/http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/45/ to http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/45/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830132648/http://www.gbod.org/worship/articles/water_spirit/ to http://www.gbod.org/worship/articles/water_spirit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511203721/http://www.bookofconcord.org/creeds.html to http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/BIBLE/ncreed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325213036/http://www.umcwfb.org/_aboutus/about_us_ourstory.htm to http://www.umcwfb.org/_ABOUTUS/about_us_ourstory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429232856/http://www.umsexualethics.org/AccusedConfused/Whatswrongwithpornography.aspx to http://www.umsexualethics.org/AccusedConfused/Whatswrongwithpornography.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327052812/http://www.wesleyheritagefoundation.org/articles/Alcoholism.pdf to http://www.wesleyheritagefoundation.org/articles/Alcoholism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)